At least 17 years!

[TM99]

429. Here is the deal that so many of y'all don't get.

Someone who takes 17 years to arrive at a now common consensus position as politician has a history of being on the wrong side of what is right. They have said and done things that are at odds with civil rights for all. Changing position on LGBT rights and finally speaking out when an election is imminent creates a trust issue.

Do I want a candidate who has been consistent and congruent and therefore is and has been trustworthy even before an issue became a 'common consensus position'?

Or do I want a candidate who has not been consistent and congruent and therefore is untrustworthy? Did they believe LGBT rights were not important but now are? Why not then? Why now? Saying 'all of us' have evolved is not even a first person admission of remorse and change. It is fucking third person!

Clinton has a history of lies & manipulations. I do not easily trust her given that history. This is just another issue to be concerned about.

Finally, the Third Way lie is that all Democratic candidates are basically equal except who is electable because of money and name-recognition. Well, they are not. Clinton may now be socially liberal as meets Democrats requirements but she was not always. She is not progressive in her economic policies like traditional Democrats (she is solidly neo-liberal). Nor is she progressive in her foreign policy positions like traditional Democrats (she is solidly neo-con with a history of lies and support for the surveillance state, the Patriot Act, and growing the War on Terrah!).