Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
If that isn't hypocrisy on their part, I don't know what is...
edited 15th Jan '18 10:17:56 AM by GamesandTropes
Oh, bother.
The word for that is chutzpah. Or maybe it's horseshit.
And yes, I did steal that from a John Oliver bit. I make no apologies.
Disgusted, but not surprised
Well, I agree with that. Being Jewish, that was the other word that came to mind.
x4 They've been doing a fine job of that themselves. They don't need us to help them.
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/47/shredding-the-putin-playbook/
edited 15th Jan '18 1:53:53 PM by megaeliz
Cape Malleum Majorem
I agree with the general consensus that political ads should say more than: "Their Side Bad!!! Ergo, Vote For Me!!!"
So just what the F*** does Manning stand for, anyway?? (We can pretty much guess what s/he stands against... but that doesn't tell us much of anything.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
There's no need for "s/he" - Manning's a trans woman, ergo you should use "she".
Oh God! Natural light!
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
Speaking of "how are these people going to campaign":
I’m counting my lucky stars that most of the thread, no matter how critical of Manning, has refused to misgender her.
A procrastination in of itself
I’d rather we clear to bar of all not most of the thread refusing to engage in slurs.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
It's not a difficult bar to clear.
It's been fun.
Honestly, yes.
I don't think that the people who frequent this thread are likely to misgender people, which is nice. ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
Honestly, I've been getting the feeling that certain people are likely to jump to Manning's defense despite what she's actually being criticized on, because she's transgender and they're so ready for that to be mentioned or brought up as an issue.
Which is understandable, but people here have only criticized her actions, and nothing else. And since she's decided to put herself out there with a senatorial campaign, that means she's open to (fair) scrutiny like anyone else.
edited 15th Jan '18 4:52:46 PM by LSBK
Or you know some of us could think that whistle-blowers are a fundamental part of keeping the government in line and to prevent it from abusing its own citizens, that's always an option too.
Its not like that is incompatible with voting blue, thinking that people have some rights that the government has no right crossing.
use political terms to describe, not insult
![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
From what I've gathered, the issue was never that Manning was a whistleblower, it's that she went about blowing her whistle in the worst way possible, needlessly putting people in danger as a direct result of her actions.
Yeah, I'm sure other whistleblowers would be defended as well. In the same way people have been jumping in to defend Manning from criticisms that aren't even about the her whistelblowing? Not so sure about that.
And also this.
edited 15th Jan '18 5:37:47 PM by LSBK
Oh, bother.
It's not even really the whistleblowing in and of itself that is the main issue for most on this thread (though I admittedly find the careless manner she did it to be a bad move).
It's that this has no real chance ending with her winning, and a (admittedly very slim) chance of her costing the Democratic Party a seat. Even the people who are defending her in this thread have said things like "oh she won't possibly win the primary so she won't endanger the seat!" No one here thinks she can actually win the primary and the general.
To add insult to injury, her very first ad has given us precisely jack shit in terms of telling us why anyone should vote for her. Just vague "Other side bad!" bullshit. With the implication that the "other side" isn't just the GOP, it's the "establishment" Democratic Party. And I for one am utterly sick of that narrative.
edited 15th Jan '18 5:37:01 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
She probably feels invigorated, ironically, by Trump's victory. If a completely unqualified candidate in the pockets of the Russians could win, so can a former US soldier who leaked data that compromise their own sides' activities!
That standpoint I can agree with, and it is where I stand myself here, but it still gets annoying when 2 days later were still going on about manning's one add.
....
Surely something else has happened in that time frame given the clusterfuck that is the government right now.
The problem is ideally vs reality, Ideally? yes yes she would have, but the reality is that she tried, and neither the Post nor the Times could take it, and then Assange wouldn't let her redact anything.
Which is much more understandable then just blurting the information out there, she TRIED to be responsible about it and it blew up in her face.
edited 15th Jan '18 5:49:14 PM by Imca
I'm not sure how understandable that is actually. If she knew she couldn't do it responsibly (or as responsibly as possible anyway) then it's still on her for going through with it.
Oh, bother.
But even that kind of rings hollow. As someone else pointed out, she could have gone to another newspaper. And Assange didn't "force" her to do anything. She just decided that if it came down to not being able to release it and releasing it without redacting or even reading anything, she'd rather release it. If anyone got hurt in the process...well clearly it wasn't a high priority for her.
![[nja]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/user_ninja_2074.png "[nja]"){kind=small}
edited 15th Jan '18 5:52:36 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
And I think that is where the majority of the split lies, her defenders think that its a good thing she went through any way rather then be silanced, and others don't
Personaly I lean to the former, because otherwise it becomes way to easy for the government to shut whistle-blowers up by making it impossible for them to release information in the exact specific way that is okay.... which creates issues as well.
So apparently Aziz Ansari has been accused of sexual impropriety, but in his case, it was after a formal date with her. Bari Weiss at the NY Times and Caitlin Flanagan at The Atlantic seem largely unimpressed by her account,
Thoughts?
As for me, definitely agree that it was scuzzy of him to pressure her like that, but one thing that's true in my experience (not sure about others') is that guys, myself included, can be very, very dense and slow on the uptake when it comes to subtle clues, whether in dating or sex.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
I bring it up primarily because, at least in the estimation of the aforementioned contributors to the NY Times and The Atlantic, this could lead to a "bad turn" in the #MeToo movement, where it might be less focused on serial offenders and more focused on so many microaggressions that it effectively defangs itself, as the public at large might consider it Crying Wolf. Think of it similar to criticism of Obama's administration - while there were legitimate grievances to be had (e.g. the drone strike program, wiretapping/data-collecting, etc.), they were overshadowed by the perpetual controversy machine over at Fox, causing most people to just tune it out entirely.
edited 15th Jan '18 6:25:54 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
If she had just exposed US warcrimes that'd be one thing, but to link sensitive state department materials and classified discussions with many governments?
I have no excuse for that.
She served her time, and I'm glad Obama commuted her sentence as she was being treated inhumanely, but she can better spend her time and political capital (what little she has,) to fighting for progressive ideas, mainly on the LGBT front.
She has about as business being a US Senator as Trump does being the President.
New Survey coming this weekend!
Russian foreign minister berates US for 'destabilizing' world
Yeah, well, maybe your country shouldn't have fucking meddled.