What has Chelsea Manning does that qualifies her to be a senator?

If Trump can be elected, such trivialities as qualifications are clearly irrelevant.

She did serve in the military. Why do you hate the troops?

And yeah. I would vote so hard for her.

As a whistle blower, she actually did something good for the people.

She leaked secret materials and is a transgender. That’s all the qualifications you need these days.

@seawulf575
And the Orangutan does not even have that.

Like qualifications are relevant anymore.

And no, while being broadly supportive of Manning personally, I probably would not vote for her for public office.

She’s an Iraq war veteran. If she were a male Iraq war veteran (whistleblowing aside) nobody would be saying anything untoward.

I would vote for her.

She has some of the same qualifications that got Trump:

* Doesn’t seem to be part of the conventional political establishment.
* Kind of sends a “fuck you” to normalcy.
* Has name recognition.
* Will at least be different.
* Gives some hope that something new will happen.
* Posts to Twitter.

On top of that, she lacks many of the many many horrible features of Trump:

* Seems to have the public good in mind, rather than personal enrichment.
* Not known for favoring corporate destruction of the environment.
* Forms complete sentences.
* Isn’t a misogynist.
* Isn’t a bigot.
* Shows courage.
* etc

Although I wouldn’t vote for her (unless she were running against Trump) because she is a convicted traitor.

@johnpowell – are you nuts? I never said anything about the troops – love or hate. Where did you get that from?

That said, simply being in the army does not qualify anyone to be a senator. There are other qualifications, I would think.

Great.. What do think qualifies you to be a Senator?

It’s really, really sad that we have to mention Trump as a standard for anything.

I get it. But I wish he was seen as a hick up. Not a normal way going forward.

She is a convicted traitor. We’ll see where Trump sits after the investigation….

And there you have the dilemma. Is it a good or a bad thing that ANYONE can run for office? That is a precept that we have been taught from birth, and while we might find the idea noble and uplifting, we are now faced with the less enobling truth around ANYONE. might be elected.

^The dilemma is in the qualifications. Anyone can be a doctor too. That is, anyone can pursue the educational requirements, and experience to become an accredited/official physician.

You have to go through training, or be assured of your qualifications in almost every field, in America. To run the entire country, you just have to have been born here, and not died for 35 years. Does that sound reasonable?

I don’t understand why the stipulations for being a candidate for political office, or being a voter, have not been amended… Probably because it wouldn’t be done in a fair, bipartisan way…

It blows my mind that anyone would take issue with the fact that anyone meeting the qualifications could run for office. More diverse people need to run, stop being lazy & letting only old white guys run this country. (no offense to old white guys)

Also, keep in mind who she’s running against. Ben Cardin authored this piece of sh*t last year.

I am opposed to BDS but I agree with you, that is a bad bill. I’m glad I don’t live in Maryland.

Not only is it a bad bill. It is about the worst thing that could happen for the cause it supposedly espouses. The thing would be overturned by the courts before the ink dried on the bill. It would also bring loud focus on the BDS to people presently unaware of it but willing to participate.

Cardin was also one of the 4 Democrats to oppose Obama’s Iran deal.

That’s I’m okay with. I’m not crazy about the Iran deal either.