Hillary Issues Second And Lengthy "Reagan & AIDS apology"

[Shadow 6,697]

1 minute ago, Andres Miller said:

So Bernie can win the election. He is the only one who will make a difference and the only one who is truly trustworthy.

There are no politicians who are truly trustworthy. There is always some angle they try to pull for their interests or for those who invest in them. It's the nature of politics (pleasing people, which in totality is impossible).

[SKANK 14,288]

28 minutes ago, DiscoHeaven23 said:

It's not like Hillary is against the gay community. Yes, she misspoke, it was an error. She apologized.

Should we beat her down more so Trump will beat her in the election?

 

 

She didn't just misspeak, she said the complete opposite of the truth, that goes beyond simply misspeaking. Her original comment, the one that wasn't written, approved, and released by PR professionals, proves Hillary doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, that or that she is willing to revise history when it suits her, like when she re-branded DOMA and DADT as "defensive actions."

It's impossible for anyone to legitimately claim that Hillary Clinton is the democratic candidate with the best history of supporting LGBT rights.

 

 

 

[Shadow 6,697]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

I agree with you. I assume from the quote you think I have something against Sanders. I don't. It's his followers that I am disparaging.

I'm still mostly undecided, mostly observations. Funny you say that, because on his own, Sanders seems reasonable enough to me, but his followers mostly turn me off to him. It would have been better if they let Sanders speak for himself with his speeches and debates on issues. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

She didn't just misspeak, she said the complete opposite of the truth, that goes beyond simply misspeaking. Her original comment, the one that wasn't written, approved, and released by PR professionals, proves Hillary doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, that or that she is willing to revise history when it suits her, like when she re-branded DOMA and DADT as "defensive actions."

 

 

I wasn't aware politicians should have complete knowledge of history. She never had anything to do with the AIDS epidemic, and was probably confused the contributions to stem cell research to that of AIDS. It happened in the latter part of Reagan's career, so it's fair to assume that Hillary was referring to that, as misguided as it may have ultimately been.

Regarding DOMA and DADT, she had experience in that regard clearly, and whether they were defensive actions or not is a hotly debated controversy even among LGBT people. Many LGBT folk agree with her. Others don't. Obviously, the situation was far from consistent, so it's not surprising.

History isn't composed of cold hard facts. If you know anything about history, it's that history is written by people, who more often than not are biased. All we have are anecdotes and articles from the time, and there ins't a unanimous viewpoint of the situation.

So get off your high horse will you? It's not as cut and dry as you're ironically making it out to be.

[monstereo 1,232]

^ You don't be a history major to know how TERRIBLE the Reagan were in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, even people in other countries know about it. Their inaction resulted in the deaths of millions of lives.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, monstereo said:

^ You don't be a history major to know how TERRIBLE the Reagan were in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, even people in other countries know about it.

I know. It just seems that people are confused about what Hillary said and are being outraged about it far more than they should be. Hillary didn't even say they were outright supporting anything. She simply noted that they had low-key support for research (stem cell) that ultimately helped the ones for AIDS. 

Clearly, the Reagans were more concerned about curing Reagan's Alzheimer condition rather than save the gay people they were horrible to.

Hillary was just trying to highlight some of Nancy Reagan's positive influences in a eulogistic comment. It was just a misguided attempt to do so, given the situation.

So she has apologized, profusely if I may add, and is using the situation to spread awareness. 

That's commendable. Her blunder ended up being a good educational moment. No need to hit her with the ruler.

[SKANK 14,288]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I wasn't aware politicians should be history majors as well. She never had anything to do with the AIDS epidemic, and probably confused the two.

Regarding DOMA and DADT, she had experience in that regard clearly, and whether they were defensive actions or not is a hotly debated controversy even among LGBT people. Many LGBT folk agree with her. Others don't. Obviously, the situation was far from consistent, so it's not surprising.

History isn't composed of cold hard facts. If you know anything about history, it's that history is written by people, who more often than not are biased. 

So get off your high horse. You don't know anything compared to her.

 

You are taking things way too personally in this thread.

I respect that you support Hillary Clinton, and I'm open to hearing whatever justification you have to offer in regards to her Regan comment, but you don't have to resort to personal attacks.

I'm not on a high horse, and I'm not professing to know everything. However, I clearly know more about the AIDS epidemic than Hillary Clinton.

 

 

 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, SKANK said:

 

You are taking things way too personally in this thread.

I respect that you support Hillary Clinton, and I'm open to hearing whatever justification you have to offer in regards to her Regan comment, but you don't have to resort to personal attacks.

I'm not on a high horse, and I'm not professing to know everything. However, I clearly know more about the AIDS epidemic than Hillary Clinton.

I just did in a previous response.

Oh and you're confusing aggression for taking things personally. I'm just naturally loud while debating. No need to make assumptions about my feelings.

[SKANK 14,288]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I just did.

 

A Clinton supporter editing his previous posts in order to make them more palatable while defending the apology offered for Clinton's latest unpalatable comment, gotta love the universe's sense of humor.

[Andres Miller 206]

40 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

 

Do you have any non-GOP-affiliated receipts for these accusations?

Plenty, here are just a few:

This lack of sensitivity and awareness is one along with...

If you don't read or watch anything in this post at least watch this first video.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/9/1498849/-Obama-and-Sanders-both-called-out-Hillary-campaign-for-false-attacks-that-distort-the-truth

and finally: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/08/1498146/-Why-Bernie-Would-Crush-Trump-and-Why-Every-Vote-For-Hillary-Puts-Trump-Closer-to-the-White-House

 

I agree that it is commendable that she apologized, but I don't want a person who is inconsistent and reckless with her words in the white house.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

41 minutes ago, Andres Miller said:

Plenty, here are just a few:

This lack of sensitivity and awareness is one along with...

If you don't read or watch anything in this post at least watch this first video.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/9/1498849/-Obama-and-Sanders-both-called-out-Hillary-campaign-for-false-attacks-that-distort-the-truth

and finally: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/08/1498146/-Why-Bernie-Would-Crush-Trump-and-Why-Every-Vote-For-Hillary-Puts-Trump-Closer-to-the-White-House

 

I agree that it is commendable that she apologized, but I don't want a person who is inconsistent and reckless with her words in the white house.

Yah Yah Yah - Hillary is the Devil!  Been hearing this since the early 1990's, what else is new?!  Smh

[SKANK 14,288]

4 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Yah Yah Yah - Hillary is the Devil!  Been hearing this since the early 1990's, what else is new?!  Smh

 

Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, I'm curious, is there any criticism of Clinton that you think is legitimate?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

10 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, I'm curious, is there any criticism of Clinton that you think is legitimate?

A lot of it.  By no means is she a perfect candidate in the slightest.  But please have been throwing bombs at her left & right since the early 90's like I said.  The far left never like her or Bill Clinton & all the republicans view her as the anti-christ!  But what her opponents fail to realize is that the stronger the concerted effort to bring her down is, the more her supporters will flock to her.  And when Sanders supporters become so vicious online towards her & treat him like a saint!  To Clinton supporters that reminds them of the horrible things republicans have been saying about her & literally her whole entire family for decades...  All it does is strengthen their resolve for her!  If you desire for her to faulter, the best way is to let her do it on her own.  Since we live in a time of people doubling down & no capitulation whatsoever....  🙌

[SKANK 14,288]

3 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

A lot of it.  By no means is she a perfect candidate in the slightest.  But please have been throwing bombs at her left & right since the early 90's like I said.  The far left never like her or Bill Clinton & all the republicans view her as the anti-christ!  But what her opponents fail to realize is that the stronger the concerted effort to bring her down is, the more her supporters will flock to her.  And when Sanders supporters become so vicious online towards her & treat him like a saint!  To Clinton supporters that reminds them of the horrible things republicans have been saying about her & literally her whole family for decades...  And all it does is strengthen their resolve for her!  If you desire for her to faulter, the best way is to let her do it on her own.  Since we live in a time of people doubling down & no capitulation whatsoever....  🙌

 

So your argument is no one should criticize her?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

6 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

So your argument is no one should criticize her?

Not at all.  But people tend to see a double standard when she gets 80% of the flack & her opponent gets 20% or less...  This was the same dynamic when Obama ran against her...  The media fawned over him & barely looked into his background & history as a senator in Illnois...  But with Hillary, we knew everything from the songs she listens to, to the nail polish she wears...  Smh   Oh and let's not forget the entire news panel discussions they would have about her wearing pants suits.  So nothing wrong with criticism, but when it is overly skewed towards her…  Then people see hypocrisy & tend to get pissed!