He may have, but it's not as like we knew Manning was going to be pardoned in 2013. She was also put through extremely cruel and unusual treatment during detention, such as being kept in solitary confinement for months at a time for no reason other than to make an example.
Unless you're involved in that decision making process and leaking the information here, that's just pure random guy internet speculation. The scope for them was very different and you're basically saying "trust this with your life, you'll be totally fine".
What is this based on? No matter what people think he deserves, my guess is that Snowden, like Assange, is a character that the ruling class wants to make an example of. Chelsea Manning does not threaten the ruling class, especially after you know what.
I recently had five hour a first class flight (lucky upgrade) on a brand-new Delta 321Neo, it was easily the best flight I've ever had. The 321Neo is just a brilliant plane that outclasses any 737 in my experience.
Agreed, that Columbian Supremo is roasted beyond what I would even call dark. The Kirkland signature blends are roasted by Starbucks so we know why those are burnt but the Columbian seems to be by someone else.
The argument generally is the case in Hawaii was particularly egregious, as Hawaii had an organized government with formal diplomatic relations with many countries, including embassies in Great Britain and France.
Hawaii, along with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, are examples of areas of significant escalation of the U.S. expansionist history through the overthrowing of recognized governments. It's all bad, but these are just a different type of bad.
Does diplomatic relations make the difference? Seems like splitting hairs. Read about what happened to the native populations which had established hierarchies and relations with each other throughout the continent and it looks no different to my eyes than what happened to the Hawaiians.
Yes, having formal diplomatic relations in the late 19th century with major Western powers to other nations is a significant difference. This is very different than say, France having tribal relations in an influence fight with British Colonial expansionism 150 years prior to the overthrowing of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Again, it's all bad, this is just a different kind of bad.
I'm definitely interested, an upgraded Bolt is a perfect second car for my family, a small daily driver. I had been curious about the upcoming Volvo EX30, but the stories from Polestar owners have me cautious.
I'm excited for the movie but also worried Nolan's worst habits when it comes to forcing non linear narratives are going to be present. It always makes me wonder if he's confident enough in the story when he does gimmicks.
The only "gimmick" in Dunkirk was the way Nolan sanitized it to be PG-13. You see German shells hitting soldiers, but the explosions are rendered immaculately. It carries on the tradition of British war movies being suitable for family viewing because it's important for everyone to understand the sacrifices that were made. The same criticism can be leveled at Sam Mendes and 1917.
?? Dunkirk is imo the best one of his non-linear narratives, with 3 storylines intertwining: one taking place in the span of one week, one in one day and the last one (the plane) in one hour.
It was Dunkirk I was most referencing in my original comment. I found it a very disappointing film. Here's this important human story that the movie refuses to tell clearly, making the whole thing hit less than the sum of it's parts. 1917 was much more effective in its stylistic choices in my opinion.
Perhaps he's pointing at or trying to reveal a recursive view of reality, rather than a linear view. I'm thinking along the lines of Godel, Escher, Bach and also I Am a Strange Loop, both by Douglas Hofstadter.
