If Hillary "evolved" on gay rights shortly after majority opinion did...

[last1standing]

How can we trust her not to "evolve" further if she finds it's in her interests?

If the country experiences a "moral" backlash in a couple of years, will President Clinton propose another DOMA or DADT?

This isn't a simple attack on Hillary, it's a genuine personal concern based on her past positions and how they have affected me and those I love.

How can the LGBT community trust that Hillary won't turn on us if it becomes convenient to do so?

[leftofcool]

1. Another post suggesting Hillary is just an extension of her husband.

[last1standing]

3. Another response evading an answer.

n/t

[leftofcool]

6. Sexist hogwash is not worth answering.

[last1standing]

10. LOL! In that case, homophobic responses aren't worth taking seriously.

[pangaia]

115. Right or wrong, I don't see what it has to do with her husband or sexism.

[840high]

144. I don't see "sexist".

[Agschmid]

146. Another rediculous OP.

Unrec again...

[cali]

13. how is the op suggesting she's an extension of Bill?

The facts are that she opposed equality on the issue for years, using religious rhetoric about the sanctity of hetero marriage to do so, only embracing equality about a year ago, and she verbally supported DOMA. At the time she was spouting off her religious opposition to equality, anyone who posted that crap here, would have been labeled a bigot and booted.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, since Hillary was still touting the 'sanctity of marriage' as a defense against supporting

marriage equality for Gays as late as 2013, we can hardly blame her husband for that, unless you are saying she was merely supporting his position on marriage equality. I do not agree, this was HER opinion, two years ago.

[Old Union Guy]

94. I suggest that Bill was always an extension of Hillary.

Back in 1992 people were saying she was the brains of the family.
And not saying it in disparagement at that point.

[Duckhunter935]

2. I don't

[NorthCarolina]

4. She can only 'evolve' within the bounds of her benefactors largesse. eom

[cali]

5. I don't think that's fair. It's true that not only did she show no leadership

on the issue, but she used the toxic religious rhetoric about the sanctity of hetero only marriage to oppose equality, but I don't think you can jump from her political timidity to suggest that she'd backtrack.

[last1standing]

7. I think we can.

Bill came into office with good intentions but ended his terms producing two of the worst pieces of legislation designed to institutionalize homophobic bigotry. There are many theories for why that happened, but the fact remains, he did it.

Based on Hillary's record, I don't see her being much different. Only a few years ago, she was telling us that God thought less of gay people. That changed soon after majority opinion did and I don't trust it not to change again if the polls suggest a backlash.

[OKNancy]

9. When did she say God thought less of gay people?

Perhaps you can find a link to that statement?

[last1standing]

11. When she said that marriage was between a man and a woman.

I can find the link but I think you remember it.

Sorry Nancy, but it's true that Hillary has in no way led on this issue and only changed her stance when the polls flipped. This is a valid concern.

[OKNancy]

16. I actually posted an article in my other post in this thread

with the quotes, but I never felt it was saying in the eyes of god they were lesser people.
Of course I don't believe in god.

[last1standing]

17. If it wasn't for religious reasons, what other reason would she oppose marriage equality?

So far as I've ever seen, there's never been a good reason to oppose it, only religion and outright homophobia.

I don't think Hillary is homophobic so it leaves only religion in my mind.

[OKNancy]

37. Yes, you are right, Hillary is religious as is Obama

I don't hold it against either one.

[last1standing]

45. No offense, but it hit a little closer to home for me.

So I did hold it against them. I voted for Obama as he at least wasn't as bad as McCain on the issue, but he wasn't who I wanted to see as President based on his LGBT agenda.

We really never got a good choice for equal rights in 2008. That was a shame.

[Agschmid]

148. Clearly Obama was terrible on LGBT issues...

[Bluenorthwest]

74. The problem with this OP is that you are not looking at politics as it actually functions.

Your fear might have basis if candidates who are slow to support did not very often support strongly once elected, as Obama did. Obama ran doing the full 'God likes us better' routine, he had religious rallies with anti gay evangelicals. That was to get elected. It's not what he did once he was elected.
Also, it is odd to see DADT and DOMA presented as if they were stand alone negative anti gay shit done by Bill Clinton when that is just not the truth. DADT was not good law but prior to that you do understand that the military aggressively asked, that is they sought out gay people to discharge them, and those gay people when asked had to tell. Bill tried to do what Obama did, create equal service opportunities, but Republicans would have none of it, so this was as far as we got to go. DADT was in fact, halting, poorly crafted progress.
DOMA came to be to distract Republican attempts to make a Constitutional Amendment against marriage equality. If they had made such an Amendment the SCOTUS decision we just had would not have been possible. It sucked less than the other choice, and the other choice was not equality.

If DOMA hangs Hillary, then all of those DUers who use Paul Wellstone as their avatar need to be corrected. Wellstone voted for DOMA. Biden voted for DOMA, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, Harkin, all yes voters on DOMA. Lincoln Chafee voted Yes on DOMA as fucking Republican.
So. Perspective.

[last1standing]

78. The fact is, we have a candidate who opposed marriage equality two years ago.

She 'evolved' only when it became safe for her to do so, and has never been a real advocate of full LGBT rights. I sincerely worry that she would change her views again if popular opinion were to go the other way. I know it isn't likely, but it is definitely possible.

[sabrina 1]

30. That depends on why she evolved so late, since 2013 when she was still using the sanctity of marriag

excuse for opposing Gay marriage. Things moved pretty rapidly re marriage equality since then. When did she evolve, and what caused her to change so quickly, once the political climate changed? IF she changed BECAUSE of the political climate then yes, we do have to worry what might happen in the future. Because as we know, the SC decision won't stop the enemies of equality from working hard against it. And IF they should succeed, hopefully that won't happen, will she show the courage to stand firmly against them, or not?

[OKNancy]

8. Hillary changed her opinion as did the mass of the American people

even here at DU, people 5 or 10 years ago were writing that civil unions were a good option.

As an LGBT advocate, I can tell you that the support for Hillary is very strong. You can tell even here on DU that many of our gay members are some of the strongest supporters.

I think your concern is not warranted.
------------------------

Article with timeline of her statements:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

[last1standing]

14. And some of us were arguing that position was codifying inferiority then as well.

Eventually, the admin had to state that it was not acceptable to advocate for civil unions at DU.

[cali]

18. she changed her mind after the majority of Americans did.

Had anyone posted here in say, 2012, about how he/she was opposed to marriage equality based upon the supposed sanctity of hetero marriage, she/he would have been kicked off.

When it comes to marriage equality, she was far from being a leader.

[dsc]

136. of course you leave out

and I am sure you aren't try to tell us stories you like, that she was serving in a strictly non political position in an administration whose head was opposed until May of 2012, meaning that she couldn't say her opinion had changed no matter if it did or if it didn't. She announced her current position on marriage equality on March 18, 2013 she left office on Feb 1, 2013. That is a grand total of, wait for it, 36 days. Yep 36 whole days. Not several years but 36 days.

[Agschmid]

150. Yup.

[last1standing]

155. Your attempt to spam this thread took it over 150 and back to the top of the lastest page.

Thanks.

[Agschmid]

159. Spam...

Yup, okay.

[last1standing]

160. Lol. Thanks again.

Maybe we can hit 175.

[Agschmid]

161. Well it would be nice...

[last1standing]

162. We finally agree on something.

n/t

[Agschmid]

164. We agree on a lot actually...

[last1standing]

165. Then you're a fan of ridiculous OPs as well?

Fantastic!

[Agschmid]

166. Ha that's one of the things we DON'T have in common.

[last1standing]

167. Oh well, no one's perfect.

I know you don't like my posts but I'm a big fan of them as they're making my points. If some are harsh, they're not nearly so harsh as what has been posted against Sanders and a lot more accurate.

Don't worry, the alert stalkers will take me out soon.

[Agschmid]

168. I hope that doesn't happen.

I would just prefer we don't have all this meta all the damn time, but hey it happens I guess.

[last1standing]

169. Primaries are rough.

I don't know if you were here for the last one but despite what others have said, this isn't touching that, yet.

As I've said repeatedly, I'll vote for Hillary when she likely wins the nomination. But until that time, I'm going to explain in no uncertain terms why I don't support her in the primaries. I won't make up crap, but I will state my reasons as I see them.

It could be worse. I could be calling her supporters 'white supremacists' and writing that Hillary can only attract white voters because "walking with MLK was 50 years ago."

[Agschmid]

171. Primaries are rough, I wasn't here.

So far, although annoying, I've been able to deal with it. I am a Bernie supporter, and will be for a while.

It is what it is.

[last1standing]

175. I was a Dean supporter being told I was a hippie dreamer in 2004...

And a downright loser for supporting the only candidate actively "evolving" on gay rights in 2008, Edwards (man, there were no good choices that year).

Now it's the same for Sanders. Supporting the guy with the best policies is a great way to be slammed at DU.

I've learned how to slam back a little and it's only fair. Look at this thread and think about how many of those screaming loudest were posting race-bait against Sanders and his supporters only a few hours ago. They were very happy when it was the other candidate's supporters taking the hit, but now they're crying foul. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be spreading it. At least what I've written is true. Very, very harsh, but true.

[Agschmid]

178. I loved Dean.

He was my governor, great guy.

[last1standing]

182. Too far ahead of his time.

He certainly isn't as progressive as Bernie but he was speaking some uncomfortable truths that need to be said and had great ideas for this country. He also proved he's good with strategy while head of the DNC.

I wish he was backing Bernie, but I hope he gets the respect he never got from Obama if Hillary makes it to the White House. I hope if Bernie makes it, he does the same.

[last1standing]

180. Lol! We did hit 175!

n/t

[Agschmid]

181. Glad we worked our shit out too...

I'm sure we will end up on another thread again, but congrats on the 175!

[last1standing]

184. Lol. Just between you and me...

No thread like this should ever make it this far. But I think I've proved my point. Too bad I'm the only one who probably got it.

But I'm glad we worked it out as well. Once the general election is over, and I'm complaining about the next occupant, we can start over.

[Xipe Totec]

12. If nobody ever changed their minds there would still be no gay marriage.

Public opinion changes when the public changes their mind.

One person at a time.

[last1standing]

20. I expect our leaders to be in the front of civil rights issues.

Not changing their minds when there are finally no repercussions from doing so. I have no faith that she won't change her mind again if opinion does.

[Xipe Totec]

22. I look forward to your candidacy. nt

[last1standing]

51. I look forward to yours since you seem to believe we can't discuss issues without running for office

n/t

[Xipe Totec]

52. I'm no leader, and I don't pretend to be one. nt

[last1standing]

58. Then why do I have to run for office to have an opinion when you don't?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

[sabrina 1]

36. And if everyone waited until AFTER courageous people stood up against the opposition to it,

people like Bernie Sanders eg, among others, then we would still be waiting.

We need LEADERS not FOLLOWERS in elected office.

Two years ago Hillary was still using the 'sanctity of marriage' (hetero marriage) to explain why she didn't support Marriage Equality for Gays. When did she change her mind?

[Xipe Totec]

48. I admire your enthusiasm. nt

[sabrina 1]

53. Irrelevant for the people to be enthusiastic about an important issue if their leaders

spend decades ignoring, or worse, enabling opposition to granting Civil Rights to all Americans. That really should not be an issue, it never should have been. ALL Dem Reps at least should have been and should be, as 'enthusiastic' as those who were fighting, often against those they elected hoping for support, for those rights.

It's not a difficult thing. Civil Rights should never be something anyone who claims to be an American, especially those who take an oath of office 'to protect and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic' should even have any questions about.

If you are born a citizen of this country you automatically are a beneficiary of equal rights. That people have had to fight so hard for rights that are already guaranteed to them, supposedly, says to me, we have been electing the wrong people and need to begin the process of electing people who take that oath of office seriously and aren't finding ways to excuse denying rights to any citizen of this country.

[Xipe Totec]

56. Are you trying to bore me into submission? nt

[sabrina 1]

59. If you are bored by a discussion of Civil Rights I can't help that. I find it a fascinating and most

important discussion. Always have, always will.

[last1standing]

60. LGBT rights bore you?

That's a very interesting position to take.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. I can't predict Hillary's actions or judge her sincerity. However, I know many people

who have evolved in their positions on same sex marriage and many other social issues. Some did not support same sex marriage a few years ago, but now see it as a basic right. I've seen similar evolution in attitudes on other issues like race and abortion. People can and do change over time.

[sabrina 1]

38. And that's the problem. We SHOULD be able to judge the sincerity on major issues of those we choose

as leaders in this country. If we can't, why would we elect them? Especially when we have choices of people whose sincerity was never in doubt?

[msongs]

19. sad to hear you didn't vote for obama as he "evolved" at the same time as hillary nt

[cali]

21. wrong. he came out in support before she did.

[Metric System]

25. You're ignoring her work at the State Dept. on equal rights for employees.

[last1standing]

31. I'm not ignoring them. I'm stating some hard facts.

She did not support equal rights for the LGBT community until it was politically safe to do so. In that respect she did not help our cause, only reacted when it became politically expedient.

[cali]

33. no, it's just not germane as to when she came out for marriage equality.

I actually think she's good on LGBT issues. I don't think she'd go back on supporting it if public opinion changed. But I don't think she showed any leadership in the struggle. And she could have been a powerful voice in it.

[Metric System]

40. I don't think any national Democratic figures showed leadership on it. I'm sure we all remember

the comments on marriage equality made by Hillary, Biden and Obama during the primaries and the general election.

[beam me up scottie]

34. But she didn't support marriage equality then.

[last1standing]

27. Yes, he did. And it was just as heinous.

Maybe worse as his early actions showed he had little respect or empathy for the LGBT community. Rick Warren, fighting the repeal of DOMA and DADT, etc...

I'm glad he changed course shortly after public opinion did but that never made him an ally in my book. He would never have supported us if the polls hadn't shifted.

[TheBlackAdder]

24. Please stop with these divisive OPs.

.


A politician must act when it is politically advantageous, when popular support sways.


NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE foresaw the quick change in public support for gay rights. Just 20 years ago, it would have been political suicide to come out and support it without popular support. Many a career were broken by supporting this topic.


In NJ, they used same sex marriage as a way to drive the fundies out to vote just a decade ago.


I lean Sanders, and our family will vote for him in the primary due to TPP, KXL, and others reasons. However, my family will staunchly support Hillary is she is nominated. This in-fighting needs to stop, we're on the same team, just liking different quarterbacks!


PS. Political Science courses are your friend. Please take a few to realize the dynamics involved. Also, if you want to affect popular opinion--don't do it by posting these threads meant to split the party further. Go out and work to change independents and others as to why a certain cause should be supported. The politicians will follow.



.

[last1standing]

35. This is a political discussion forum.

It's not an echo chamber. If our candidates have problems, we should discuss them instead of hiding them and hoping no one else notices. They will notice.

I'll also vote for Hillary, if given no better option. That doesn't mean I won't point out her flaws in the meantime in the hopes that we can choose someone better.

[TheBlackAdder]

41. Then have a discussion and post it is an educational manner. Your excuse holds no water.

.


The mannerism of this post is not to discuss issues, but to stir passion and anger in a response--one meant to be divisive.

Instead of accusing one candidate of 'evolving,' you should have asked why politicians, including EVERY FREAKING POLITICIAN evolves on matters, Republicans and Democrats.


While the answer is quite obvious to a PS-102 student, those not in polisci courses might be less knowledgeable. But, since this is a political discussion forum-that excuse DOES NOT HOLD WATER!


.

[last1standing]

43. Ok. You've expressed your demands on how I post.

I'll continue to post as I see fit.

Thanks, and have a good day.

[TheBlackAdder]

46. I'm sure you will, confusing the word 'demand.' Have an especially wonderful day! Loves and Hugs! nt

[last1standing]

57. Did you ask?

Nope. You demanded I do as you wanted. No confusion here, thanks.

At least in your first response you said please.

[TheBlackAdder]

82. Please post the exact 'demand' I had made. I do not see it.

.

I had to update the title, because that could be taken as a demand, without placing 'Please' in front of it.

[last1standing]

83. *sigh* "Then have a discussion and post it is an educational manner."

Was that a not a demand? If you don't, then we're obviously reading different dictionaries.

If you want to play Miss Manners of the Intertubes, please try to be consistent.

[TheBlackAdder]

85. No, that's not a demand. Nice obfuscation from the topic discussed.

.


This spawned branch of the thread was successfully distracted from its intent.

It wasn't a demand, and that is clearly known. It was a statement how to create constructive dialog.


Besides, for a demand to be effective implies I have some sort of power over you, which I do not.

.

[last1standing]

92. No obfuscation. You lectured, I responded. Then we went off on a nice little tangent.

Mostly about how you don't understand what a demand is.

[TheFarS1de]

126. After they made a demand :P

eom.

[last1standing]

140. It wasn't a demand! It was a negative request.

Of all the things to get hung up about, that was one of the silliest. lol

[TheBlackAdder]

142. We know what the deal is, as most here. nt

[Agschmid]

153. This.

[oasis]

26. Ask yourself if the Democratic Party would allow itself to go backwards.

[last1standing]

29. It certainly has in economic issues.

When was the last time you heard an establishment Democrat propose a truly progressive economic policy in the vein of FDR?

[oasis]

42. If America begins going back on social issues, heaven help us.

[last1standing]

47. Exactly! I want someone in office who will stand up for what's right.

Not cave in to what's popular.

[ericson00]

28. the same way we trusted Obama even tho he evolved

and just used Biden as the wind flag.

[cali]

39. it's about leadership, or rather her lack of it in the fight for marriage equality.

She could have been a real force if she'd used her considerable influence. She chose to play it safe.

[emulatorloo]

32. "I just know John Kerry will invade Iran and bring back the draft." DU'er circa 2004

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Evolution has no direction and is neither progressive or regressive.

[last1standing]

49. Like electricity, it takes the path of least resistance.

Much like Hillary's views on LGBT civil rights.

That's a real problem for me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Exactly.

[PatrickforO]

54. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Clinton is so poll driven that she reminds me of nothing as much as a weather vane or a wind sock. That's why I'm not supporting her.

[last1standing]

62. Yep. I'm hearing a lot of excuses for Hillary's poll driven stances...

From the very same people who have been battering Bernie for not being strong enough on civil rights when he's the only candidate with a rock solid stance supporting ALL civil rights from the 1960s to the present.

I guess when you support a person over a belief, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

[840high]

149. xactly

[seabeyond]

61. anyone that actually wants a serious conversation about this, a thread dsc explores with facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251500521

[last1standing]

63. LOL! That wasn't fact, it was a poorly written opinion from a minor blog.

And I love how you attack Bernie instead of defend your own candidate.

It must be had to defend a moving target. Every time you put up a shield, it pops up someplace else.

[seabeyond]

64. there are plenty of facts thru out thread. i am not attacking sanders, clinton is not my candidate.

this information is for people that actually want to be educated, as i did, since i truly did not understand the whole process back in the 90's and after.

not here to argue.

just education.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Now you think you're educated?

One hit piece and suddenly you're enlightened?



Clue: that op was an opinion based on wishful thinking.

If you guys could actually prove that Bernie didn't support lgbt rights you'd be posting about it every day.

No quotes, no interview, no evidence of your theory.

Just swift boating a civil rights champion who fought tirelessly for all of us.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[seabeyond]

66. no, really. the better way to argue is one insult after another. personally, i valued the

discussion, learning a lot. this isnt for you, obviously. other people read du, and they too might be interested.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Like I said, if you had facts you'd post them.

Instead you keep posting the lie that Bernie didn't support lgbt rights and hope it catches on.

It's despicable to exploit lgbt rights like that.

[last1standing]

70. That's exactly what they did with Bernie's record on rights for people of color.

They posted some lies and pressed them with countless posts on the same subject, all stating lies and propaganda.

Now, faced with the truth about their candidate, they try it again.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Thank you for taking up the fight. I'm so tired of this.

Hillary evolved, good for her. But she's on the record as adamantly opposed to marriage equality until 2013.

They can't defend her record on lgbt rights so they go after Bernie's.

[leftofcool]

76. Oh, you mean when Bernie marched with MLK?

Sorry dear, BLM doesn't accept that and they have not lied nor have they started propaganda. They have their opinions and they are sure darn smart enough to know what the issues are facing PoC.

[last1standing]

77. If I respond, are you going to call me a sexist again?

You've really watered down the meaning of that word. Proud of yourself?

[cali]

84. wow, hon, now you're a spokesperson for BLM?

You sure are presumptuous.

And no, I haven't heard one person from BLM say they don't accept his activism in the civil rights movement. And he did a lot more than participate in the March on Washington, dear.

[TheFarS1de]

132. You speak for BLM ?

Great , I have a few questions . Why so soft on Hillary ? Where has the movement gone now ? When do they plan to attack a Republican speech ?

If you have no clue then it beggars the question how you would think your good self has any authority on what BLM thinks/feels . But do go on .

[beam me up scottie]

170. Yes, they do and Hillary's failing according to this chart:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251540029

Now what were you saying again?

[cali]

72. +1

[last1standing]

68. So please tell us what "facts" you learned from that "serious discussion."

I read some statements by people who hate Bernie Sanders, which were then taken up as gospel by the worst of the Hillary supporters, but no actual facts.

[cali]

71. lol. I love irony.

[cali]

69. unbelievable that you'd support such shit.... oh, wait. it's you.

[seabeyond]

89. i listen to lbgt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251540042#post80

[last1standing]

93. You listen to specific LGBT people who affirm what you want to believe.

I'm LGBT and you're not listening to me, so please cut the crap about listening to LGBT as thought we all look the same to you.

[seabeyond]

95. well, here is the thing in the listening. lbgt is more aware of the history and path of our

politicians, where i was not aware. i am educated. so ya, it does have to do with facts that are provided.

hence the education.

edit to add. thank you though, letting me know that this is your walk. i do appreciate that info. it does matter.

[last1standing]

99. Then you should listen to those of us with real, valid concerns about Hillary's advocacy.

I'm not saying you should change your support, but you need to understand that not all of us forget being told we weren't as good as "normal" people to Hillary - a view that didn't change until 2013. Some of us don't trust her with our rights because she wasn't there for us when we actually needed her.

I don't trust Hillary's sudden conversion. Would you trust Santorum to fight for women's rights if he suddenly came out and supported them?

[seabeyond]

105. i do listen, and i do hear, and i do understand. that is the case with AA too, and campaign 2008.

those are real statements from real people, with their experience, that matter.

i also know the same can be said about my womens issue. though that seems to not matter at all. but still relevant.

i can be pissed at obama and his campaign for the sexism they all played in, .... 7 yrs later. and some women still are. i am not one. i get where they were coming from, the reasons, and i know they are not sexist.

as i know clinton is not racist

as i know clinton is not homophobic

as i know sanders is not racist, sexist or homophobic even though a large number of people were calling him out for running his campaing as ONLY economic equality and not discussing social just ice issues.

as i know many of the sander supporters are true dems standing for social justice though they insist it is a wedge issue and needs to go on the back burner.

gray.

so i do the research and the best place to get the research are the people most interested.

[last1standing]

113. This is the only post in which I'll veer from the OP.

And I won't respond to anyone who attacks me for saying what I'm about to say.

None of our candidates has done enough to lay out specific proposals for minorities and very, very few of our posters at DU seem to care. I posted this earlier today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251539719

Crickets

So far as I know, no one supporting any of our candidates knows exactly how they would specifically address the concerns of BLM or any other minority group.

I support Bernie because I know where he stands and he doesn't hide his views because they don't poll 51% or more. He stood up for LGBT rights many, many years ago, just like he did women's rights, black rights, and the rights of everyone else. He's not perfect, and he's not the perfect messenger, but I strongly believe he's the best we have this cycle.

[seabeyond]

116. cool, your support of sanders. Omalley is probably ahead of everyone in all this and still

they are all of the same posiiton that we need to quibble about who is best. what a position to have to judge. look at lifetime issue with womens right for clinton and she would kick every ones ass, .... how or why would we have a scale on this? omalley legislated.... in the 90's from what i remember.

as far as your thread? lots of research for your answers. in the past we have duers that excel at that. many have left. when i was looking at omalley who i like, one of the supporters sent me al the stuff on omalley with womens issues. he kicks sanders ass in that one.

and all that is not saying sanders doesnt support women.

omalley is the one i am hoping gets notice. he works for me for many different political and election reasons.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Another lie. He was not only campaigning on economic justice.

Will you stop with the memes already?

They've all been discredited.

Keep up.

[seabeyond]

117. just stop with the name calling and insults.

[beam me up scottie]

119. No one called you names or insulted you.

You always play the victim when you can't back up your claims.

If I make a statement about Hillary's record I back it up with facts.

Not frantic hand waving and a lot of he said/she said.

[seabeyond]

122. whatever. accusing me of being a constant victim was purely about insult, but wtf, right?

[beam me up scottie]

128. Then prove your claims instead of changing the subject and complaining about how unfair it all is

when it backfires on you.

[840high]

152. Don't hold your breath.

[short circuit]

174. I'm not

It appears it's his SOP.

[short circuit]

172. No name calling or insults were done.

You're just playing the victim, completely ignoring what Bernie has proposed, done, or acted on. I'm sorry, but I do believe that you are deflecting from the topic last1standing was discussing. You didn't like his facts, and decide to attack the messenger, which counters on what you just wrote on a OP earlier today.

[Luminous Animal]

156. 8 eight days ago, I PMed her 3 videos of Bernie (starting ONE WEEK after his campaign announcement) where he

specifically addressed racial justice. She claimed her internet went down. Apparently, it is back up and has been for a while but she has yet to reverse this canard she keeps parroting.

[beam me up scottie]

157. You don't say...isn't that interesting.

How convenient.

Can you post them here so we can link back to them?

Cuz she's only taking a short break. You know she'll be back at it tomorrow in other threads acting like this never happened.

[Luminous Animal]

158. Sure...

7 days after his official announcement

#t=43

And this from July 1st. Prior to Net Roots Nation

One day before Net Roots Nation

So, no. He did not refuse to talk about "anything but economic equality". And I am really getting sick and tired of this canard being posted over and over again.

[beam me up scottie]

163. Thanks. Now we can all link back to this thread.

Eventually she'll either have to acknowledge the truth or stop parroting that talking point.

[short circuit]

176. yep, definitely bookmarkable

so seabeyond can eat her words and cannot claim ignorance.

[beam me up scottie]

177. And others too.

That meme is still being peddled around here by others who don't want people to know the truth.

[beam me up scottie]

186. You didn't finish your research.

Did you get a chance to watch those videos yet?

[beam me up scottie]

96. Only the ones who say what you want to hear about your candidate.

You've ignored all the others and keep posting your new meme about Bernie

Shameful.

[seabeyond]

97. slanderous!!!! i tell you. simply not true. i do look at the facts provided to me though.

hence listening to those in the know. they are much more capable of providing me with fact. the same with the AA community and blm.

[beam me up scottie]

101. You're not citing "facts". You're using smears to slander a champion of lgbt rights.

It's exploitation and you do the same thing with women's and poc's rights.

Stop using this issue to benefit your candidate.

It's despicable.

[seabeyond]

107. the info isnt for you, i keep saying. others read, and they can decide

[beam me up scottie]

109. It isn't info any more than that fox news story you keep complaining about.

A hit piece is a hit piece, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from.

Stop pushing discredited rumours.

[seabeyond]

98. and btw, the link is from a very fair poster who is a strong sander supporter. just as bravenak was

a strong supporter of sanders until she also supported blm.

[beam me up scottie]

103. Stop bringing blm into this because you can't back up your bullshit about lgbt support.

You should really stop digging, seabeyond.

Everyone knows what you're doing.

It's abusive.

[seabeyond]

108. i wont do what you demand. you do not decide what i post or what i discuss. really? wow.

[beam me up scottie]

112. I'm calling you on your bullshit whether you like it or not.

You don't get to create a false narrative without pushback.

This isn't some right wing fundie you're smearing.

Senator Sanders deserves better that to have his record besmirched by Hillary supporters.

I've been honest about her record, why can't you do the same?

[seabeyond]

118. no. you demanded what i was allowed and not allowed to post

[beam me up scottie]

125. Keep posting false claims and you'll keep getting called on it.

That's where you went wrong, you tried to claim Bernie didn't support lgbt rights and thought you'd get away with it by posting a link to a hit piece.

You want to discuss and compare records?

Do your homework.

[short circuit]

179. Read this. .

And read everything on the website. Really.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-lgbtq-rights/

[bigwillq]

75. I don't trust Hillary on any issue

She'll say and do whatever is convenient at the time. I'm sure she'll "evolve" like 2,382 times over the next year and a half on a wide range of topics.

I am so over Hillary. I do not want her to be the nominee.

[last1standing]

79. I trust her to charge even more in speaking fees in the future.

n/t

[840high]

154. ...

[Bluenorthwest]

80. I'm gay, I support Bernie and I think you don't have a good grasp on history, Hillary or any of it.

Sorry, you are far over the top. 'Gay rights' and 'marriage equality' are not synonyms. While it is true that Hillary was too slow on the marriage equality uptake and that's one of the reasons I prefer Bernie, it is also true that she was one of the very first early national Democrats to so much as mention gay Democrats and to speak in favor of our rights. Back in 1992, it was not the time of marriage equality, that act was not about the four weddings but the one endless funeral. Back in 1992, even before Bill got elected the Republican Party hate machine started blasting them both for supporting gay rights, at RNC 1992, Hillary was called an abortion on demand radical feminist ally to the militant homosexuals. And she did not flinch. You know, Liz Warren was a Republican in that Party that ranted about militant homosexuals in 1992, but Hillary was standing with us having mud flung at her for the trouble.
So your point of view seems lacking in context and heavy on characterization.

May I ask, did you vote against Bill Clinton in 92?

[last1standing]

81. I'm sorry that you're gay and don't think I have a good grasp on history, Hillary or any of it.

I did vote for Bill and I know the history very, very well. The fact remains, he supported both DOMA and DADT, even though he came into office with good intentions. Like with Bill, I'll vote for Hillary if I'm given absolutely no better option because the other side is even worse.

The fact remains that Hillary did not support marriage equality until 2013, after a majority of voters did. I don't trust her to stand up for me if popular opinion changes. If you do, fine, but please don't tell me I'm over the top when there's more support for my beliefs than there is for yours.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. You did not even bother to read what I wrote nor did you respond to it. That's rude.

You leave out decades of history, harp on what time of day she supported marriage equality and in your OP you suggest she might seek to roll gay rights backwards and that's totally over the top and baseless. It's your opinion, but it is not based in reality. Bernie is the better choice. Hillary is totally fine on LGBT issues, marriage stop watch checks don't really amount to much in the big picture.
I don't think there is any value to hyperbolic characterizations. She was one of the first and strongest supporters of gay rights when there were precious few who were not openly hostile to us. I'm not going to forget that. I don't have to. I can prefer Bernie without making up toxic fantasias about Hillary Clinton.
Do you know what was before DADT? It was compulsory to seek out, report and if asked to out yourself in the military. So DADT was not what we wanted, but it was better than 'you have to report your gay peers'. It was better than 'you have to root out the gays under your command'. Should Bill have supported leaving it that way? I don't think so. It was compromise progress, but it was progress and did lead to eventual equity. You suggest that Bill should have left things as they were until Obama ear corrections? I don't agree with you. At all. So yeah, I don't think you have a grasp on the history.
And never say you are sorry I am gay again, got it? There is no need for the nasty. That's sort of the gist of what I'm saying here in general. Your choice to go nasty is not an effective choice.

[last1standing]

87. It was far less rude than your either of your responses to me.

You don't own gay rights. I have a different opinion than you and mine is more likely to be real.

If you find that rude, fine. But your bullshit suggesting that I'm making anything up about Hillary is far ruder and far less truthful.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Except that I have not said you are making anything up so why are you

accusing me of doing so in such strident terms? Your opinion is just your opinion, you have not even bothered to respond to any of the actual points have made, instead you continue the personal attacks. If you can't discuss your opinion on the merits, perhaps it has no merits?

Tell me what sort of activism you were doing around the time of Bill Clinton's election and in the years after it. If you don't, I will not continue this exchange.

[last1standing]

90. I suggest we not continue this exchange.

I don't like playing the "what have you ever done for the cause" game because it's impossible to win and because I don't care if you don't think I've been "active" enough for your tastes.

[jfern]

91. Welcome to the entire Bill Clinton administration

His positions all seemed to be based upon which way he thought the wind was blowing. He did nothing to move the country to the left. If anything he helped move it to the right. Things like repealing Glass Steagal, which caused the global economy to crash 9 years later, are completely unforgivable..

[hrmjustin]

100. Proud to have marched with her in the Pride Parade and proud she evolved.

As a gay man I am happy when people change their opinion in favor of Marriage Equality.

As a gay man I trust her.

[last1standing]

102. You trust her because she walked in a parade?

Did you trust her when she told you that you didn't deserve marriage? Serious question.

[hrmjustin]

104. I trust that she sees me as a human being with rights.

[last1standing]

106. I'll ask again. Did you trust her when she was saying you didn't deserve marriage?

If you can't answer the question then you aren't a very good advocate for your candidate.

[hrmjustin]

110. No i am not a good advocate for HRC. I think I have said that before.

I do not have the eloquence of others.

I thought she was wrong when she said it and I let her know.

I understand she is a politician with flaws and I am glad she is on the right side of history on this one now.

[last1standing]

120. Here is one of my many problems with that.

Up until 2013, Hillary claimed that her God told her that marriage equality was wrong and she was willing to keep us from marrying because of what her God told her.

Then in 2013, she suddenly said that she supported marriage equality.

That leaves three options:

1. Hillary's God changed his mind;
2. Hillary is disobeying her God for political advantage; or
3. Hillary never believed that her God didn't support marriage equality, but was willing to hold us down for political advantage.

I can't say that I'm willing to trust her based on any of those three options.

[hrmjustin]

121. Well we disagree.

[last1standing]

124. Yes, but I have laid out exactly why I disagree with you.

You have not laid out why you disagree with me. As you posted in my OP with a disagreement, I believed you would appreciate the opportunity to explain exactly why you disagreed.

If you trust Hillary after she told us that we were inferior to "normal" people, then I think it's reasonable to ask why.

[hrmjustin]

129. I decline to.

Have a great week.

[last1standing]

131. I think that renders your original post moot, but that's your call.

You have a great week as well.

[short circuit]

183. Have to say I did enjoy the conversation between you and hrmjustin

very cordial.

Wish we could see more of that here in DU. Even if hrmjustin had no answer to the charges last1standing, it was still entertaining and not divisive.

[last1standing]

185. Thanks.

I generally echo the tone of those who post responses to me and hrmjustin was polite. I don't agree with his statements but I respect his choice of candidates. Some of my favorite people, on and off DU, support Hillary and they're good people.

When the primaries are over, things will get a lot calmer. They always do.

[JoePhilly]

111. Bwahahahahahahahha!!!!!!

That is fucking hilarious.

[Vattel]

123. She didn't evolve. She never had a problem with gay marriage.

She just feels the political need to lie about that. (That's where I would put my money, anyways. I could be wrong.)

[last1standing]

130. I think you're absolutely correct.

And that concerns me more than anything else. If she was willing to play politics with our lives in 2013, what would stop her from doing the same in 2016?

[Sunlei]

127. We all 'evolved', in our own way. What a 'change' from when President Obama first took office;

This 'gay rights' in USA and all the 'change' that happened goes with what Mrs. Clinton said last week.

Not an exact quote, Mrs. Clinton said "You can't change their hearts" "you can change policies." "Once policies are changed, people change."

[last1standing]

133. So how can we trust that she won't "evolve" again if the polls change?

If her heart didn't change in 2013, only her policies based on the polls, then how can we trust her not to flip on us if there's a backlash?

I'd prefer someone who actually believes in their heart that we deserve equal rights and is willing to stand up for that. Hillary never stuck her neck out for us when it counted and I don't expect her to do so in the future.

[Sunlei]

134. How do you trust President Obama won't 'evolve' again?

[last1standing]

135. I don't.

And I see no reason to follow one fair weather friend with another.

[Sunlei]

137. well thats a shame because without all the changes President Obama worked for, things would be

exact same crap today as it was the day he took office.

Even worse because of the way our military destroyed gay persons lives and careers. Worse for gay children in schools bullied to suicide condoned by USA 'society'

[last1standing]

138. And those changes took place because the polls changed, not because Obama stood up for us.

Maybe you forget that Obama's first inauguration was presided over by Rick "Kill the gays in Uganda" Warren. Or that his Attorney General's defense of "normal" marriage included such outstanding arguments as it would be no different than allowing incest with children or raping dogs. I don't.

Obama never stuck his neck out for us and neither has Clinton. Both changed their political stances when they believed it was in their own interests.

[Sunlei]

139. I don't agree with you at all.

[last1standing]

141. Nothing wrong with disagreement.

I don't know if you're LGBT or not, but that could be influencing both of our perspectives.

[840high]

143. Good question.

[treestar]

145. Because Hillary was always more liberal than the voters

She would not go backward.

[Agschmid]

147. I have a suggestion...

Don't vote for her.

[d_legendary1]

173. During the primaries

I don't intend to.

During the election (if she wins the nom)

I don't have a choice.

[HassleCat]

151. No going back

On most issues, when politicians evolve, they don't devolve. It's just the way things work.