Chelsea Manning Files to Run for U.S. Senate in Maryland (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: Chelsea E. Manning, the transgender former Army private who was convicted of passing sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, is seeking to run for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, according to federal election filings. Manning would be challenging Democrat Benjamin L. Cardin, who is in his second term in the Senate and is up for reelection in November. Cardin is Maryland's senior senator and is considered an overwhelming favorite to win a third term... However, a candidate with national name recognition, such as Manning, who comes in from the outside could tap a network of donors interested in elevating a progressive agenda...

Evan Greer, campaign director of the nonprofit organization Fight for the Future and a close supporter of Manning's while she was imprisoned, said the news is exciting. "Chelsea Manning has fought for freedom and sacrificed for it in ways that few others have," Greer wrote in an email. "The world is a better place with her as a free woman, and this latest news makes it clear she is only beginning to make her mark on it."

Comments

What's with all the criminals running for Senate?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with all the criminals running for Senate? The list includes Roy Moore, Joe Arpaio, and now Chelsea Manning. Why would we trust criminals to act in our best interest when we give them power as elected officials? Just say no.

Mixed feelings

[squiggleslash]

I'm 100% certain Manning's heart is in the right place. But she's impulsive in a dangerous way, politically inexperienced, and has proven herself a bad judge of character in terms of who she allies herself with. I just don't see any good coming out of this.

Re: Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is just trans issues you've fooled yourself that you actually have a clue on (because you personally don't like not understand them)?

Personal insults aside (kind of shows the lack of merits on your side of the aisle, you might want to do something about that,) the notion of electing the mentally ill to lead the nation or even represent a basic majority of people within it is absurd. Cutting your balls off is a mental issue, no matter how you want to cut it (no pun intended.) Frankly, your inability to see such a basic thing should void your right to vote, you aren't doing anything good with it.

Re: Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of her other qualities, she damaged the security of the US by unilaterally dumping classified materials. She did not pick and chose messages or topics in a way that can be defended in an ethical argument. All other issues do not matter to me and I lean over to the left pretty far.

Re:Mixed feelings

[ScentCone]

if manning's name made it to the general election, that seat would turn so fucking red, it'll take decades to get it blue again

No, Maryland is so hugely gerrymandered in favor of keeping congressional and senate seats in Democrat power that even a toxic idiot like Manning would win. The Democrats in the Maryland legislature have made sure that's always going to be the case.

Re:Mixed feelings

[AmiMoJo]

It doesn't seem to have harmed other trans candidates who managed to get elected against all odds.

The conservative victim narrative is failing as it becomes apparent that the people who said they would save you from it are just feathering their own nests. 2018 will be the backlash.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Senate elections are state-wide, so any gerrymandering would have been the definition of the state boundaries hundreds of years ago, which is unlikely to be very effective gerrymandering for the modern political situation.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of Fact: It's impossible to gerrymander a US Senate Seat since those are voted on state-wide. It's a little hard to do that unless you're kicking voters of the other party out of the state itself rather than drawing lines like the way Republicans do.

Re:Mixed feelings

[pipingguy]

Well, consider that some trans activists (who are not really helping actual trans people's situation at all) say that hetero males not wanting to have sex with trans women are homophobic/hateful/bad people, etc.

It's almost as if some of these activists are intentionally acting in such a way as to damage society's view and opinions of trans people.

It's absurd.

Re:Mixed feelings

[ScentCone]

Right, it's a congressional district only thing. Observation re: MD's legislature and how it impacts those elections stands.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Baron_Yam]

>It doesn't seem to have harmed other trans candidates who managed to get elected against all odds.

Fine. Now tell me if they're doing as good a job as you would have expected from other candidates who had similar platforms. In fact, tell me if they appeared to be capable of that PRIOR to getting elected. Getting elected is one thing; getting elected because you are in an in-vogue identified victim group is another. It's a mistake no matter what the cause.

>The conservative victim narrative is failing

Well, I think Trump is enough of a horror show that they're becoming fringe again. I don't think that means it's time to push an unqualified single-cause-figurehead candidate just because maybe you'll get them elected. Especially one of extremely questionable qualifications.

Find someone who appears qualified to do the job they're campaigning to get AND is electable AND supports your causes. Because as voters, we have a duty to ourselves to put our best representatives into office, not merely the ones who are big in the current news cycle.

> the people who said they would save you from it are just feathering their own nests.

I haven't seen a lot of that. In fact, I haven't seen any. But maybe that's because the news is full of the horror show 24/7.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Baron_Yam]

>Well, consider that some trans activists (who are not really helping actual trans people's situation at all) say that hetero males not wanting to have sex with trans women are homophobic/hateful/bad people, etc.

Some? It's the only opinion I've come across so far. Guess I'm transphobic then, because I just believe they're people who shouldn't be subject to discrimination or abuse.

I even buy (unless and until a better medical explanation is presented) that they may have brains that are cross-sex due to developmental or genetic abnormalities. I'm never going to accept that they are the same as their identified sex, though... because reality is that they aren't. I like Caucasian women. I like redheads, I like women of a similar cultural background and of a similar age to my own. All these things are OK, but if I prefer natural-born women who grew up female, suddenly I'm evil?

I get it, it sucks to be in an extreme minority and be socially isolated. That doesn't mean you can make me desire an intimate bond with you.

Re: Mixed feelings

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Or maybe they realized there was no real harm being done, especially in the context of a free society.

Use free speech, I suppose, to adgitate against the election of someone, for whatever reason, but expect pushback.

Believe it or not, thinking people should be free is no endorsement that you should be required to blow Nancy Pelosi.

Re:Mixed feelings

[pipingguy]

"if I prefer natural-born women who grew up female, suddenly I'm evil?"

Yes, that is one thing that's so bizarre about all this.

My guess is that the vocal extreme minority of activists (who may not even be or "identify" as trans) have some kind of psychological need for attention or psychodrama. And, like other extreme activists or agitators, their claims and assertions ("raising awareness") are irresistible to the media, who provide them with what they need. And that creates a feedback loop.

Re:Mixed feelings

[naughtynaughty]

It doesn't take gerrymandering to keep Democrats in control of Maryland when voter registration skews 2-1 in favor of the Democrats.

It's actually a surprise that the Republicans hold the edge in voter registration in one of those districts. In every other one it is heavily Democratic.

They have to have fairly equal number of people in each district so it will naturally require carving up the big population centers which are heavily skewed Democrat.

It's not like the Electoral College where voters from rural-centric states get far heavier representation. If you are.a rural voter in Maryland you don't get more representation for your vote.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described the POTUS.

Just needs a twitter account and she is headed for the top.

Re:Mixed feelings

[AmiMoJo]

Can't judge any of these elected politicians because they haven't been doing the job for long enough.

Trump gave himself and his friends a massive tax cut, at the expense of the people who voted for him.

Re: Mixed feelings

[ClickOnThis]

And, if a child is born without arms, they no longer meet your definition out for 'human' because there's a defect there as well?

While I disagree with most of Baron_Yam's points, there was nothing in his(*) post that said people with abnormalities are not 'human.'

'Male' and 'female' are human concepts. Nature doesn't give a rats patootie about such things and creates life in a myriad of forms and variations.

Yeah, not so much. 'Male' and 'female' are most certainly biological concepts, and nature does indeed care about such things because they are necessary for a species to procreate. That being said, people who identify as something other than their birth-gender are still human, and I accept their wish to be recognized as they present themselves. Nature may care about procreation, but human society cares about mutual respect and protection.

(*) I say "his" because Baron_Yam appears to identify as male, having granted himself the title of "Baron".

Re:Mixed feelings

[RobotRunAmok]

She is not running against a Conservative or even a Republican -- yet. She has to first primary against the current Dem in office. Which means the whole "If you don't vote for me you are some kind of bad phobic person" only serves to fracture the Left. She has also tweeted out EXTREMELY anti-cop screeds, which would make her the darling of the BLM crowd, if the BLM crowd weren't traditionally homo/trans phobic (American politics is funny that way). So the only group that really benefits from Manning running is the GOP, who will face an already bloodied Dem candidate, whether it be Manning or the incumbent.

Re:Mixed feelings

[ChatHuant]

expect to be told if you don't support Manning you're transphobic

I don't live in Maryland, but if somebody tried to pitch a candidate this way, I'd be really wary of voting for him/her. I don't care about the candidate's sexuality. What I care about is the candidate's program, his goals and his capability to execute. Someone whose election program is based on identity politics is inherently divisive - and this will impact his capability to execute his program, even if it's a good one.

As I see it, the whole point of elections is that voters choose the candidate who will improve their lives, or society. Different groups with different interests will vote for different candidates, and that's how democracy works. The "transphobic" pitch sounds like guilting people into voting for somebody who doesn't actually represent their best interest. I doubt it will work.

Re:Mixed feelings

[hambone142]

The U.S. simply elects politicians with name recognition.

If Homer Simpson ran for office, he'd likely get elected.

Re:Mixed feelings

[jwhyche]

Really? Can you site your sources please? I didn't vote for him and I'm not a friend of his but starting next month my pay check will be going up $130 per week.

Re:Mixed feelings

[AmiMoJo]

According to this you would need to be earning well over 100k to see anything like that kind of cut: https://twocents.lifehacker.co...

Note that the very rich, like Trump, get a far bigger tax break.

Maybe you earn less but gain in other ways. In any case, that $1.5 trillion has to come from somewhere and in this case it's cuts to things like healthcare.

Re: Mixed feelings

[rtb61]

Defend it, all too easy. Fact, government secrecy is an anathema to democracy. Every citizen has 100% right to all information about their government, that would affect the vote of that citizen. For the government to use the tax payers money, to keep secrets from the tax payer (keep in bloody mind who works for whom) that would affect the vote of the citizens is an electoral crime and a denial of the right of citizens to a fair vote. Democracy based upon lies is no Democracy, it is an autocracy controlled by those that tell the lies and that includes lies of omission.

I would struggle with the nature of the person, living a lie. There is nothing wrong with expressing yourself in a gender based manner which suits your personality but you should not need to pretend to be the other gender (there are elements within society, that force gender behavioural norms, that prevent people from expressing themselves in what ever gender based manner they prefer, without also being forced to pretend to be that gender, the expression is individual, the gender change is forced by societies demanded gender behavioural norms, clothing, behaviour, speech).

The freedom to express yourself in a more masculine or feminine fashion, should not also require that you attempt to change sex to be accepted but society still struggles with more feminine men, not so much with more masculine women, they get more acceptance and hence the need to change to the other sign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., tends to occur a lot less. Ohh and James Damore has every right to sue the living crap out of the arse holes at Google.

Re: Mixed feelings

[mapkinase]

Democrats are making the same mistake when they picked Obama and then Clinton: in the desperate grasp for their most strong argument: populism, they over rewarded minorities and alienated their other base: politically active working class, mostly white men.

Re:Mixed feelings

[jwhyche]

The data you linked to shows that you are wrong. Virtually everyone across the board is getting a tax break. Poking some numbers into the CNN tax calculator itself shows that you are wrong too.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/...

Seems you are making another general assessment without proper facts again. What cuts to healthcare have been made? Please cite your sources.

Re:Mixed feelings

[AmiMoJo]

According to that calculator a household earning $40k will get a 0.5% tax break. Is that a net benefit to them, given the massive cuts needed to fund this $1.5 trillion package? I guess that's debatable. Also, is it fair for them to get 0.5% while the super rich get 3.6%?

In any case, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that the plan was to fund this with cuts to "entitlements", which means things like Medicare and Medicade. So not only do less well off Americans get less of a cut, but the plan is to fund that cut by taking $1.5 trillion out of the services that help them survive on that kind of income.

Re:Mixed feelings

[jwhyche]

Did you take into account the standard deduction of $12,000 for a single filer? That will drop a single filer with a $40K income from the 22% tax bracket down to the 12% tax bracket.

Comments?

Re:Mixed feelings

[AmiMoJo]

The term "household" generally refers to more than one person.

Anyway, the point stands. You can get different numbers with different parameters, but even for a single person on 40k the rate is only about 1.3%.

So, the question remains. Is that better than having $1.5 trillion in extra funding for services?

Re:Mixed feelings

[jwhyche]

I still think you are over simplifying it. With the standard deduction your rate drops from 22% to 10%. Which is a lot of people problems with taxes. They look at top numbers and just run with those. But is also part of the problem with the system. It is just way to over complex. You look at it one way and get a different set over numbers than I do.

An fair warning, you don't want me to get started on that $1.5 trillion. There is not a enough bits in /. comment database for me to express how unhappy I am with that.

Re:Mixed feelings

[jwhyche]

Oh and looking at the high end tax bracket. Yeah, I do see your point.

Re: Mixed feelings

[david_thornley]

Sure. It's a mind in a body of the wrong sex. That's a disorder, all right.

Re:Mixed feelings

[david_thornley]

Because other people try to mess their lives up. Seriously, I don't care about a person's genetic makeup of the details of their physiology. That's their business. The whole reason this is even a political thing is right-wingers using it as an edge issue.

Re:Mixed feelings

[dcw3]

"It's actually a surprise that the Republicans hold the edge in voter registration in one of those districts. In every other one it is heavily Democratic."

Isn't that one of the gerrymander techniques? Put as much of the opposing party in a single district, and control the remainder.

Re:Mixed feelings

[dcw3]

"And then she tells you that she is trans. Would you break up with her because of that? "

Yes. If I wanted children, that's not happening.

I could never trust someone who told me, after the fact. It's like a lie of omission. Would you trust someone who told you after sex that they had herpes?

 

Re:Mixed feelings

[dcw3]

"I don't care about the candidate's sexuality. What I care about is the candidate's program, his goals and his capability to execute. "

And this is why I found HRC's whole misogyny campaign to be dishonest. Elect me because I'm a woman...you didn't see that from any other female candidate previously. But to be sure, we'll have people voting for Oprah in order to have the first black female instead of a qualified candidate.

And no, I didn't vote for Trump.

Re:Mixed feelings

[AmiMoJo]

What about you omitting the fact that you want children? If you expect her to tell you that she is trans and thus incapable of getting pregnant early on, doesn't it follow that you should also tell her that you want children very early on as well?

And if so, at what point do you tell her?

Re:Mixed feelings

[dcw3]

Told my wife (my 2nd) that I was done with kids right up front. My own (I was a single dad) was already eight, and I was about 40 yrs old, not wanting to raise children into my 60s. Why waste your time and hers on something that's just a nonstarter? Clearly, those discussions would be well before you decide that the person is your "ideal partner".

Opposition research won't be too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-wikileaks-judge-verdict

That being said she has no qualifications to be a senator. No government, executive, business or military experience to warrant voting for her.

listen fuckers

[Osgeld]

you have had CES running all week, and yet you shitpost from CNN, why is this news for nerds? People file to run for public office all the time.

Fuck you Chinese Slashdot

Re: listen fuckers

[dberry9300]

I will not listen fuckers

Re:listen fuckers

[ELCouz]

Wow someone is salty today.

Re:listen fuckers

[Gravis Zero]

and yet you shitpost from CNN,

which part of "An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:" makes you think this is from CNN? was it the "(washingtonpost.com)" link?

why is this news for nerds?

i feel like you have discounted the slogan: "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"

People file to run for public office all the time.

People that have been charged with literal treason for doing what they felt was right. This is a high profile individual.

Fuck you Chinese Slashdot

Fuck you, Slashdot doesn't even have basic UTF8 support much less any support of any Chinese character sets!

Re:listen fuckers

[Highdude702]

Has there even been one single "Announced at CES" post this week? I dont remember seeing any.

Re:listen fuckers

[serviscope_minor]

Can you post the link to your firehose submission for those CES stories?

Re:listen fuckers

[serviscope_minor]

Clarification: I mean the ones you submitted of course.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you prefer your politicians to be criminals who haven't been caught yet... gotcha.

Criminal?

[thegarbz]

Doesn't the USA have laws against convicted criminals being elected for public office? Regardless of what you think about her, she still was convicted of a serious crime. How is she fit to serve?

Re:Criminal?

[gremlin_591002]

There are some basic rules for running for the Senate, but criminal offenses are covered by state laws. In this case Maryland has chosen to allow felons to represent them. I have no idea how we have gotten to this point but I sure wish we could do take backs...

Re:Criminal?

[jbeaupre]

Depends on the state:
http://www.newsweek.com/chelse...

Re:Criminal?

[squiggleslash]

No, the US does not have laws against convicted criminals from being elected to public office, and it absolutely shouldn't have those laws. The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.

If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.

Yes, in some cases, that means a murderer or a rapist might be elected. But that's unlikely, I don't see the public supporting the election of a convicted murderer any time soon.

As for Manning? She did what did for the reasons we know. In my view, I'm less bothered about the notion that she violated the law by leaking secret information as I am that she did so impulsively and without care about who she handed that information over to. She's probably a good person, but her lack of care, not the fact she technically violated the law, is a greater concern here.

Re:Criminal?

[mellon]

Her prefrontal cortex has grown quite a bit since then...

Re:Criminal?

[arth1]

If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.

Very true. Unfortunately, the US has not taken the full steps needed to avoid this, due to disenfranchisement of felons. In a two-party system, this invites those in charge to make and enact laws that hit the other side harder than theirs.
Most democracies have safeguards to prevent this, most notably by making voting an inalienable right. You then can't silence opponents by creating unfair laws, and then take away people's right to vote when they break them.

Re:Criminal?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a wise rule of Maryland, because it is a standard tactic of fascist regimes and dictators to make sure that political opponents get convicted as felons. It's a good safeguard, take a look at Russia to see what happens if you don't have it.

Re:Criminal?

[swillden]

Maybe Manning is just trying to balance things out? I mean, right now the Republicans have four convicted criminals running for Congress in 2018 and the Democrats only have one. If Manning runs and the Dems can drum up two more, they'll have achieved parity.

Re:Criminal?

[AmiMoJo]

Do those laws include pardoned felons though? Is a pardon in the US only a get out of jail card, not forgiveness for the crime?

Re:Criminal?

[Greyfox]

Seems to me a lot of the things that can make a senator very wealthy and influential can also kind of accidentally make you a felon if you happen to get caught at it. The senators are probably aware of that and would rather not risk their shiny income in the event they do accidentally get caught at it. Felons in general probably have a better approval rating than Congress, anyway.

Re:Criminal?

[spire3661]

To be completely fair, the will of the people should almost always override government mandated qualifications.

Re:Criminal?

[ceoyoyo]

Impulsivity is common in the young. When he leaked those documents, Bradley Manning still had a couple of years to go before he could legally rent a car in many parts of the US.

Re:Criminal?

[Billly Gates]

SHe is a hero.

She did nothing wrong under whistle blower laws at the illegal and unconstitutional roles of the NSA and their acts of espionage agaisn't American companies.

We all go all crazy about how evil the NSA is for asking for private keys, monitoring cell phones without taping warrants, killing Iraqi civilians, and other illicit activities we are protected under with a national whistleblower laws. BUT... but ... we all go how evil and unamerican and traterious she is and go on about USA USA we are the best and watch Fox News.

WTF. We might as well call MLK a criminal too who incites hate and violence. I bet if the conservative media we have today was around back then MLK never would have been effective.

Re:Criminal?

[Billly Gates]

What our government was doing is not right. Both her and Julian just supplied the news and blew the whistle on them FYI ARE OR SHOULD be protected under law. But nope patriotism comes first.

Re:Criminal?

[thegarbz]

you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged

If out of the many millions of people in your country you can't find someone to represent you view against unjust laws who isn't a convicted felon then there is something very wrong with your country.

The main problem here is the public will stand behind anyone or anything (as evident from the monkeys currently in power capable of only throwing feces at each other while grabbing people by their pussies). The public is a crap judge of character. Past actions however is a pretty good judge.

I also call bullshit about vindictive laws being published, especially since the whole point of a democracy is that the laws are the will of the electorate (or at least it should be). You don't see this in most other democracies. e.g. Australia. The constitution has very few protected rights of the people, not even free speech, however it bans people holding office if convicted of an offence punishable by more than 1 year in prison. This is specifically to prevent inciting corruption. There's other checks too, such as you can't be bankrupt or insolvent, be making any profit off the government both directly and indirectly (exceptions being positions appointed by the Queen, e.g. governor can run for parliament).

Re:Criminal?

[thegarbz]

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to my question.

Re:Criminal?

[thegarbz]

That's a big problem if you have fascist regimes and dictators. But there are many countries which have laws like this and didn't turn into Russia.

Your example is like saying that everyone who sneezes will die of ebola.

Re:Criminal?

[91degrees]

Don't see a problem with this. I'm happy to leave it for the people to decide on a case by case basis, especially something like this where opinions are strongly divided.

Re:Criminal?

[mapkinase]

>The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.

You are saying like this is something even remotely intelligent.

Re:Criminal?

[david_thornley]

Why should the US have such laws? Let the voters decide. I'd be dubious of voting for someone convicted of a serious crime, personally, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. It would be a significant campaign issue.

I don't think I ever said she was fit to serve. Fitness for service is not a requirement to run in an election (or be elected, for that matter).

Re:Criminal?

[david_thornley]

Giving people free license to release and distribute classified materials because they think it's the right thing to release some of it is not a good idea.

Re:Criminal?

[arth1]

So, should we remove the laws preventing felons from owning firearms?

Would you do away with the requirement for convicted rapists and pedophiles to register everywhere they move?

After the sentence is served, they should be treated like any other citizen. If you don't think they are rehabilitated, why are they released from prison?

Spend more money on actual rehabilitation, and less on punishment. Give the convicts a chance to get a full life back, or they will already have given up. Recidivism rates are much lower in Scandinavian countries where the focus is on rehabilitation.

Um...qualification?

[bradley13]

I suppose being convicted and imprisoned will at least make Manning unfriendly to the government - although then: why become part of it?

Being transgender will automatically win over some of the more extreme progs, but beyond that: exactly why would voters want Manning in the government, representing them? Poor education, no professional experience to speak of, shaky mental health from all that time in solitary confinement. Why would Manning (or whoever is really behind the senate run) think that voters would be interested?

Cynically, there is some bigger game being played here.

Re: Um...qualification?

[kenh]

So how much will you contribute to her campaign to unseat the two-year Democrat from Maryland?

Once the 'interesting conversation' is over, you'll be left with a democrat senator with a dubious grasp of secrecy and no qualifications for office other than a passion for prison reform and fringe gender issues.

Re: Um...qualification?

[kenh]

What makes her a better choice than giving the current Democrat a third term? Seriously, she'd be taking the place of a well-liked, well-supported Democrat because...

I think democrats will be torn between their current Senator and this 'flavor of the month' candidate Manning.

Re: Um...qualification?

[DanielRavenNest]

Manning is the 4th Democrat to file for this office so far. The primary in May will weed out which one will end up in the general election, and it probably won't be her. Given the office is held by a well-respected two time Democratic senator, she probably doesn't have the traction to replace him, even with major name recognition.

If her ultimate goal is book sales for her life story, running for office is a great way to keep her name in the news. Otherwise, being released, she's yesterday's news.

Re:Um...qualification?

[ceoyoyo]

"I suppose being convicted and imprisoned will at least make Manning unfriendly to the government - although then: why become part of it?"

In a democracy, when you disagree with the government and there isn't anyone you want to vote for, you're supposed to run for office to effect change.

Re: Um...qualification?

[mellon]

I didn't contribute anything. What part of "conversation" didn't you understand? :)

Re: Um...qualification?

[Uberbah]

Of following her Oath of Office to defend the Constitution - not your war criminal neocons.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[LifesABeach]

The real question does Chelsea use Linux?

Re:What's with all the criminals running for Senat

[NicknameUnavailable]

It wouldn't be, but thankfully Trump beat Hillary.

Mixed views

[Anonymous Coward]

At least she's for government transparency.

Completely against this

[ArtemaOne]

When Bradley (active duty) released the stuff to wikileaks he did it in mass. He did not discriminate well on what he released. The video of killing the people, and then killing of the people coming to rescue the injured, is one thing. I wouldn't have ever done it, but I get what he was going for. Releasing tons of unrelated stuff that can hurt our objectives and server members is unforgivable. Now that Chelsea is released from prison she is using her trans status as a vehicle to jump on the progressive train for her own benefit. I heard that while in the Army he was a terrible private, and that gives me no confidence in him that could help recover his betrayal of the country he wants to represent. I say no, never. And it has nothing to do with her transition. (Gender applied chronologically)

Re: Completely against this

[bestweasel]

"while in the Army he was a terrible private"

I heard that too: refused to target civilians with bombs, drones and trigger-happy military convoys, didn't take part in torturing or degrading prisoners, wouldn't cover up war crimes, a total disgrace to the US military.

Re: Completely against this

[ArtemaOne]

And had no opportunities to do any of that. So if you're listing things he couldn't have done as things he didn't do, then he didn't go to the moon or dive to the bottom of the ocean.

Re: Completely against this

[ScentCone]

I heard that too: refused to target civilians with bombs, drones and trigger-happy military convoys, didn't take part in torturing or degrading prisoners, wouldn't cover up war crimes, a total disgrace to the US military.

Not sure why you think you're scoring some sort of only-in-your-own-echo-chamber rhetorical points when trotting out stuff that Manning had, literally, nothing to do with. He was simply being a drama queen and looking for attention, and indiscriminately dumped a mountain of sensitive information out there for consumption by - among other people - those who would be very happy to kill people just like him on religious grounds, and kill our military and intelligence people for working to defend against just that. Your cartoon villain portrait of everyone in the military shows you're not equipped to even talk about this in informed, rational terms.

Re: Completely against this

[Anonymous Coward]

simply being a drama queen and looking for attention

This actually worked for someone recently seeking office.

Re:Completely against this

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing she was a bad private from people who seem to need something to put in the negatives category

You know what makes most of these people good soldiers?

They don't either, because they're normal enough to not have a history of being tortured just by being there, they're not the peg that sticks out and gets hammered down, and the idea of actually being that person never occurred to them.

I don't even mean trans people here, just actual nerds... which seem, frankly, to be in short supply around this site these days.

Re:Completely against this

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that Chelsea is released from prison she is using her trans status as a vehicle to jump on the progressive train for her own benefit.

On what basis do you come to that conclusion? Seems like her leaking of the video gives her much stronger bonafides. I don't see anything in her campaign ad about being trans.

There is a certain portion of the population who like to complain as loudly as they can about (democrat) "identity politics" - when the reality is that democratic identity politics isn't about elevation to special status, but simply welcoming of the marginalized to equal status with the mainstream. Somebody like Danica Roehm, the other trans candidate of recent note, didn't win or even run on a campaign of her being trans, but on fixing the roads.

Re:Completely against this

[ArtemaOne]

Well, at least you didn't say US Air Force. I feel better now...

Re: Completely against this

[dcw3]

simply being a drama queen and looking for attention

This actually worked for someone recently seeking office.

You can thank the MSM for the free billion dollars plus of free press he got for that.

Re:Completely against this

[ArtemaOne]

Based on every article sponsored has it all over the place, including in the title.

Let her run...

[QuietLagoon]

... if she is qualified according to the Constitution, then she can run. Whether or not she gets the support required to be successful in her endeavour is up to the people in her state and, unfortunately, outside money donors. I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

Re:Typo in article

[greenwow]

That wasn't a typo. It as a school yard insult. The media is sexist, and by using that as an insult, they're proving that. Being a woman is not an insult, and calling him a she to attack him is just childish.

Good for herm!

[kaizendojo]

So sick of this little shit. Can't believe Manning is running for office and Snowden is still living in fear of his life.

Re:Good for herm!

[ScentCone]

Can't believe Manning is running for office and Snowden is still living in fear of his life.

So, blame Obama. Manning should still be serving, and Snowden should have been procured and doing the same. Then we'd have similar treatment for people playing fast and loose with classified information ... oh, except for Hillary Clinton, of course. She's special and gets a pass, and all of her staff get immunity deals before talking about her.

Re:Good for herm!

[ScentCone]

because all that crap has been debunked multiple times

What? The email she received, stored, relayed, copied to her lawyer and his staff on thumb drives, dumped on to Huma Abedin's home computer "for printing" and thus exposed to her insane jerk of husband who shared the same laptop ... included classified information, including some stuff that would normally be limited to a very small, compartmentalized audience. Her home computer was almost certainly compromised by multiple foreign actors. And even if it wasn't her deliberately negligent behavior would see ANY another person entrusted with that information out of a job, out of a career, stripped of clearance, and must likely in deep legal jeopardy. People GO TO JAIL for far less serious examples of carelessness. This hasn't been "debunked," it's a simple matter of fact that you're trying to wish away.

The only reason Hillary's deliberate mis-handling of classified material and a parade of lying on her part about it "went away" is because the people investigating her misconduct chose to give her a degree of looking-the-other-way that nobody else would get. Highly partisan investigators deliberately changed the characterization of her actions as the crimes they were (gross negligence) to prevent her from being indicted. This has nothing to do with Trump, other than the fact that millions of people certainly did get tired of her looking in the eye and plainly lying about her conduct, over and over again. That certainly was a factor in millions of two-time Obama voters turning their backs on her - she's a bald-faced liar who got caught red handed doing something much worse than things that cost other people their careers and their liberty. And she wanted to be the BOSS of people who would go to prison for doing what she did. Stop pretending you don't know all of this.

Re:Good for herm!

[david_thornley]

I don't know of anyone going to jail for what she did. I've looked. If you have an example, please post. Specifically, find someone who unintentionally leaked classified materials and served time. I'd be interested to find out.

I have no idea why you think it was deliberate mishandling, since there's no motive. I do agree that it was a highly partisan investigation, Comey marking himself as virulently anti-Clinton by his sorta-leak in October 2016.

Re:Good for herm!

[Baron_Yam]

You're stuck in an echo chamber. She was investigated for the emails - and found to be at fault - but she was not CRIMINALLY at fault. There's a huge difference there.

This has EVERYTHING to do with Trump, since the primary defense of Trump's reprehensible conduct is, "LOOK AT HILLARY!" as if that would absolve him even if she was Satan incarnate.

I have to tell you, if I go murder somebody, the next murderer doesn't get a walk if I got away with it. And only one of the two people being discussed happens to be POTUS.

You're being led by the nose so well you don't even feel it.

Re:What's with all the criminals running for Senat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the rest of us call sarcasm. Lighten up, Francis!

And yes, some of us are very happy that Hillary lost, but unfortunately, the democrat/republican party still won. So we gain nothing.

Re: Traitor

[Nidi62]

Technically "he" did spend the rest of his life behind bars, because "he" no longer exists. Manning is a "she" now.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[hey!]

What matters to people, apparently, are legal technicalities rather than character. If a con-man can rewrite the laws so that his con isn't illegal, that's good enough for them.

In a nutshell, there are a lot of people who are content to be ruled.

Re: Traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting your dick cut off doesn't make you a "she", "he" is still male.

CES was kinda boring this year

[rsilvergun]

a few refreshes from AMD/Intel/Nvidia. A bunch more talk about digital assistants which are just stand alone devices for things most of us already have on our phones. When the most 'exciting' thing that's making the rounds are small laptops with 4G radios built in you know you've got a dud.

Tech just isn't moving like it used to. Computers have reached 'good enough' territory and cell phones brought so many devices together (phone, mini-tablet, GPS, music player, radio, digital camera/low end camcorder, portable gaming... the list goes on) that there's not a lot of room for gadgets anymore.

Not so much

[rsilvergun]

No joke The GOP has 4 of them running . You can get your rights back in a lot of places. We mostly use denying political rights to keep the 'wrong' (read:poor and minorities) sort from voting. If you've got the money, the time and maybe a few of the right friends it's not hard to get the rights back.

Re: Typo in article

[Edward Nardella]

You might want to do some reading about how to respond to people with hallucinations. You appear to be grossly misinformed.

Authoritarian character assassination

[Uberbah]

I see you're keeping the streak alive. I have yet to see a person who casts judgment on Manning give one flying fuck about the massive corruption and war crimes she revealed, or want the people who committed those crimes to pay for their actions.

But she's impulsive in a dangerous way

Uh, NO. She tried the "chain of command" and was blown off, just as Snowden was. And she gave documents to a responsible organization, one with a 100% track record of authenticity, who vetted them before release. Do tell how she was going to uphold her Oath of Office to defend the Constitution (not neocon war criminals) without leaking to the press.

politically inexperienced

She has a whole lot of experience with the lawless authoritarian state and the torture the USG commits against people in detention (prolonged solitary confinement). Getting one advocate against those things into higher office is hardly unreasonable.

and has proven herself a bad judge of character in terms of who she allies herself with

She wasn't allied with the FBI stooge Lamo. You referring to Assange here? The same Julian Assange who has a 100% track record of authentic releases, and has been subject to more authoritarian character assassination?

Re:Authoritarian character assassination

[david_thornley]

It's been a while, but IIRC lots of her supporters don't really know what a war crime is. War is an ugly business, and there's a lot of horrible things that aren't war crimes, but rather are what war demands. (Obviously, there were war crimes in Iraq, possibly including waging aggressive war, but that's not what we're talking about.) We already knew about corruption.

Re:Authoritarian character assassination

[Uberbah]

It's been a while, but IIRC lots of her supporters don't really know what a war crime is.

Uh huh. And by that same token, can you name the ones she did reveal without searching?

War is an ugly business, and there's a lot of horrible things that aren't war crimes, but rather are what war demands.

Easy for you to say. Wonder if you'd have the same cavalier attitude, though, if it was your wedding that was drone bombed, then the funeral, then a double-tap on any first responders trying to rescue survivors. And then the same forces spent over an hour bombing the local hospital, just in case.

Re: Traitor

[c6gunner]

That's a cute defence.

"For 250 counts of first degree murder, you are hereby sentenced to death."

"Actually, I'm a woman now."

"Oh, well in that case you're free to go!"

Re: Oooh, boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been? Hillary was expected to win, but she actually lost. So, no the bribed secretary of state, who sold her country to the highest bidder multiple times (to multiple countries), lost the Presidential election. Geez. It's been a year. Did you really miss it?

Re:What's with all the criminals running for Senat

[ClickOnThis]

It wouldn't be, but thankfully Trump beat Hillary.

When the GP said "senile imbecility" I thought Reagan, not Clinton (or Trump.)

That being said, I tip my hat to both Reagan and Gorbachev for shaking hands and ending the cold war.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[ClickOnThis]

The real question does Chelsea use Linux?

Nah. "vi or emacs?" FTW.

And a close second is "boxers or briefs?" Oh, wait...

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but...

[bkmoore]

Why does Manning get so much public attention, and why do we allow Manning to personally profit from this stupid war? IMHO, what Manning did, did not shorten the war in Iraq by one single day, nor did he save one single Iraqi life. All that Manning did do was to disobey a lawful order that he personally disagreed with.

Why do we continue to elevate Manning above other Iraq- Vets who in many cases were wounded or died actually trying to help the Iraqi people or save Iraqi lives? Why is Manning any better than all the wounded or KIA American service men and women who never will be able to come home or lead a normal life? Or why is Manning better than all the Iraq- Veterans who followed orders, did not commit any war crimes, and did their duty in that place?

If Manning wants to make a positive difference, maybe rather than running for office, he should volunteer to help wounded veterans in a hospice or a rehab clinic. Maybe he should anonymously donate all the money he receives from his undeserved fame to helping wounded and homeless veterans get the help they need.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[gtall]

He became the swamp; it a Zen thing.

Re: Traitor

[ClickOnThis]

That kind of defence is as lame as changing your name and then claiming the suspect no longer exists.

Don't get me wrong, changing your gender is certainly more onerous a choice than changing your name, but come on, you are still you.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[Darinbob]

I see your point, but I'm just hoping that sometime, somewhere, there's a third option.

makes sense

[WindBourne]

GOP ran traitors for the WH. Now, the dems run a traitor for the senate.
When will we stop backing criminals and start supporting honest leaders.

Re:makes sense

[david_thornley]

Manning is filing for candidacy for a Senate seat as a Democrat. That hardly qualifies as the Democrats running a traitor for the Senate. Anyone who satisfies a few basic requirements can run.

Re: Traitor

[Insanity Defense]

That kind of defence is as lame as changing your name and then claiming the suspect no longer exists.

Well it has worked for Popes so why shouldn't it work for a common person?

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[mikeiver1]

Fuck Manning! This shit bag dumped intelligence hap hazard very likely causing possible deaths to assets. He/She didn't give a shit about others and it's actions show that. Perhaps that means that he/she would make a very good GOP candidate after all. If on the other hand this was to be Snowden running I could get behind that. He has shown that his efforts were in the best interest of the American people time and again, unlike Manning, FUCK MANNING!

Reality Check: Manning up against an INCUMBENT. .

[Salgak1]

. . .with an existing organization, links into the party structure at pretty much all levels, and all the advantages of being the sitting Democrat incumbent with a long record in a deep-blue state.

And Manning brings what, exactly, to the table ???

I heard his psych evaluation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have never resulting in him qualifying for secret, nevermind top secret clearance as it was.

Friend once had a conspiracy theory that Manning had been allowing into the position he had explictly to trigger a leak for the benefit of others. I don't remember specifically who, but possibly as an anti-gay, anti-liberal to help shore up conservativism in the military.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sen

[dougdonovan]

hopefully the filing gets lost...

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[MerlTurkin]

No, Tampax.

It can....

[MerlTurkin]

call itself whatever it wants, he's still a male. Period.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[mschwanke97402]

Umm, if you are referring to the swamp thing that is our current president, he has been most successful at making the swamp more of a swamp then ever. How anyone could have been duped into believing it would be otherwise...

Roy Moore?

[walterbyrd]

How is Roy Moore a criminal?

Accusations are meaningless without evidence.

Re:What's with all the criminals running for Senat

[walterbyrd]

> so yes, definitely a criminal.

Definitely?

I don't think being impeached makes you a criminal.

Accusations without evidence are meaningless.

Moore's main accuser was caught lying, and forging, and even her step son said she was crazy.

Manning was convicted of espionage!

[walterbyrd]

> the fact she technically violated the law

This was no trifling technicality.

If wasn't for the sex change, and our laughably PC culture, Manning would be in prison until the day she died.

Maybe getting genitals cut off is worth it?

[walterbyrd]

It got of Manning out of a life sentence, now it might get her in congress.

How else would a criminal, convicted of espionage, with zero political credentials, even be considered?

Caitlyn Jenner has not done anything since she was Bruce Jenner in 1976. Yet she is considered a major celebrity.

For a while, it seemed to work for Michael Jackson as well.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[Chas]

Well, Brad would be the only one coming into the Senate that has already "cut the pork"...

But good luck getting past the felony and treason convictions.

Re: Traitor

[91degrees]

He still exists. The fact that he's now a she does not mean this is a different person. just means we're using a different set of pronouns to refer to the same person.

"HE", not "She"

[chapstercni]

He can change his name, but not his gender.

And he isn't one of those very few edge cases. But he is certainly a whacked out head case.

His actions in the military were abhorrent, and he should still be in prison.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[NikeHerc]

But good luck getting past the felony and treason convictions.

If memory serves, a mayor of Washington, D.C., was convicted of crack cocaine possession, but was later reelected as mayor by the "good people" of Washington. I'm too lazy to look this up, so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I would never vote for a felon or especially someone who had been convicted of treason, but apparently many others don't feel that constraint.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[Chas]

Yeah looking at it now. Maryland apparently passed something last year allowing felons to run for US senate...

B.O.H.I.C.A.

Re:Yet one more mentally ill person joins the swam

[david_thornley]

I'll take her character over Trump's any day.

Ho Hum

[herbierobinson]

Getting registered with the FEC is easy. It doesn't cost anything other than having access to a computer to do the filing with. Actually getting on the ballot is much more difficult (but does depend on the state). Getting people to vote for you is the really hard part.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[dcw3]

"Perhaps that means that he/she would make a very good GOP candidate after all."

LOL...He is a Democratic candidate. You sound as if there aren't shitbags on both sides.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[dcw3]

Well, Brad would be the only one coming into the Senate that has already "cut the pork"...

But good luck getting past the felony and treason convictions.

Weren't those convictions pardoned by Obama? As an opponent, I'd certainly bring them up though.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena

[mikeiver1]

About 98% of them are shit bags.

Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sen

[mikeiver1]

Repeating what has been said in the context of this persons story. I totally agree with you that people should not be referred to as assets but this is likely the way Manning thought about them in the context of his/her leak of data.