Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum"I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman." -- Hillary Clinton in 2004.
Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That have been posting Bernie attacks.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)It's good that they have changed but I got to wonder if the change is because of politics as in ...say anything to get elected.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Primaries group, and still get their political digs in then.
Appreciate the heads up
olegramps
(8,200 posts)I was of the same opinion ten years ago, but I have definitely changed my mind on this subject. I have proposed that religious organizations should not be able to perform weddings, but free to provide their religious rituals. In Europe, such as in the Netherlands, the state oversees the contractual agreement and then couples can choose to have a religious ceremony. I think that this would put the subject in a more proper light rather than attempting to blend what is a contractual agreement with religion making it two separate issues.
rock
(13,218 posts)Then this was the mores of the country. The culture has shifted in that relatively short time. Thanks for reminding us.
djean111
(14,255 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)And you're not psychic?
Autumn
(48,962 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)I thought as much. But why tell a couple of knobs?
cprise
(8,445 posts)next to Hillary's face.
Response to George II (Reply #24)
moobu2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)That sounds more like a follower. Real leaders drive the discussion on issues that aren't that popular but are the right thing to do.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)Instead Hillary advanced the idea that gay marriage detracted from married hetero people, as if it were some zero-sum equation where things were given to people at the expense of other people.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)An actual leader does the right thing, then persuades the people that it is right.
:large^C^A^L^C^U^L^A^T^I^O^N
cprise
(8,445 posts)But no moreso than Hillary's 'H' which points to the Right.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Was Hillary wrong to believe the way she did in the first place? By your little happy gay pride flag I have to conclude you think she was wrong.
So if this was the mores of the country and this is what Hillary believed has she now changed because the mores have changed? If so then she is following and not leading, that's a bad bullet item on a resume when applying to be the leader of a Country.
We must always questions people's beliefs and motives when they are against civil rights, always.
rock
(13,218 posts)OK, it is complicated. But I'll try to explain as clearly as I can. Whether it is right for a politician to lead the constituency or follow it does not have a simple-minded rule. You may want to watch this episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" starting about 18:55.
Aunt Bee adopts the approach that I call, "What the people want the people shall get!" This is in general the proper solution. But in this episode, Howard, shows that sometimes it's necessary to lead the people and offer an alternative solution.
If you think I'm off my rocker (pun intended), that's OK. Go about you're business and don't worry about it.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...stuff that politicians "give" to people as a part of some material goal. When unpopular groups have their civil rights trampled, politicians should not jump on bandwagons that make those groups look like 'attackers' or 'takers' or anything of the sort.
Politicians who treat these basic rights issues like just any other issue -- like subsidies for new research or development or government-provided service -- are willing to play very dangerous games with our lives. Its no surprise to me this fickle blindness comes from Mrs. NAFTA; a person who quietly served on the Walmart Board of Directors while the company attacked unions and worker rights.
That's a good clip, BTW.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)someone running to be a Representative with someone that is running for President. One represents, bet you can't guess which one, and the other is the leader of a nation. Bet you can't guess what the leader of a nation does.
rock
(13,218 posts)It's hard.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)not the pollster, not the finger in the wind person, the LEADER.
One of us doesn't get that a good leader must know the right thing to do before most others even get out of bed.
No, it's not that hard.
delrem
(9,688 posts)e.g. GWB wasn't "the leader of the free world", unless you want to redefine the term "free".
He was the POTUS and, as as the MSM likes to drill into us, the Commander in chief of the US Army and Navy.
GWB wasn't elected by anyone except US citizens. I'm not a citizen of the USA and I resent the endless repetition of a mantra that corrupt or simply inept politicians like GWB are "leaders of the free world". We have our own problems in Canada, Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., and US politicians like GWB were not elected by the rest of the world to solve them for us - much as politicans like GWB like to use military power to impose their "solutions".
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)but that is a title often given by the media and others. As for the example you use, I have never referred to him as my President nor was he even legally elected the first time and probably not the second time either.
My point was to state that a President should be a leader not a follower, poll taker, or hold their finger to the wind.
As for Bush, I would never foist him upon anyone nor did I want him myself.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Or maybe Earnest T Bass. Now theres a man who spoke his mind.
I think that Hillary and those of us who came to understand this issue over a period of time deserve credit for changing our minds.
still_one
(98,883 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
jalan48
(14,914 posts)To see her speak like this as late as 2004 makes me seriously question her values and sincerity.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Only 11 years ago.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)Personally, Id like to see someone who has a vision of the future, a leader, not someone who simply reflects the beliefs and prejudices of the masses.
6chars
(3,967 posts)when it becomes personal and not just theoretical, a lot of people have changed their views.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Surely not...?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Look at the Dixie Swastika...the whole nation had a change of heart and mind!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)Her "change of heart" was purely political. The only thing that changed with her was her political calculations. I would rather support someone like Bernie who has supported gay rights during his entire long political career, not just recently.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The political winds are changing, and Hillary "finger in the air" Clinton is astute enough to know when to shift her views. If there is enough groundswell against the corporate takeover of America, she will abandon her corporate masters.........at least until she is sworn in, and then it's business as usual in prostituting herself to the highest corporate bidder.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)And next President!
Thanks for promoting our Democratic Choice!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)TBF
(36,669 posts)now if only she would progress on economic issues.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)As soon as she's raised enough.
George II
(67,782 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)To answer your question - Fox?
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Now that's just obtuse.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)there are also the other ones out there. She is good at sticking her finger in the winds and saying what people want to here in her closed invitation only events.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)position? Who is naive enough to believe that she would? Contrast her with Bernie who had the political courage to support full gay rights back when it was a politically risky position.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She has done nothing except carry out the presidents executive orders
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts).....they were born potty trained.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)this >>>
<<< is what's politically expedient now.

zeemike
(18,998 posts)Whether he would have been portrayed as evolving or whether he would be called a homophobe.
And if he had voted for the war a war monger or just misled?
Politics can produce some strange thinking.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)... LBJ used to oppose civil rights before the civl rights act and the voting rights act. Elizabeth Warren was once a Republican.
Peoples views and out looks change for a better and we should welcome those people who once didn't see the light.
Fridays ruling wouldn't have been possible if people who once opposed equality didn't change their minds.
riversedge
(80,811 posts)to progress. I am glad Hillary has advanced in her thinking (along with Obama and countless others in the USA).
wolfie001
(7,667 posts)....I'm voting for her but all things being equal, that was no "Profile in Courage" moment.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)But I am still glad that she finally came around. Just makes me wonder though.
willbee
(15 posts)and a very wealthy one. She'll be whoever you want her to be.
However, when you wash out the hair dye, strip off the outer layers, and get down to the grit, she's the same old leopard with the same old big money spots.
Hillary Clinton is one of the main reasons people should vote for Bernie Saunders.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)That is the sad truth...
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)The way she half-heartedly borrows progressive slogans and points makes me cringe. The Fox news types attack Hillary whenever she does this, because its easy to tell that she and her people are not capable of adequately defending those positions. They sense the insincerity like sharks sense blood in the water; She is the type of 90s 'liberal' they are used to getting their way with.

cprise
(8,445 posts)n/t
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Who do you think she's going to work for on foreign policy, the people of the U.S or the Pentagon?
zentrum
(9,870 posts)
.seems odd to let public opinion/mores decide on civil rights.
Glad Bernie has always had clarity on the difference between what's popular and what's constitutionally right.
delrem
(9,688 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)certain people that will yell in your face and accuse you of homophobia are SILENT now. Boomarking to use when I argue with said people again.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That's why I believe nothing she says while campaigning. Her only voters will be those who want to vote for a woman - any woman - and those like corporate rule in the US (e. g. those who think that Gingrinchcare is all we deserve). What a disaster for the party and democracy in general.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Chris Matthews: "Do you think New York should recognize gay marriage."
Hillary Clinton: "No."
Forward to about 2:10 for the full exchange.
It's nice that people evolve. For the benefit of the skeptical maybe she should offer a full explanation of her turnaround on a position she previously called "sacred".
tavalon
(27,985 posts)That said, I am pleased at how many people are changing their minds about various equality terms these days. Kudos to those who have changed their previously incorrect stances. Welcome to the flock. The more the better.
Response to L0oniX (Original post)
moobu2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)messaging - "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
Personally, I think she is insincere and was simply pandering to Christian Conservatives because polling at the time was stressing how much America was a "Christian nation." And I don't like that she would pander to the Right and throw the LGBTQ base under the bus.
Knowing that she is affiliated with The Family, a Christian Conservative organization, one must at least consider that her current stance is also insincere.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)savings bonds,lol.Sacred money,seems to me Bill and Hillary are having an affair with Goldman Sachs.Hope you die hard Clinton supporters are not too offended as its only comedy.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I am now. I have evolved. Humans do that. I am a lifelong Democrat. Does that make me an evil hypocrite? I wasn't running for anything. Some things don't change over night. Some eyes take longer to open than others. This purity test crap is getting old.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)she had an opportunity to step outside her political comfort zone.She is popular because of name regonition ,therefore she had ability to influence.Or spend some "political capitol."
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)haven't we?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)believed in marriage equality back then and simply parroted the "safe" answer. IMNSHO this makes her even more unfit to lead. Detestable.