Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / NeutralityBacklash

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/CivilWar2024'': In RealLife, this was one major criticism of the apolitical stance the movie took, that it diluted the message by not addressing the real-world political issues that could trigger such a conflict, missing an opportunity for deeper relevance and impact, and staying apolitical allowed the film to avoid holding accountable the real-life political factions that could contribute to it happening.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* It's very common for libertarians or other centrist-leaning political ideologies to be vilified by both sides of the political spectrum for not being 100% compliant to either side regardless to why they hold their views.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Compare with PacifismBackfire, MediationBackfire, NoPointsForNeutrality (which is about gameplay effects of alignment), and AlienNonInterferenceClause. Can overlap with the GoldenMeanFallacy, StupidNeutral, and BystanderSyndrome. If the neutral party is attacked by the bad side because it is vulnerable without a potential ally, then this is a case of HeadInTheSandManagement. If the neutral party is attacked as retaliation for not aiding the good side, then it is a case of AccompliceByInaction.

to:

Compare with PacifismBackfire, MediationBackfire, NoPointsForNeutrality (which is about gameplay effects of alignment), and AlienNonInterferenceClause. Can overlap with the GoldenMeanFallacy, StupidNeutral, ContemptCrossfire, and BystanderSyndrome. If the neutral party is attacked by the bad side because it is vulnerable without a potential ally, then this is a case of HeadInTheSandManagement. If the neutral party is attacked as retaliation for not aiding the good side, then it is a case of AccompliceByInaction.

Added: 202

Changed: 48

Removed: 207

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Neutrality in any conflict can risk incurring the hostility of both sides rather than neither, leading to the expression "those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by traffic going both ways".



* Creator/NiccoloMachiavelli explicitly advises against taking the neutral position: you'll only end up as a prize for the winner. Better to be winners together, or even losers together (you'll support each other) than someone's ''dessert''.
* Neutrality in any conflict can also risk incurring the hostility of both sides rather than neither, leading to the expression "those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by traffic going both ways".

to:

* Creator/NiccoloMachiavelli explicitly advises the would-be ruler against taking the neutral position: position in a conflict between states: you'll only end up as a prize for the winner. Better to be winners together, or even losers together (you'll support each other) than someone's ''dessert''.
* Neutrality in any conflict can also risk incurring the hostility of both sides rather than neither, leading to the expression "those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by traffic going both ways".
''dessert''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" bill that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the bill was unpopular among Disney employees, who alleged that it would harm LGBT children by banning discussions around gender identity, Chapek claimed that Disney supports diversity yet refused to publicly condemn the bill. Needless to say, everyone was angry with the pro-LGBT side accusing Disney of abandoning the queer community while the anti-LGBT side smeared Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" corporation. Even within Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer Benjamin Siemon called out Chapek for his indecisiveness. Eventually, Chapek officially condemned the bill but his initially neutral position made him seem indecisive and tarnished the company's inclusive image.

to:

* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" bill that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the bill was unpopular among Disney employees, who alleged that it would harm LGBT children by banning discussions around gender identity, Chapek claimed that Disney supports diversity yet refused to publicly condemn the bill. Needless to say, everyone was angry with the pro-LGBT side accusing Disney of abandoning the queer community while the anti-LGBT side smeared Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" corporation. Even within Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer Benjamin Siemon called out Chapek for his indecisiveness. Eventually, Chapek officially condemned the bill but his initially neutral position made him seem indecisive and tarnished the company's inclusive image.image for awhile.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" bill that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the bill was unpopular among Disney employees, who alleged that it would stigmatize LGBT, Chapek claimed that Disney supports diversity yet refused to publicly condemn the bill. Needless to say, Chapek's ambiguous stance angered everyone across the political aisle as pro-LGBT figures and advocacy groups accused Disney of abandoning the queer community while anti-LGBT figures and organizations smeared Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" entity. Even within Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer Benjamin Siemon called out Chapek for his indecisiveness. Eventually, Chapek officially condemned the bill but his initially neutral position made him seem weak and tarnished the company's image.

to:

* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" bill that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the bill was unpopular among Disney employees, who alleged that it would stigmatize LGBT, harm LGBT children by banning discussions around gender identity, Chapek claimed that Disney supports diversity yet refused to publicly condemn the bill. Needless to say, Chapek's ambiguous stance angered everyone across was angry with the political aisle as pro-LGBT figures and advocacy groups accused side accusing Disney of abandoning the queer community while the anti-LGBT figures and organizations side smeared Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" entity.corporation. Even within Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer Benjamin Siemon called out Chapek for his indecisiveness. Eventually, Chapek officially condemned the bill but his initially neutral position made him seem weak indecisive and tarnished the company's inclusive image.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" law that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the law itself is unpopular among Disney employees who feared that it would lead to discrimination against the LGBT community, Chapek claimed that Disney supports LGBT individuals yet refused to publicly condemn or oppose the law. Needless to say, this angered everyone across the political aisle with pro-LGBT organizations criticizing Disney of surrendering to homophobic politicians and anti-LGBT organizations smearing Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" corporation. Even Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer called out Chapek for his indecisive stance.

to:

* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" law bill that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the law itself is bill was unpopular among Disney employees employees, who feared alleged that it would lead to discrimination against the LGBT community, stigmatize LGBT, Chapek claimed that Disney supports LGBT individuals diversity yet refused to publicly condemn or oppose the law. bill. Needless to say, this Chapek's ambiguous stance angered everyone across the political aisle with as pro-LGBT figures and advocacy groups accused Disney of abandoning the queer community while anti-LGBT figures and organizations criticizing Disney of surrendering to homophobic politicians and anti-LGBT organizations smearing smeared Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" corporation. entity. Even within Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer Benjamin Siemon called out Chapek for his indecisive stance. indecisiveness. Eventually, Chapek officially condemned the bill but his initially neutral position made him seem weak and tarnished the company's image.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Disney CEO Bob Chapek infamously took a neutral stance towards the "Don't Say Gay" law that was eventually passed in Disney World's home state of Florida. Although the law itself is unpopular among Disney employees who feared that it would lead to discrimination against the LGBT community, Chapek claimed that Disney supports LGBT individuals yet refused to publicly condemn or oppose the law. Needless to say, this angered everyone across the political aisle with pro-LGBT organizations criticizing Disney of surrendering to homophobic politicians and anti-LGBT organizations smearing Disney as a "woke" and "degenerate" corporation. Even Disney employees like ''WesternAnimation/TheOwlHouse'' creator Creator/DanaTerrace and ''WesternAnimation/DuckTales2017'' writer called out Chapek for his indecisive stance.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In 2019 UK General Election, one of the reasons why the Labour Party lost was their indecisive stance on Brexit. While many Labour voters and political figures like London Mayor Sadiq Khan were staunch opponents of Brexit, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn officially declared his party to be neutral on Brexit and instead called for a new referendum. Needless to say, this backfired with pro-Brexit voters flocking to the Conservative Party while a good portion of anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for the aggressively anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalist Party instead.

to:

* In 2019 UK General Election, one of the reasons why the Labour Party lost was their indecisive stance on Brexit. While many Labour voters and political figures like London Mayor Sadiq Khan were staunch opponents of Brexit, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn (who has long held the view that the European Union is a "neoliberal cartel") officially declared his party to be neutral on Brexit and instead called for a new referendum. Needless to say, this backfired with pro-Brexit voters flocking to the Conservative Party while a good portion of anti-Brexit voters either stayed home or voted for the aggressively anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalist Party instead.

Added: 1281

Changed: 1667

Removed: 575

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The French State - dubbed 'Vichy' France because while they were still fighting the Germans they set up a temporary capital in the spa-town of Vichy (Bordeaux, Marseilles, and other cities were the personal fiefdoms of various parties and so unsuitable due to the risk of assassination, espionage, and desertion) - was this played straight. It still controlled a large empire and decent navy but the Allies stomped on it several times, either because it happened to be in the way of planned operations or because its possessions were perceived as a threat. After Operation Torch the Germans got in on this, finally dissolving the country and assuming direct control over it. In essence Vichy was everybody's ButtMonkey.

to:

* UsefulNotes/WorldWarII:
**
The French State - dubbed 'Vichy' France because while they were still fighting the Germans they set up a temporary capital in the spa-town of Vichy (Bordeaux, Marseilles, and other cities were the personal fiefdoms of various parties and so unsuitable due to the risk of assassination, espionage, and desertion) - was this played straight. It still controlled a large empire and decent navy but the Allies stomped on it several times, either because it happened to be in the way of planned operations or because its possessions were perceived as a threat. After Operation Torch the Germans got in on this, finally dissolving the country and assuming direct control over it. In essence Vichy was everybody's ButtMonkey.



* Belgium attempted to be neutral during the opening years of UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, even refusing the Allies to build any defence lines inside their borders or let them to land on their beaches; so when Germany invaded Belgium, they didn't have anyone to help them defend their country from German conquest.
** To be fair to the Belgians, the Allied war plan was to fight on the Belgian soil so that they didn't have to fight on the French, and they sort of succeeded because the Maginot Line made a very bad idea for the Germans to attack France directly--except that they didn't plan for any kind of enemy action on the grounds that it was too risky for Germany to try it. This was [[StrategyVersusTactics poor (Campaign/Operational) planning]] in the ''extreme'' - the whole ''point'' of planning is to be prepared for all possibilities, not just the ones you ''want'' to be true!

to:

* ** Belgium attempted to be neutral during the opening years of UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, even refusing the Allies to build any defence lines inside their borders or let them to land on their beaches; so when Germany invaded Belgium, they didn't have anyone to help them defend their country from German conquest.
** To be fair to the Belgians, the Allied war plan was to fight on the Belgian soil so that they didn't have to fight on the French, and they sort of succeeded because the Maginot Line made a very bad idea for the Germans to attack France directly--except that they didn't plan for any kind of enemy action on the grounds that it was too risky for Germany to try it. This was [[StrategyVersusTactics poor (Campaign/Operational) planning]] in the ''extreme'' - the whole ''point'' of planning is to be prepared for all possibilities, not just the ones you ''want'' to be true!
conquest.



* The Norwegians attempted to be neutral at the beginning of UsefulNotes/WorldWarII. Both British and Germans would have preferred that they stayed neutral, too--as long as the neutrality would be bent to their own advantage. When it became clear that their enemies would happily violate Norwegian neutrality when it suited them and Norwegians lacked both ability and willingness to resist meaningfully, both British and Germans decided to intervene militarily in Norway.
* Averted with Sweden, who actually did stay officially [[note]]unofficially, the Swedes were a little too friendly with the Nazis for comfort, among other things allowing Germany to use their railways against Norway, which even at the time was considered a mark of shame[[/note]] neutral during UsefulNotes/WorldWarII and didn't suffer any harm from it, making it through the war virtually unscathed. It wouldn't have lasted, as the Nazis ''did'' have plans for all of Scandinavia which they considered the hallmark of Aryan civilization aside from themselves, but the war turned against them before they had a chance to move against Sweden, and Germany soon had bigger things to worry about.
* However this [[GoneHorriblyWrong backfired spectacularly]] on the Axis when it came to South America. Rather frustrated in the continent's neutrality during the conflict and the previous world war while they ''de facto'' aided the allies, Hitler declared South American ships (sans Argentina) to be fair game for U-boats. The sinking of several Brazilian ships caused that country and several of its neighbors [[NeutralNoLonger to formally join the war on the Allied side]] where they began to actively hunt down U-boats and even send expeditionary forces.

to:

* ** The Norwegians attempted to be neutral at the beginning of UsefulNotes/WorldWarII. Both British and Germans would have preferred that they stayed neutral, too--as long as the neutrality would be bent to their own advantage. When it became clear that their enemies would happily violate Norwegian neutrality when it suited them and Norwegians lacked both ability and willingness to resist meaningfully, both British and Germans decided to intervene militarily in Norway.
* ** Averted with Sweden, who actually did stay officially [[note]]unofficially, the Swedes were a little too friendly with the Nazis for comfort, among other things allowing Germany to use their railways against Norway, which even at the time was considered a mark of shame[[/note]] neutral during UsefulNotes/WorldWarII and didn't suffer any harm from it, making it through the war virtually unscathed. It wouldn't have lasted, as the Nazis ''did'' have plans for all of Scandinavia which they considered the hallmark of Aryan civilization aside from themselves, but the war turned against them before they had a chance to move against Sweden, and Germany soon had bigger things to worry about.
* ** Averted with Switzerland as well, who were basically in the same boat as Sweden. The Nazis already annexed Austria in 1938 and drew up invasion plans for Switzerland, planning to divide the country with UsefulNotes/FascistItaly, but for a variety of reasons[[note]]including the difficult terrain, need for foreign currency including Swiss Franks, and Swiss control over alpine railways between Germany and Italy[[/note]] did not choose to invade and the Swiss came out of both world wars unscathed. Presumably, if the Soviets and British had surrendered, Switzerland would have been in a lot of trouble.
**
However this [[GoneHorriblyWrong backfired spectacularly]] on the Axis when it came to South America. Rather frustrated in the continent's neutrality during the conflict and the previous world war while they ''de facto'' aided the allies, Hitler declared South American ships (sans Argentina) to be fair game for U-boats. The sinking of several Brazilian ships caused that country and several of its neighbors [[NeutralNoLonger to formally join the war on the Allied side]] where they began to actively hunt down U-boats and even send expeditionary forces.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/{{Scanners}}'' features a MegaCorp trying to weaponize telepaths known as 'scanners' finding itself at war with a murderous scanner called Revok trying to build a scanner army of his own. There is also a faction of "good" scanners who have decided to remain neutral in this conflict. Problem is, Revok is a SuperSupremacist who will [[JoinOrDie murder any scanner who isn't willing to join him]]. Consequently, most of the "good" scanners are murdered by Revok's hitmen.

to:

* ''Film/{{Scanners}}'' features a MegaCorp trying to weaponize telepaths known as 'scanners' finding itself at war with a murderous scanner called Revok trying to build a scanner army of his own. There is also a faction of "good" scanners who have decided to remain neutral in this conflict. Problem is, Revok is a SuperSupremacist who will [[JoinOrDie murder any scanner who isn't willing to join him]]. Consequently, most of the "good" scanners are murdered massacred by Revok's hitmen.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/{{Scanners}}'' features a MegaCorp trying to weaponize telepaths known as 'scanners' finding itself at war with a murderous scanner called Revok trying to build a scanner army of his own. There is also a faction of "good" scanners who have decided to remain neutral in this conflict. Problem is, Revok is a SuperSupremacist who will [[JoinOrDie murder any scanner who isn't willing to join him]]. Consequently, most of the "good" scanners are murdered by Revok's hitmen.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In ''WesternAnimation/{{Amphibia}}'' episode "The Core and the King", [[spoiler:it's revealed that when Andrias's friend Leif betrayed him and stole the Calamity Box, their friend Barrel was torn on whether or not to stop Leif, with his indecisiveness allowing to get away with the box. As punishment, Andrias ordered him [[ReassignedToAntarctica to patrol the Northern regions]]]].

to:

* In the ''WesternAnimation/{{Amphibia}}'' episode "The Core and the King", [[spoiler:it's revealed that when Andrias's friend Leif betrayed him and stole the Calamity Box, their friend Barrel was torn on whether or not to stop Leif, with his indecisiveness allowing her to get away with the box. As punishment, Andrias ordered him [[ReassignedToAntarctica to patrol the Northern regions]]]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* NeutralityBacklash/AnimeAndManga
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

[[folder: Anime and Manga]]
* ''Manga/CellsAtWork'': The opportunistic bacteria are largely a bunch of fair-weather friends who side with whoever has the upper hand and will switch in a moment's notice. Because of this, they don't get much respect in return; the harmful bacteria consider them a bunch of suck-ups who can't be relied on, while the white blood cells would rather just kill them off even if they're friendly - they're still germs, after all.
* ''Franchise/{{Gundam}}'':
** In ''Anime/MobileSuitGundam'', we have Side 6, a group of colonies who not only gain independence from the Earth Federation, it declared neutrality from the One Year War. Despite this, Zeon wasn't too keen on letting it stay up if they ever backed the Federation, leading to a few attacks in ''Anime/MobileSuitGundam0080WarInThePocket'' when the Gundam Alex is moved into a colony there. Eventually, Side 6 was reclaimed by the Federation after the war.
** Anaheim Electronics, despite being the Federation's primary defense contractor after the One Year War, rose to prominence by the Federation strongarming the defeated Zeon's own defense contractors into being subsidized by Anaheim. Because of this, the company's ranks included enough people sympathetic to Zeon that they saw no problems with selling high-tech arms to both sides in subsequent conflicts. Although initially not suffering any consequences from doing so, Anaheim's backers in the Vist Foundation were eventually unmasked as blackmailing the Federation government to be left alone; once the truth came out, it eventually cost Anaheim their monopoly in the mobile suit development and manufacturing industry due to the Federation, no longer considering Anaheim reliable, forming the Strategic Naval Research Institute as their own in-house competitor.
** ''Anime/MobileSuitGundamSEED'' has this happen to the Orb Union. Being only one of three areas on Earth that isn't backing either the Earth Alliance or ZAFT (the others being the Kingdom of Scandinavia and the Equatorial Union) and one of the few areas that has the resources and manpower to theoretically protect said resources, it becomes the target of invasion once Blue Cosmos takes over the Earth Alliance. In ''Anime/MobileSuitGundamSEEDDestiny'', the Orb leaders are so terrified of a repeat performance that they strongarm Cagalli into siding with the Earth Alliance and yet they're ''still'' invaded late into the series, this time by ZAFT.
* In ''Literature/KinosJourney'', one particular story stands out; two kingdoms were stuck in a ForeverWar, until they realized that they simply liked murdering innocent people. Now they spend time together sacking all the neutral villages that stayed neutral in the conflict ''for sport''.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted on articles of impeachment towards President Creator/DonaldTrump, accusing him of abuse of power. While it passed on mostly party lines, one notable dissent was Hawaii Democratic representative and 2020 Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, who voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no". She reasoned that the entire impeachment ordeal waspurely political and that the voters should decide if Trump should go or not. Making matters worse was that she attempted to introduce a bill that would instead censure Trump rather than impeach him. Liberals and conservatives both called her out over this, feeling that she was trying to suck up to the other side at best or that Hillary Clinton's accusation of her being groomed by Republicans as a spoiler candidate, like Jill Stein was in 2016, might have some merit to it. Ironically, Gabbard's favorability numbers fell precipitously afterwards with Democrats, potentially harming her ability to serve as an effective spoiler.

to:

* On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted on articles of impeachment towards President Creator/DonaldTrump, accusing him of abuse of power. While it passed on mostly party lines, one notable dissent was Hawaii Democratic representative and 2020 Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, who voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no". She reasoned that the entire impeachment ordeal waspurely was purely political and that the voters should decide if Trump should go or not. Making matters worse was that she attempted to introduce a bill that would instead censure Trump rather than impeach him. Liberals and conservatives both called her out over this, feeling that she was trying to suck up to the other side at best or that Hillary Clinton's accusation of her being groomed by Republicans as a spoiler candidate, like Jill Stein was in 2016, might have some merit to it. Ironically, Gabbard's favorability numbers fell precipitously afterwards with Democrats, potentially harming her ability to serve as an effective spoiler. Since then, she has formally identified as an independent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Contrast WithUsOrAgainstUs, where one side declares someone the enemy by virtue of not being on their side, and NeutralNoLonger, where the neutral party is forced to pick a side during the war, either because they got conquered by that side during the conflict, or because one side's atrocities drove them into the other side's camp.

to:

Contrast WithUsOrAgainstUs, where one side declares someone the enemy by virtue of not being everyone ''not'' on their side, side an enemy, and NeutralNoLonger, where the neutral party is forced to pick a side during the war, either because they got conquered by that side during the conflict, or because one side's atrocities drove them into the other side's camp.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


Contrast WithUsOrAgainstUs and NeutralNoLonger, where the neutral party is forced to pick a side during the war, either because they got conquered by that side during the conflict, or because one side's atrocities drove them into the other side's camp.

to:

Contrast WithUsOrAgainstUs WithUsOrAgainstUs, where one side declares someone the enemy by virtue of not being on their side, and NeutralNoLonger, where the neutral party is forced to pick a side during the war, either because they got conquered by that side during the conflict, or because one side's atrocities drove them into the other side's camp.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In ''WesternAnimation/{{Amphibia}}'' episode "The Core and the King", [[spoiler:it's revealed that when Andrias's friend Leif betrayed him and stole the Calamity Box, their friend Barrel was torn on whether or not to stop Leif, with his indeceiveness allowing to get away with the box. As punishment, Andrias ordered him [[ReassignedToAntarctica to patrol the Northern regions]]]].

to:

* In ''WesternAnimation/{{Amphibia}}'' episode "The Core and the King", [[spoiler:it's revealed that when Andrias's friend Leif betrayed him and stole the Calamity Box, their friend Barrel was torn on whether or not to stop Leif, with his indeceiveness indecisiveness allowing to get away with the box. As punishment, Andrias ordered him [[ReassignedToAntarctica to patrol the Northern regions]]]].



* On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted on articles of impeachment towards President Creator/DonaldTrump, accusing him of abuse of power. While it passed on mostly party lines, one notable dissent was Hawaii Democratic representative and 2020 Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, who voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no". She reasoned that the entire impeachment ordeal with purely political and that the voters should decide if Trump should go or not. Making matters worse was that she attempted to introduce a bill that would instead censure Trump rather than impeach him. Liberals and conservatives both called her out over this, feeling that she was trying to suck up to the other side at best or that Hillary Clinton's accusation of her being groomed by Republicans as a spoiler candidate, like Jill Stein was in 2016, might have some merit to it. Ironically, Gabbard's favorability numbers fell precipitously afterwards with Democrats, potentially harming her ability to serve as an effective spoiler.

to:

* On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted on articles of impeachment towards President Creator/DonaldTrump, accusing him of abuse of power. While it passed on mostly party lines, one notable dissent was Hawaii Democratic representative and 2020 Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, who voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no". She reasoned that the entire impeachment ordeal with purely waspurely political and that the voters should decide if Trump should go or not. Making matters worse was that she attempted to introduce a bill that would instead censure Trump rather than impeach him. Liberals and conservatives both called her out over this, feeling that she was trying to suck up to the other side at best or that Hillary Clinton's accusation of her being groomed by Republicans as a spoiler candidate, like Jill Stein was in 2016, might have some merit to it. Ironically, Gabbard's favorability numbers fell precipitously afterwards with Democrats, potentially harming her ability to serve as an effective spoiler.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/AManForAllSeasons'': In the end, Thomas More's tragedy revolves around this. He does not likes the fact Henry the Fifth is creating his own schism Church, but he does not wishes to become collateral damage if he raises too much of a stink, so he resigns his office (without saying explicitly that it's in protest) and keeps mum about his opinion and tries to stay out of the way… and those who stand on Henry's side (for [[ProfessionalButtKisser one reason]] or another) decide he is an obstacle to Henry's ascension all the same and [[spoiler:give him a KangarooCourt and behead him.]]

to:

* ''Film/AManForAllSeasons'': In the end, Thomas More's tragedy revolves around this. He does not likes like the fact Henry the Fifth Eighth is creating his own schism schismatic Church, and therefore can’t bring himself to participate, but he does not wishes wish to become collateral damage if he raises make himself an enemy of the king by raising too much of a stink, so stink. Therefore he resigns his office (without saying explicitly that it's in protest) and protest), keeps mum about his opinion to himself, and tries to stay out of the way… and but those who stand on Henry's side (for [[ProfessionalButtKisser one reason]] or another) decide he is an obstacle to Henry's ascension policy all the same and [[spoiler:give him a KangarooCourt and behead him.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/AManForAllSeasons'': In the end, Thomas More's tragedy revolves around this. He does not likes the fact Henry the Fifth is creating his own schism Church, but he does not wishes to become collateral damage if he raises too much of a stink, so he ResignsInProtest (without saying explicitly that it's in protest) and keeps mum about his opinion and tries to stay out of the way… and those who stand on Henry's side (for [[ProfessionalButtKisser one reason]] or another) decide he is an obstacle to Henry's ascension all the same and [[spoiler:give him a KangarooCourt and behead him.]]

to:

* ''Film/AManForAllSeasons'': In the end, Thomas More's tragedy revolves around this. He does not likes the fact Henry the Fifth is creating his own schism Church, but he does not wishes to become collateral damage if he raises too much of a stink, so he ResignsInProtest resigns his office (without saying explicitly that it's in protest) and keeps mum about his opinion and tries to stay out of the way… and those who stand on Henry's side (for [[ProfessionalButtKisser one reason]] or another) decide he is an obstacle to Henry's ascension all the same and [[spoiler:give him a KangarooCourt and behead him.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/AManForAllSeasons'': In the end, Thomas More's tragedy revolves around this. He does not likes the fact Henry the Fifth is creating his own schism Church, but he does not wishes to become collateral damage if he raises too much of a stink, so he ResignsInProtest (without saying explicitly that it's in protest) and keeps mum about his opinion and tries to stay out of the way… and those who stand on Henry's side (for [[ProfessionalButtKisser one reason]] or another) decide he is an obstacle to Henry's ascension all the same and [[spoiler:give him a KangarooCourt and behead him.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* This is mainly the crux of the Mandalore storyline in ''WesternAnimation/StarWarTheCloneWars'' with Duchess Satine stubbornly clinging to her pacifist ideals and insisting Mandalore stay neutral during the Clone Wars. This results in her administration being toppled by the Death Watch and Maul’s syndicate and ultimately costs her her life.

to:

* This is mainly the crux of the Mandalore storyline in ''WesternAnimation/StarWarTheCloneWars'' ''WesternAnimation/StarWarsTheCloneWars'' with Duchess Satine stubbornly clinging to her pacifist ideals and insisting Mandalore stay neutral during the Clone Wars. This results in her administration being toppled by the Death Watch and Maul’s syndicate and ultimately costs her her life.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* This is mainly the crux of the Mandalore storyline in ''WesternAnimation/StarWarTheCloneWars'' with Duchess Satine stubbornly clinging to her pacifist ideals and insisting Mandalore stay neutral during the Clone Wars. This results in her administration being toppled by the Death Watch and Maul’s syndicate and ultimately costs her her life.

Top