Chelsea Manning Files to Run for U.S. Senate in Maryland (washingtonpost.com) 315
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."
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Mixed feelings (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 b
Authoritarian character assassination (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
You just described the POTUS.
Just needs a twitter account and she is headed for the top.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. simply elects politicians with name recognition.
If Homer Simpson ran for office, he'd likely get elected.
Re: Mixed feelings (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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-
Re: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
>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 faili
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
According to this you would need to be earning well over 100k to see anything like that kind of cut: https://twocents.lifehacker.co... [lifehacker.com]
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: (Score:3)
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/... [cnn.com]
Seems you are making another general assessment without proper facts again. What cuts to healthcare have been made? Please cite your sources.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 unhapp
Re: (Score:3)
Oh and looking at the high end tax bracket. Yeah, I do see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
>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 d
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 procreati
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Sure. It's a mind in a body of the wrong sex. That's a disorder, all right.
listen fuckers (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:listen fuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Has there even been one single "Announced at CES" post this week? I dont remember seeing any.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you post the link to your firehose submission for those CES stories?
Re: (Score:2)
Clarification: I mean the ones you submitted of course.
CES was kinda boring this year (Score:2)
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,
Criminal? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state:
http://www.newsweek.com/chelse... [newsweek.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Her prefrontal cortex has grown quite a bit since then...
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Manning was convicted of espionage! (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.
You are saying like this is something even remotely intelligent.
Not so much (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to my question.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Um...qualification? (Score:2)
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 woul
Re: Um...qualification? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
"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? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I didn't contribute anything. What part of "conversation" didn't you understand? :)
Completely against this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least you didn't say US Air Force. I feel better now...
Let her run... (Score:2)
Good for herm! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 A
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but... (Score:2)
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 tha
makes sense (Score:2)
When will we stop backing criminals and start supporting honest leaders.
Reality Check: Manning up against an INCUMBENT. . (Score:2)
. . .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 ???
Maybe getting genitals cut off is worth it? (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you prefer your politicians to be criminals who haven't been caught yet... gotcha.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I see your point, but I'm just hoping that sometime, somewhere, there's a third option.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: What's with all the criminals running for Sena (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question does Chelsea use Linux?
Nah. "vi or emacs?" FTW.
And a close second is "boxers or briefs?" Oh, wait...
Roy Moore? (Score:2)
How is Roy Moore a criminal?
Accusations are meaningless without evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
He became the swamp; it a Zen thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: Traitor (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Traitor (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
I'll take her character over Trump's any day.