That’s an accurate summation for my understanding as well. Things that the judge should look at when considering a minimum sentence are defendant cooperation, displays of genuine remourse, and indications that the defendant is unlikely to continue breaking the law. If the judge can find any of that, it’s beyond me how.

None of his current convictions are expected to come with a custodial sentence

Strict adherence to sentencing guidelines actually would see him jailed on his current convictions. If he isn’t given some kind of imprisonment it will be because the judge was afraid of the aftermath.

I’m not so sure he’s much of a security risk, unless he is still in possession of sensitive documents. I sincerely doubt he is capable of remembering anything in the way of valuable secrets. Anyways, even if he did, any adversary would be daft to trust he remembered correctly.

Trump’s way ahead of you there.

How about you go do that fuck off thing yourself. These movements need a failing political system in which to pedal their bullshit and the world’s neoliberals have been more than happy to provide it for them.

He was arguably a worse president than even Trump. Which of them is a worse human being is a different question.

I was in IT back in 2001 when the Code Red virus hit. It was a very similar situation where entire enterprises in totally unrelated fields were brought down. So many infected machines were still trying to replicate that corporate networks and Internet backbone routers were getting absolutely crushed.

Prior to that, trying to get real funding for securing networks was almost impossible. Suddenly security was the hottest topic in IT and corporations were throwing money at all the snake oil Silicon Valley could produce.

That lasted for a couple years, then things started going back to business as usual. Microsoft in particular was making all sorts of promises and boasts about how they made security their top priority, but that never really happened. Security remained something slapped on at the end of product development and was never allowed to interfere with producing products demanded by marketing with inherently insecure designs.

There is a surprising variety among even those who call themselves Marxists or anarchists. Some are way more practical than others. Marx was first and foremost a critic of capitalism, and his criticisms were way ahead of their time and right on the money. Anarchism covers a whole lot of ground that I wouldn’t consider anarchism myself. The umbrella basis for anarchism is anti-authoritarianism. To me, that makes them less extreme than authoritarian socialists like in the Soviet Union or China. I’d consider myself an anarchist, but only in the margins that realize that government does play a critical role in establishing and defending freedoms.

I find that foolishness is spread pretty evenly across the political spectrum. I think most people believe what they want to believe and figure the “details” will work themselves out. Anyways, here in the US, the “far left” means things like universal healthcare, which seems a lot saner to me than the alternatives.

Neither of us live or are from the USA. So I don’t think this is relevant here.

A lot of foolishness is born in the US but doesn’t stay here. It might still be relevant.

If your friend calls themselves a libertarian, then my starting assumption would be they are wrong about everything.

It’s true that Trump made some kind of declaration as President, but that was pretty much a meaningless gesture. The US actually has no official list of domestic terror organizations, only foreign. In any case, calling antifa a terrorist organization is absurd.

A quick note on libertarianism: I consider myself a libertarian, but what passes for libertarianism in the US is anything but. Libertarianism is a left wing political philosophy, while the US Libertarian party is far right. It would be more accurate to label them as anarcho-capitalist.

That’s right wing gaslighting.

The failure was in the primaries, not in voting for the only remotely sane party in a two party system.

Their best interest is also whatever helps keep them in office. Terrible representatives are typically only secure in their offices if they have the protection of the party. The President has as much power as leader of their party as they get from their actual office. FDR used that to great effect.

You mean on principal? Those in Congress with principals are on our side. Those without principals can be convinced it’s in their best interest. Don’t fall for the facade that anything that happens in Congress is ideologically driven.

That’s the point of the firebrand President. We have not had a President since FDR who knows how to stand up to special interests and even their own party when necessary.

Oh, Biden himself does actually believe that, but that’s true of pretty much every president. I do think it’s a little more extreme in his case than for most.

How would I know? The point is that the best thing he can do with his position in the Senate is to look forward. He’s not the type to pursue his individual interests at the expense of the cause.

This is something a lot of my compatriots on the left don’t seem to get. Good activists don’t make good politicians, and good politicians don’t make good activists. We need both. Bernie is a politician, and I’m not.

I actually have moved on in a lot of ways, except that I want us to learn from past mistakes so we don’t repeat them. I want every person in America to understand how the establishment (of both parties) manipulates the national conversation so we quit falling for the same bullshit.

Look to FDR as a model of what happens when a progressive agenda gets a firebrand President. It’s not like the politics were all that different, or Congress any less corrupt.

This wasn’t true about Biden. The establishment didn’t care who won that primary, as long as it wasn’t Bernie. I think Harris was their first choice, but they flipped to Biden when she tanked.