Chelsea Manning on Shortlist for commutation by Obama

[Blackjack200]

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.

The rules of the constitution do not state that anyone needs to attend the inauguration. It sends the wrong message. It sends the message that symbolic gestures are more important than sincere belief in democratic principals. This is a man who undermined the legitimacy of the last president, and pretending that it's just another transfer of power is much more damaging to the republic than showing some fucking guts and standing up for the millions of Americans that don't subscribe to his vicious, hateful views.

 

[Sonikku]

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.

The good news is more and more insurance companies are covering it, like United Healthcare for example.

I know this for reasons.

 

[werepossum]

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.

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.

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.

Plenty of people see these speeches as corrupting. My confusion was about why you would think less of Hillary than before since (A) she's always done it and (B) virtually all other politicians do it. I understand that some have the personal charisma to make it unnecessary, and others don't need to make speeches to people they claim to oppose. But while charisma is very important in a leader, it's not the only important quality, nor is it even necessarily a good thing as an evil or incompetent person may be very charismatic. Nonetheless, I can sympathize with believing that something is a necessary evil and then learning it is not, so now I do understand why you would think less of her.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the other. I think that accepting our Constitutional system with its orderly transfer of power requires those within the system to participate in the inauguration regardless of their personal feelings. It isn't displaying respect for the person, simply respect for the office and institution. It's also part of the healing process for the nation. I applaud Mrs. Clinton for attending even when she no doubt would prefer that Trump spontaneously combust.

 

[werepossum]

The good news is more and more insurance companies are covering it, like United Healthcare for example.

I know this for reasons.

So you're the reason my insurance is so high! lol

I have no problem with health insurance companies covering sex changes; I think it's a psychosomatic disorder like many others that are covered. But betraying one's country (or committing any other crime) should not be rewarded with expensive elective health care. I very much do not agree that sex changes, hormone treatments, ED treatments, etc. should be provided while incarcerated. This is punishment, not a free way to realize one's ideal body image.

 

[Blackjack200]

Plenty of people see these speeches as corrupting. My confusion was about why you would think less of Hillary than before since (A) she's always done it and (B) virtually all other politicians do it. I understand that some have the personal charisma to make it unnecessary, and others don't need to make speeches to people they claim to oppose. But while charisma is very important in a leader, it's not the only important quality, nor is it even necessarily a good thing as an evil or incompetent person may be very charismatic. Nonetheless, I can sympathize with believing that something is a necessary evil and then learning it is not, so now I do understand why you would think less of her.

Again, it's an evolution of my thinking. I know she's always done it and others do too. I'm saying I don't agree with it anymore. I don't think Bernie Sanders was especially charismatic, I think the voters understood that he was authentic in a way that other candidates aren't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the other. I think that accepting our Constitutional system with its orderly transfer of power requires those within the system to participate in the inauguration regardless of their personal feelings. It isn't displaying respect for the person, simply respect for the office and institution. It's also part of the healing process for the nation. I applaud Mrs. Clinton for attending even when she no doubt would prefer that Trump spontaneously combust.

The republic that we knew, or at least, that I thought I knew, is gone. Electing a creature like Trump shows how depraved and hellish it has become. It is not worthy of any sort of celebration. Honoring Trump's coronation does nothing to heal the nation, it further divides and angers it.

 

[Zstream]

The good news is more and more insurance companies are covering it, like United Healthcare for example.

I know this for reasons.

Not that I care what private institutions are doing, but if this issue is government funded (stipend) it should be stopped. Health (mental issues) need to be resolved through other means than self mutilation.

 

[werepossum]

Not that I care what private institutions are doing, but if this issue is government funded (stipend) it should be stopped. Health (mental issues) need to be resolved through other means than self mutilation.

If a dude is willing to chop off his pee pee to be a woman, then self-harm is almost a given if he's not allowed to do this. I'm all for extensive counseling, but I see this like gay-straightening therapy - it works only on a minority. Someone willing to go to that length has a serious disconnect between the actual physical body and the idealized body image, and that disconnect cannot necessarily be solved through mental or hormone therapy. Humans are very complex machines and I see no reason to assume that we automatically know someone seeking a sex change is in the wrong. Why must the problem necessarily be in the mental sexual identification rather than in the physical development?

Besides, if we are free creatures, then we must each own ourselves. As long as someone is determined to be of sound mind, then that person deserves the right to modify his or her body to satisfy his/her self-image. It's fundamentally no different (though obviously more invasive and non-reversible) than breast implants or hair plugs - each person is trying to modify her body to something with which she can be comfortable. Insurance companies have not only a right but an obligation to balance individual elective treatments with group costs and services, and where government functions as the insurer, government has that same obligation. Personally I only object when such elective procedures are extended to those being punished.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not that I care what private institutions are doing, but if this issue is government funded (stipend) it should be stopped. Health (mental issues) need to be resolved through other means than self mutilation.

Why?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I know this is highly speculative but I do wonder if it was Obama's final Trump trolling. Read here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cas-vendetta-against-wikileaks-julian-assange

Earlier Assange said once Bradley is released he will no longer fight extradition. Bradley should be released in a few months to my understanding. So in a few months Assange should leave that embassy, what would Trumps next move be?
Ignore Assange while his conservative base has called for execution
Or
Reduce the charges, see above
Or
Direct the AG not to prosecute
Or
Prosecute a friend of Vladimir's

 

[Ackmed]

I don't agree with him getting his sentence commuted. Sends the wrong message imo. Like other last second releases Obama has done.

 

[MongGrel]

Personally, I was all for a field court martial and shoot Manning on the spot. I'd say it is half the military's fault for putting someone like that on the post they were at to begin with, seemed almost a set up, the guy was always flaky to begin with.

Then it just got progressively weirder, at this point I can not honestly say I care much one way or another, he/she should not have been on that post to begin with running off picking daisies, etc.

A few people were rumored to have gotten killed in the search, but not sure that would not have happened in regular patrols.

 

[Zstream]

Why?

Because self mutilation is not healthcare, just as much cosmetic surgery is self mutilation. If you're going to do it, do it on your own dime. I'd recommend a reading on the doctors oath and how you're going to define healthcare if the government is involved, like it is now. This is what Obamacare is just government funded health plans while insurance providers will offer anything for anyone, as long as services will be paid.

The ACA was a terrible thought out process. In fact, this gives the insurance companies free reign.

If you can't see the resemblance between ACA and the current student loan crisis, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[pcgeek11]

Personally, I was all for a field court martial and shoot Manning on the spot. I'd say it is half the military's fault for putting someone like that on the post they were at to begin with, seemed almost a set up, the guy was always flaky to begin with.

Then it just got progressively weirder, at this point I can not honestly say I care much one way or another, he/she should not have been on that post to begin with running off picking daisies, etc.

A few people were rumored to have gotten killed in the search, but not sure that would not have happened in regular patrols.

I think you have Manning confused with Bergdahl.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because self mutilation is not healthcare, just as much cosmetic surgery is self mutilation. If you're going to do it, do it on your own dime. I'd recommend a reading on the doctors oath and how you're going to define healthcare if the government is involved, like it is now. This is what Obamacare is just government funded health plans while insurance providers will offer anything for anyone, as long as services will be paid.

The ACA was a terrible thought out process. In fact, this gives the insurance companies free reign.

If you can't see the resemblance between ACA and the current student loan crisis, I don't know what to tell you.

That's remarkably strange. I suppose I should have asked why you should care or why you think it's any of your business.

~0.3% (700K) of our adult population is transgendered. Realize that number is cumulative, that it's been happening for decades. Also realize that the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance are covered by employer sponsored plans. What it means is that damned few people will receive such treatment annually under any plan, particularly ACA subsidized plans or Medicaid.

It's not a tempest in a teapot- it's a tempest in a thimble.

Insurance Co's won't pay, either, w/o all the right assessments from Psychiatrists & doctors. They'd obviously rather not for purely financial reasons.

I think the ACA could use some work & improvement, no doubt, but it's in no way comparable to student loans.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

 

[It's Not Lupus]

I'm glad he got his sentence shortened by Obama.

 

[highland145]

Uh, no he didn't, lupus.

idiot.

 

[superstition]

Nice to see people shift to pure anti-trans hate rhetoric rather than trying to disguise this with some sort of lofty patriotic policy stance.

 

[highland145]

wut?

Are you on crack?

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes, he is obviously mind altered.

 

[Zstream]

Nice to see people shift to pure anti-trans hate rhetoric rather than trying to disguise this with some sort of lofty patriotic policy stance.

Go shove your label up your ass.

 

[Zstream]

That's remarkably strange. I suppose I should have asked why you should care or why you think it's any of your business.

~0.3% (700K) of our adult population is transgendered. Realize that number is cumulative, that it's been happening for decades. Also realize that the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance are covered by employer sponsored plans. What it means is that damned few people will receive such treatment annually under any plan, particularly ACA subsidized plans or Medicaid.

It's not a tempest in a teapot- it's a tempest in a thimble.

Insurance Co's won't pay, either, w/o all the right assessments from Psychiatrists & doctors. They'd obviously rather not for purely financial reasons.

I think the ACA could use some work & improvement, no doubt, but it's in no way comparable to student loans.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

I believe you need to re-read my initial post. I'm not saying private institutions can't do what they want. It's a pure issue with government subsidies (tax payer) for self mutilation. You could be talking about getting a nose job, or penis enhancement. It has nothing to do with healthcare. If you're employer based insurance covers it, more power to you. If you're asking that tax payers fund what a private institution deems ok, you're nuts.

They could easily start covering ass cheek enhancements and you're own ass will have to pay for it.

Nope, not now, not ever.

 

[Jhhnn]

I believe you need to re-read my initial post. I'm not saying private institutions can't do what they want. It's a pure issue with government subsidies (tax payer) for self mutilation. You could be talking about getting a nose job, or penis enhancement. It has nothing to do with healthcare. If you're employer based insurance covers it, more power to you. If you're asking that tax payers fund what a private institution deems ok, you're nuts.

They could easily start covering ass cheek enhancements and you're own ass will have to pay for it.

Nope, not now, not ever.

Yet the medical community disagrees with you-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy

And, as I offered, it doesn't amount to much money at all in the greater scheme of things.

I figure it's just a different kind of reconstructive surgery.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yet the medical community disagrees with you-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy

And, as I offered, it doesn't amount to much money at all in the greater scheme of things.

I figure it's just a different kind of reconstructive surgery.

" Reconstructive surgery " ?

I don't think that term applies.

 

[desura]

Nice to see people shift to pure anti-trans hate rhetoric rather than trying to disguise this with some sort of lofty patriotic policy stance.

Yeah, this is quite the Orweillian move you made here.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, this is quite the Orweillian move you made here.

If the mind doesn't fit the body then make the body fit the mind.