Chelsea Manning on Shortlist for commutation by Obama

[zinfamous]

In general I agree, but in this case the political advantage came from exposing wrongdoing and corruption.

....from within your government's military vs from directed attacks ordered by a rival nation to influence your free elections.

I don't see a lot of similarity there.

 

[zinfamous]

I just wish the political advantage could have been neutralized by wrongdoing and corruption being exposed on both sides. Does anyone think Trump's dealings have been squeaky clean? Would like a candid insight into both.

Anyone that thinks the Kremlin didn't gather data on Trump and the RNC is profoundly naive. This is, really, the more important part of their strategy. Not only do they have the puppet that they want, they have the US president and his child brain by the balls.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. Original sentence may have been too long, this may be too short. I just don't know.
I do fully approve that its Obama's final Troll move. Assange said he'd agree to be extradited if Manning was released.
Very similar to guys who used to avoid marriage using the lame excuse of until there is marriage equity with gay people I won't support marriage.
Well Assange Manning will be released and if you care gay marriage is legal.
Troll with US elections and expected to be hit.

 

[zinfamous]

What came out during the election that was atypical to or worse than what was commonly known about Hillary before?

haha, nothing. but this "commonly known."

lol, keep believing that truth is what you want it to be.

 

[highland145]

....from within your government's military vs from directed attacks ordered by a rival nation to influence your free elections.

I don't see a lot of similarity there.

If I were a 3rd party fly on the wall...how many countries/governments has the US dicked with over the years? Karma.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If I were a 3rd party fly on the wall...how many countries/governments has the US dicked with over the years? Karma.

Personally I don't care. I do the dicking, I don't take a D.

Why can't I post dick in P&N?

 

[highland145]

You have to change the potty mouth option in your profile.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

@s0me0nesmind1 That fuck got people dead by it's actions. 35 years is pretty light.

I'm a bit hazy on the overall story other than the main points of leaking it and being charged for leaking it...

Mind pointing me to where people died because videos were leaked? Searched the wiki but it just seemed like a wall of text

 

[zinfamous]

If I were a 3rd party fly on the wall...how many countries/governments has the US dicked with over the years? Karma.

so we deserve to be fucked by a resurgent dictator aiding in the election of a proto-fascist to take control of our country?

I don't buy that republicans honestly believe this self-comforting interpretation of their great enemy, Russia, taking such an unprecedented influence over our elections.

 

[highland145]

I didn't say republicans.

 

[zinfamous]

I didn't say republicans.

Fine. so who is this 3rd party?

 

[highland145]

Fine. so who is this 3rd party?

The assless chaps lama riders for America...duh.

 

[zinfamous]

The assless chaps lama riders for America...duh.

This is redundant phrasing, sir.

 

[highland145]

So your ass is chapped about it?

 

[Blackjack200]

What came out during the election that was atypical to or worse than what was commonly known about Hillary before?

Are you asking why my view of her has diminished? I don't think it was anything specifically that came out. I think I gave her a pass on some things that I saw as "typical Washington", the GS speeches for example, and I'm just not willing to do that anymore. I guess I believed the theory that you need huge amounts of corporate money to be competitive in a presidential race, and I think that both Sanders and Trump (at least early on) proved that it's not as critical. I've also been very unimpressed with the things she's said since the election. I think if she was a real leader she would be talking about what people need to do if they're worried about the Trump administration, but she's been invisible.

And now she's attending the inauguration after telling us all how dangerous and awful this man is. So was it about helping people or the pageantry of politics?

 

[rudder]

Well at least taxpayers do not have to pay for him to turn into a her. He still leaves the Army with a dishonorable disharge.

 

[werepossum]

Are you asking why my view of her has diminished? I don't think it was anything specifically that came out. I think I gave her a pass on some things that I saw as "typical Washington", the GS speeches for example, and I'm just not willing to do that anymore. I guess I believed the theory that you need huge amounts of corporate money to be competitive in a presidential race, and I think that both Sanders and Trump (at least early on) proved that it's not as critical. I've also been very unimpressed with the things she's said since the election. I think if she was a real leader she would be talking about what people need to do if they're worried about the Trump administration, but she's been invisible.

And now she's attending the inauguration after telling us all how dangerous and awful this man is. So was it about helping people or the pageantry of politics?

I think it's smart and healthy to not give politicians passes on basic corruption, but her Goldman Sachs speeches aren't anything that they aren't all doing, to the limits of their ability to command big money. Certainly there are exceptions - people like Vitter, who has personal wealth and the ability to raise massive campaign cash without being (for a politician) particularly hypocritical, or Biden who apparently has very high personal ethics - but her behavior is the rule rather than the exception. And as far as Hillary raising money versus Sanders or Trump, they are both personally charismatic leaders with controversial positions and are new on the serious national political stage. Hillary has all the personal magnetism of a dirty diaper, she's old news on the political stage, and she had no exiting new proposals - her entire platform was "I'm not Trump" mixed with "I'm more of Obama" - plus she had to dodge the press because of her email scandal. She needed to raise a LOT more money to be competitive. Had she resorted to illegal donations I'd be all over her, but why be disappointed that she raised tons of money through the same legal mechanisms as virtually all other national politicians?

Take Hillary's behavior when she first came into power as the First Lady. With the White House Travel Office, the Clintons had the ability to simply dismiss them and say we're going a different way, yet rather than take an extremely small political hit, Hillary orchestrated a smear campaign to investigate and fire them and shut down the office for corruption, thus gaining some political advantage from handing a lucrative travel agent contract to her friends in Arkansas. That's a particularly evil thing to do. Nothing that bad has even been alleged this campaign cycle, which is why I'm surprised your view of her has diminished. I know bad things have come out - things that I too absolutely hate - but nothing compared to her lows. I compare it to people who refuse to vote for Hillary because of her many bad qualities, but then vote for Trump who (at least in my obviously biased judgement) has the same bad qualities in largely even greater measure. Personally I see the bad things that have come out as just more of the same.

As far as her behavior since the election, I'm actually impressed. She suffered an unexpected and crushing political defeat - her second in running for the Presidency. There are tons of people warning us about the evil that Trump might do - do we really need another? From her, it would be sour grapes. The losing candidate is traditionally expected to be gracious to help heal the nation, which includes attending the inauguration as well as not badmouthing the winner. Her behavior to me is an example of grace within an amusing sea of Democrat petulance. It also allows her to legitimately speak out against any Trump Presidential actions with which she disagrees without it being seen as a continuation of professionally partisan sour grapes. I think her behavior is both ethically correct and good strategery for whatever political future she adopts.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think it's smart and healthy to not give politicians passes on basic corruption, but her Goldman Sachs speeches aren't anything that they aren't all doing, to the limits of their ability to command big money. Certainly there are exceptions - people like Vitter, who has personal wealth and the ability to raise massive campaign cash without being (for a politician) particularly hypocritical, or Biden who apparently has very high personal ethics - but her behavior is the rule rather than the exception. And as far as Hillary raising money versus Sanders or Trump, they are both personally charismatic leaders with controversial positions and are new on the serious national political stage. Hillary has all the personal magnetism of a dirty diaper, she's old news on the political stage, and she had no exiting new proposals - her entire platform was "I'm not Trump" mixed with "I'm more of Obama" - plus she had to dodge the press because of her email scandal. She needed to raise a LOT more money to be competitive. Had she resorted to illegal donations I'd be all over her, but why be disappointed that she raised tons of money through the same legal mechanisms as virtually all other national politicians?.

The bottom line is that I see it as corrupting. I used to see it as inevitable but after Sanders was able to mount such an effective campaign with out it, I won't accept it any more.

Take Hillary's behavior when she first came into power as the First Lady. With the White House Travel Office, the Clintons had the ability to simply dismiss them and say we're going a different way, yet rather than take an extremely small political hit, Hillary orchestrated a smear campaign to investigate and fire them and shut down the office for corruption, thus gaining some political advantage from handing a lucrative travel agent contract to her friends in Arkansas. That's a particularly evil thing to do. Nothing that bad has even been alleged this campaign cycle, which is why I'm surprised your view of her has diminished. I know bad things have come out - things that I too absolutely hate - but nothing compared to her lows. I compare it to people who refuse to vote for Hillary because of her many bad qualities, but then vote for Trump who (at least in my obviously biased judgement) has the same bad qualities in largely even greater measure. Personally I see the bad things that have come out as just more of the same.

Yeah, I don't mean it was anything that would have caused me to vote for Trump over her. But my view during the campaign was just more positive in general. I guess you could say it's more an evolution of my thinking than any specific thing she did.

As far as her behavior since the election, I'm actually impressed. She suffered an unexpected and crushing political defeat - her second in running for the Presidency. There are tons of people warning us about the evil that Trump might do - do we really need another? From her, it would be sour grapes. The losing candidate is traditionally expected to be gracious to help heal the nation, which includes attending the inauguration as well as not badmouthing the winner. Her behavior to me is an example of grace within an amusing sea of Democrat petulance. It also allows her to legitimately speak out against any Trump Presidential actions with which she disagrees without it being seen as a continuation of professionally partisan sour grapes. I think her behavior is both ethically correct and good strategery for whatever political future she adopts.

I don't think we need anyone warning about Trump, I agree that that's covered. I think we need someone to show leadership when millions of people are facing losing their healthcare, deportation, or animosity from white supremacists. She's acting like she just lost to Jeb Bush or something. I see Trump as a uniquely dangerous individual, and I think she should either tell us that she disagrees, and thinks he's just another POTUS that has different policy ideas, or she should adjust her behavior. I don't care if it opens her up to "sour grapes" criticism. Tough shit. If you think Trump is dangerous as POTUS, don't go to his inauguration, march against it. Demand that the other branches of government hold him accountable. The whole "peaceful transition of power" thing was taken care of the moment she conceded the race and didn't challenge the legitimacy of the election results.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I agree with Blackjack. I would have preferred the Clinton's and Bushes had more balls and didn't attend but I'll assume the logic is you don't want our enemies or friends assume this isn't a peaceful transfer.

 

[Jhhnn]

And now she's attending the inauguration after telling us all how dangerous and awful this man is. So was it about helping people or the pageantry of politics?

You're starting to come off as a right wing Hillary hater. She's at the inauguration to show that she supports one of our most fundamental institutions, the orderly transfer of power from one Admin to the next.

God only knows how the Trumpsters would spin it if she weren't there.

 

[Blackjack200]

You're starting to come off as a right wing Hillary hater. She's at the inauguration to show that she supports one of our most fundamental institutions, the orderly transfer of power from one Admin to the next.

God only knows how the Trumpsters would spin it if she weren't there.

It's not just Clinton. The Obamas, Sanders, etc. should not be there. It sends the wrong message.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's not just Clinton. The Obamas, Sanders, etc. should not be there. It sends the wrong message.

I disagree anyone in office its a basic expectation. Just like the "You lie" Senator(?) at Obama's first address was way out of line.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not just Clinton. The Obamas, Sanders, etc. should not be there. It sends the wrong message.

The message is respect for the Constitutional rules of our democracy, something deeper & more profound than one election.

If we don't respect them Repubs sure as Hell won't.

 

[Blackjack200]

The message is respect for the Constitutional rules of our democracy, something deeper & more profound than one election.

So we respect the constitution by supporting a man that is already violating it day one of his administration? I don't accept that.

If we don't respect them Repubs sure as Hell won't.

But that's the whole point. They don't anyway. If the last 8 years have shown us anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

So we respect the constitution by supporting a man that is already violating it day one of his administration? I don't accept that.

Oh, please. None of them will be kissing the ring, bet on that. Trump the man is immaterial to the process & to the fundamental statement that we live by the rules of the Constitution.

It's a bitter thing but one we must live with.