Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
If only that were surprising.
More recently, somehow in this same vein, somebody "called out" Troian Bellisario for playing one of the white leads in Pretty Little Liars even though she's also biracial (in response to a whitewashing story. of course).
I mean, it's not like news sources are any better with the way they'll spout out clearly hateful twitter posts to appear "neutral".
This isn't really a comment on the topic, so I do not expect you to argue or anything, but it made me feel like sharing this story.
I'm betting that she'd be better than Cardin on policy, more progressive, not voting for bombing places, supporting things like Medicare For All, etc. As a legislator I feel like she'd be a big improvement. And I will always be grateful for what she did as a whistleblower.
Even so, I used to follow her on Twitter and I eventually felt the need to not only unfollow her, but block her so that I didn't have to see retweets of her from other people, because some of what she had to say upset me a lot.
For example, I'm no fan of antifa or their attitude of "go after and beat up all the fascists, with fascists being defined very broadly" as I think I mentioned here previously. Chelsea's pretty much embraced them and their ideology.
What's strange is that this is at odds with the ACLU's position, since the ACLU defends the First Amendment rights of even Nazis (as in, people who freely admit they are Nazis instead of just being labeled as such, who carry around swastika flags and shit). Chelsea--and I'm gonna say that it SEEMS this way, because I can't be completely sure--doesn't agree. Antifa's position is that these kinds of people can't be allowed to speak, since that will lead to America turning into the second coming of Nazi Germany or something, and that the best thing to do is to run up on them and beat the shit out of them before they can get out word one. "We can't afford to wait and see if they start the violence themselves before employing violence!" If Chelsea feels the same, then she's at odds with the same ACLU that helped her out so much, and that she's been pretty tight with since her release.
Last: the campaign ad she made is, in my humble opinion, damned creepy. Watching it, I felt like I was being told "Look at these authoritarian scum. You should hate them. You should want to stop them by any means necessary. It's us against them, and there's no room for compromise because these are just evil people who cannot be reasoned with, every last one of them."
TL;DR: I feel like Chelsea Manning the Senator would vote the right way most of the time and that Cardin cannot be counted on to do that, but that Chelsea Manning the person is full of hatred and favours violence way too much. If I were in Maryland, I'd vote for her, but I'd feel like I was voting for a lesser evil instead of an overall wonderful person.
you mean every election ever >_>
Anyways I have a feeling that either she'd tone down her stuff once she actually got into power or she'll definitely never make it because I don't think the broader American left has a thing for extremists.
Is this supposed to sound ironic?
Since it's still technically legal to say things that antifa doesn't like, they feel fully justified in doing everything they can to "make Nazis afraid again". That's one of their slogans. They figure that the way to keep people from marching with torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us" is to inflict severe bodily harm on anybody and everybody who does that, so that they're too frightened to ever do it again.
What ties does she have to the state of Maryland?
And this isn't just flirting with actual fascism?
This is what their critics say, yes. They don't listen.
I'm unaware of what ties she has there. I also agree that she needs to talk about policy and not just fearmonger about the scary Trump people and the scary police. Just being against them won't work out for her any better than I think it will for more centrist Democrats. You have to be for something.
For what this is worth, she's since gone on the record saying she's in favour of universal basic income. So that's one.
Yup.
THAT sounds good to me (if nothing else, I think the burden of proof to get authorization to spy on people should be higher than it currently is with FISA courts).
As for being against the establishment, yeah, that makes things more difficult than if you had its backing. It would not surprise me if she lost. However, Maryland is apparently a pretty progressive state (perhaps that's why she's running there), and sometimes people whom the establishment refuses to help do end up winning. Here's an example:
https://newrepublic.com/article/145727/socialist-beat-one-virginias-powerful-republicans
People get upset about that, she tweets that she was crashing it and confronting the fascists in their space like she learned to do in prison, but no explanation beyond that. She apparently wasn't confrontational. I do not get what she was hoping to accomplish.
I don't even know anymore. All I can think to say is that if you assume you can do what-the-fuck-ever when running for public office and that everybody who's open to voting for you will give you the benefit of the doubt no matter what, you're being very stupid and you might as well be TRYING to lose.
It didn't occur to me to mention this at the time, but I think Jeremy Corbyn vs. Theresa May was an exception. YMMV, but Corbyn seems like an extremely good person to me.
I read an article today about how Donald Trump was/is actually secretly very effective, but it feels like it's giving too much credit to what is essentially a Republican sockpuppet.
destroying the world as we known it[insert something essentially this but not as alarming], but I did also read something that was like "Donald Trump is good for the left because he's mobilizing them" which feels like it's more one of those side-effects that's listed at the very end of a very suspicious sort of medicine.