HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » LGBT (Group) » Should We Care About Hill...

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 04:48 PM

 

Should We Care About Hillary Clinton's Anti-LGBT Past?

Secular Talk

20 replies, 2390 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should We Care About Hillary Clinton's Anti-LGBT Past? (Original post)
Smarmie Doofus Feb 2016 OP
LW1977 Feb 2016 #1
Amimnoch Feb 2016 #3
Smarmie Doofus Mar 2016 #15
Politicalboi Feb 2016 #2
Coolest Ranger Mar 2016 #17
LostOne4Ever Mar 2016 #18
dsc Feb 2016 #4
Bagsgroove Feb 2016 #5
Meldread Feb 2016 #6
Old Union Guy Feb 2016 #7
backscatter712 Feb 2016 #8
Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #10
Fearless Mar 2016 #12
dbackjon Mar 2016 #13
LostOne4Ever Mar 2016 #14
Smarmie Doofus Mar 2016 #9
Fearless Mar 2016 #11
Coolest Ranger Mar 2016 #16
Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #19
OhZone Mar 2016 #20

Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 05:02 PM

1. No!!

Times have changed and so has she!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LW1977 (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 06:52 PM

3. Agree.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LW1977 (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 04:17 PM

15. Times have... indeed... changed.

 

And, well..... so has Ms. Clinton.

And changed. And changed AGAIN. AND CHANGED AGAIN!

AND YET AGAIN! AND AGAIN!

Here's "THE QUESTION": Do the multiple changes bring up any other concerns with which we should sensibly be "concerning " ourselves ?


"Tonight.... the light..... of love is in your eyes;

But will you love me.......* tomorrow*?"

(OK: I'll go out on a limb: The Chrystals?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 05:04 PM

2. Why bother, she lies about that too

 

She goes with the wind, and leaves a lot wind behind her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:31 AM

17. This is the Hillary Clinton group

Please take your negativity out to General Discussion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coolest Ranger (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:25 AM

18. No, it is the LGBT group. I think you are "Lost." Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 08:22 PM

4. Dan Savage had a great post about this very thing

http://www.newnownext.com/dan-savage-goes-off-on-democrats-who-cant-forgive-hillary-clinton-for-past-gay-marriage-stance/02/2016/

Queer people who are doing this? We’re f**king ourselves with this shit, not Clinton. Stop it,” he wrote in one of his columns this week.

“Straight people who are doing this shit?” he added. “You may be hurting Clinton, but you’re also hurting the queers you claim to care so much about. Stop it.”

He went on to call these Clinton criticisms “f**king moronic” and “political malpractice.”

“Hillary Clinton’s support for marriage equality may be a political calculation,” Savage wrote. “And you know what? We worked hard to change the math so that those political calculations would start adding up in our favor. So sincere change of heart or political calculation — either way — I will take it.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 09:00 PM

5. It's pointless to hold it against her

I'm with Savage on this one. We all know that Hillary puts the finger to polling winds on every issue, gay rights included. But keep in mind, President Obama spent month after agonizing month "evolving" on the question of marriage equality and only reached his final evolution after Gallup told him the public had passed the 50% mark in favor. (A bit of a push from Joe Biden helped too.)

This is what politicians do. We don't have to like them or admire them or believe they are sincere. We simply need to make a rational judgment about which politician would be most likely to advance the causes we care about. And on that basis, we win with either Hillary or Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 03:02 PM

6. No, I'm with both Savage and Signorile.

Savage is absolutely right that it goes against our political interests to hold Hillary responsible for her past actions. We worked hard to move people from the position she held to the position that she holds today. Whether she moved because of a political calculation or moral reasons is not relevant. What matters is that she is on our side now.

You could argue that it speaks to her character that she was likely making cynical political calculations, but as Dan Savage points out in his article, Bernie Sanders was doing the same thing. That is what politicians do. It is political malpractice for us to shoot down people who have "reformed" themselves to stand strongly with us on the issues as both Hillary and Bernie Sanders do now.

Then as Michelangelo Signorile pointed out in an article he wrote a couple weeks ago, our focus should be on what promises they are making right now, and they should be judged on what they want to do for us in the future. Both of them have tried to "justify" their past positions on marriage equality, and obscure their past from us--if not rewrite it entirely. What matters is that they both are with us now.

Thus, how I am judging the candidates based on the issues is two-fold. First, who seems to be most concerned about our issues, and is making promises that we can hold them too in the future. Second, who is most likely to work most effectively from the White House to further our issues both in the Congress as well as Nationwide by taking on Governors and State Legislatures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 07:11 PM

8. To be blunt, I don't trust her.

She didn't "evolve" on marriage equality until 2013.

It's great that she did evolve, but did she do so because she genuinely believes in equal rights for the LGBTQIA community, or just to score political points after marriage equality became popular.

And who's to say she won't throw the LGBT community aside if the popular mood shifts and she gets pressured to roll back gay rights?

No. I don't trust her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 11, 2016, 09:37 PM

10. x 2


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 13, 2016, 03:40 AM

12. It was CIVIL UNIONS she supported in 2013

It wasn't until the weekend after national polling showed 50%+ support for marriage equality that she came out in favor of it. Burying it on a slow news weekend day as well. That was 2015!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 01:02 PM

13. And Sanders didn't evolve until 2009

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 02:46 PM

14. If by 2009 you mean the 1970's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Fri Mar 11, 2016, 09:06 PM

9. Kick. RIP Nancy Reagan, anti-AIDS pioneer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Sun Mar 13, 2016, 03:39 AM

11. We should care about her IGNORANCE of our past CURRENTLY

As evidenced by the allies she thinks we have in Nancy Reagan and company. If she knew ANYTHING about us, she would have known the truth. She is only pandering to us for votes. I'm sure she still believes that marriage is meant for one man and one woman. At least then she was being honest about her own opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 12:27 PM

19. Yes, especially when she starts praising Nancy or cavorting with know homophbic religious leaders.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:22 PM

20. I think she's evolved honestly so no. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread