Chelsea Manning running to abolish ICE, promote universal single payer healthcare and demilitarize. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14912243
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that you focus on this instead of Manning’s actual platform suggest that you do care.

Unless you are going to date Manning, which is unlikely seeing as how Maning would probably not date you, her gender identity has no impact on you whatsoever.

A public single-payer health care system, on the other hand, would impact you and your community by drastically reducing medical costs and drastically significantly improving medical outcomes.

Reducing the US military and its ventures would not only reduce your tax payments, but also stop anatagonising other countries, which would in turn reduce your risk of a terrorist attack.

And abolishing ICE would allow your labour underclass to have a voice and some rights, helping to end their exploitation.

But if you want to spend time thinking about Manning’s genitals instead, you do you.


No it's really simple, when you're convicted of violating the espionage act it seems reasonable that should disqualify one from holding public office never mind holding the trust of tax paying voters.
#14912272
Finfinder wrote:No it's really simple, when you're convicted of violating the espionage act it seems reasonable that should disqualify one from holding public office never mind holding the trust of tax paying voters.

http://www.newsweek.com/chelsea-manning-us-senate-maryland-criminal-record-780876
The Constitution does allow U.S citizens who have a criminal record to run for Congress, but state laws can be different. The only qualifications to run for U.S Senate in Maryland is to be at least 30-years-old, to have citizenship in the U.S for at least nine years, and live in the state at the time of the election.

It seems maybe it's your thinking that's simplistic. The law on the other hand is specific. Thank god for constitutions and laws.

Zam :eh:
#14912346
Finfinder wrote:No it's really simple, when you're convicted of violating the espionage act it seems reasonable that should disqualify one from holding public office never mind holding the trust of tax paying voters.


Considering that the information she made public was about the US war effort, she actually did most people in the world, and the US, a favour. So, that is actually a big plus for her.
#14912521
Zamuel wrote:
It seems maybe it's your thinking that's simplistic. The law on the other hand is specific. Thank god for constitutions and laws.

Zam :eh:
Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering that the information she made public was about the US war effort, she actually did most people in the world, and the US, a favour. So, that is actually a big plus for her.


The hypocrisy is staggering. They support a treasonous convicted criminal who pretends to be a woman, yet they rail against a legitimately elected president and pretend there was Russian collusion. Can't make this shit up.
#14912528
Finfinder wrote:The hypocrisy is staggering. They support a treasonous convicted criminal who pretends to be a woman, yet they rail against a legitimately elected president and pretend there was Russian collusion. Can't make this shit up.


First of all, being a hypocrite (if I am one) does not mean my argument is wrong. Someone can be a hypocrite and still correct in their statements.

Secondly, if Manning acted against the interests of the US military, it should only be considered treason if the interests of the US military and the US people are aligned. This is not the case.

Thirdly, Manning is a woman for all intents and purposes, but your weird fixation on her genitals and whatnot is weird and irrelevant.

Fourth, it is perfectly fine to criticise sitting presidents. In fact, it is a duty of democratic citizens to do so.

Fifth, feel free to find a post of mine where I argue there was collusion with Russia. If not, I accept your apology.
#14912538
Finfinder wrote:They support a treasonous convicted criminal

Nope, not treasonous. "Aiding the enemy" was the one charge she was acquitted of.

yet they rail against a legitimately elected president and pretend there was Russian collusion.

The jury's still out on that one, but there is a large mob outside with a rope.

Zam :knife:
#14912909
Pants=of-Dog wrote:Thirdly, Manning is a woman for all intents and purposes, but your weird fixation on her genitals and whatnot is weird and irrelevant.


Hi, I've just been reading along, and I like all your posts in this thread. Respect.

I agree, Manning's gender is not the issue. Her platform is. The only real problem I have with any of it is the fact that in joining with reformers her message will be watered down to it's most acceptable mainstream political sound byte, then will be incorrectly debated on points she never suggested were part of her platform, and she will effectively suffer death by red herring, or simple acclimation to the one true Democratic Party way.

I have no faith in her revolutionary spirit, at this point, though if she were to break away from the Democrats, I'd be all the way down.
#14913059
Morgan Le Fey wrote:I have no faith in her revolutionary spirit, at this point, though if she were to break away from the Democrats, I'd be all the way down.


Independents don't get elected in the U.S political system. The 2 major parties prevent that and so does First Past The Post. Derr!
#14913309
redcarpet wrote:Independents don't get elected in the U.S political system. The 2 major parties prevent that and so does First Past The Post. Derr!


Are you suggesting I'm not aware of all that and have taken up my position out of ignorance?

Are you a Democrat yourself, or do you vote for them?

I'm sorry but working with a big business party in any capacity only forces one to compromise on positions of labor the real left has no business compromising on. I refuse to do it, and as I don't see voting as a legit option in fixing the problems, I remain comfortable with it.
#14913494
Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, being a hypocrite (if I am one) does not mean my argument is wrong. Someone can be a hypocrite and still correct in their statements.

Thirdly, Manning is a woman for all intents and purposes, but your weird fixation on her genitals and whatnot is weird and irrelevant.
.


Hypocrite yea please provide where I even mention genitals. Why is it you always make up lies when posting?
#14913530
Finfinder wrote:Hypocrite yea please provide where I even mention genitals. Why is it you always make up lies when posting?


Please note that you have ignored every actual point I made, as well as ignoring all the criticisms I have made of your position.

If you choose to talk about how offended you are rather than the actual topic, feel free. But I will not help you do it. I am not here to help you discuss your feelings.
#14913541
Morgan Le Fey wrote:Umm... What was cheap about anything I said?

"I'm sorry but working with a big business party in any capacity only forces one to compromise on positions of labor the real left has no business compromising on. I refuse to do it, and as I don't see voting as a legit option in fixing the problems, I remain comfortable with it."

You seem to be saying "please excuse me while I sit on my ass and do nothing but whine."

Zam :hmm:
#14913544
Zamuel wrote:You seem to be saying "please excuse me while I sit on my ass and do nothing but whine."

Zam :hmm:


It is a legitimate criticism of which I am guilty. I can not force myself to vote based upon the choices I am given. I carefully watched the three Republican Senate candidates in the primary. I didn’t like any of them. Why should I cast a vote when I don’t see any of them really offering anything? I agree with your criticism, but I often don’t see an alternative to not voting that I am comfortable with.
#14913554
Zamuel wrote:You seem to be saying "please excuse me while I sit on my ass and do nothing but whine."


And you seem quite overly critical for someone who, from all obvious reads, tends to agree with me on the gist of this issue.

I'm not going to bother explaining my private life to you, or how I've "earned my political stripes". I simply have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. If you don't want to take what I say at face value, I don't really care... like, at all.

If you think you will change one thing about Capitalism or this country by voting, I think you are the one sitting on your own ass doing extremely little, and expecting things to fall in your lap.

On the contrary, people get things done by doing. I can plant, farm, shoot, hunt if I have too, I can fish, take care of babies, take care of children. I know and understand the English language fairly well (and bits of Spanish and French), and I fight for and with my sisters who either can't do that or can't do it alone.

Wasting my time justifying myself to you just seems like an exercise in stroking your own narcissism, and I don't see any reason to do that. So, whatever shoe of mine you tried putting on that you felt just didn't fit you very well, well... sorry about that, it's my shoe, I'm not ashamed of it and snarky comments aren't going to convince me to be ashamed. :D

Have a nice day man!

[quote="One Degree"]It is a legitimate criticism of which I am guilty. I can not force myself to vote based upon the choices I am given. I carefully watched the three Republican Senate candidates in the primary. I didn’t like any of them. Why should I cast a vote when I don’t see any of them really offering anything? I agree with your criticism, but I often don’t see an alternative to not voting that I am comfortable with.[/quote="One Degree"]

I've turned in various blank ballot for 12 years now. I see no reason why doing this isn't a legit criticism of the entire system. I mean, we had Hill Dawg or Doofus to vote for last year.

That's like asking me to choose between the char at the bottom of the skillet and the rotten, 3 month old grease in the oven trap. Either way I'm getting something disgusting that does absolutely nothing for me or anyone I know. Refusing to pick from those options, especially if more of the people who felt like I do did so, WOULD begin having a real effect. I can't help it if I'm just the trend setter here.

I'll wait while everyone catches up! *files her nails*

Edit- not sure why my quote fix-thingy didn't work. :P
#14913564
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that you have ignored every actual point I made, as well as ignoring all the criticisms I have made of your position.

If you choose to talk about how offended you are rather than the actual topic, feel free. But I will not help you do it. I am not here to help you discuss your feelings.


I'm not offended this is an internet forum you place too much value in who cares what you write. I was directly rebutting your complete fabrication. You in tern are justifying your lie. Its not surprising.
#14913569
One Degree wrote:It is a legitimate criticism of which I am guilty. I can not force myself to vote based upon the choices I am given. I carefully watched the three Republican Senate candidates in the primary. I didn’t like any of them. Why should I cast a vote when I don’t see any of them really offering anything? I agree with your criticism, but I often don’t see an alternative to not voting that I am comfortable with.

Ok … that's irresponsible but reasonable … You tried.

Morgan Le Fey wrote:I'll wait while everyone catches up! *files her nails*

You didn't.

Zam
#14913571
Finfinder wrote:I'm not offended this is an internet forum you place too much value in who cares what you write. I was directly rebutting your complete fabrication. You in tern are justifying your lie. Its not surprising.


You seem very upset with me. Please note that you are not discussing the thread topic.

—————————

I find it interesting that she can run for office at all, since she was convicted of crimes.
#14913577
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it interesting that she can run for office at all, since she was convicted of crimes.

One more time -

“http://www.newsweek.com/chelsea-manning-us-senate-maryland-criminal-record-780876
The Constitution does allow U.S citizens who have a criminal record to run for Congress, but state laws can be different. The only qualifications to run for U.S Senate in Maryland is to be at least 30-years-old, to have citizenship in the U.S for at least nine years, and live in the state at the time of the election.”


Zam :roll:
Iranian Situation...

The Saudis are not positioning themselves as enem[…]

Actually, if you watch pron you will have the ima[…]

What part of "look at newly installed capaci[…]

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson has slammed t[…]