Gaga and Jamie Lee Curtis promote Hilary Clinton in a new photo

[brendablethyn 536]

14 hours ago, mcoop said:

So every single individual that has worn a Bernie T-shirt has provided an outline to why they support him?

Put it this way, Bernie's supporters are far more articulate at explaining why they are voting for him than Hillary's mob are.

[Fahs 183]

31 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's pretty shameful to see people turn on Gaga's intelligence when it comes to politics, after having praised her intelligence in almost every other field she partakes in.

It goes to show how humans function. You want to see what you want to see. 

Oh and the two policies you are discussing are actually controversial even among the LGBT population. I won't claim to know which is right, but given that neither of us lived in that stage, it's nor our place to claim objective facts. Many claim they were a necessary defensive action. Others say it was political opportunity. A few say it was both. In any case, it's unfair to use it against her, especially when her LGBT track record elsewhere (especially on a global stage) has been pretty impressive.

It's not that I want to see what I want to see. It's her opinion after all and I completely respect it, however, I am also expressing how I feel about her decision which is also valid.

Hillary has in many ways done a lot of damage to the world. You're Lebanese and you should know that her decision to go into Iraq was a big mistake. Many innocent people ended up dying and we can't deny the fact that Hillary contributed in a way to allowing these massacres to happen. This is not to mention her ties and support for Al-Saud, the ruling family of KSA whom until today carry out inhumane public executions. Hillary has done so much significant harm and has changed stances on so many key issues of the world that I find it hard to trust her as a president/commander in chief, this is why Gaga's decision was surprising to me.

Gaga has supported the Clinton's for years, and this is exactly why I mentioned my surprise, it looks like she had just fixated on supporting the Clinton family that she's not giving the other candidate a chance. but then again, I wouldn't know about that and it's just an "assumption".

[Fahs 183]

35 minutes ago, hahahahahahahah said:

hi there. well you could look at it this way. at the time, i think it was implemented to protect rather than harm LGB people. the fact of the matter is people weren't so widely liberal about these things as they are today and i can imagine like a gay man for instance not wanting to be asked and subjecting himself to such harsh ridicule and possible dismissal. a lot has changed in a matter of a few years and now people are recognizing that this is a right people have, that they can be open about themselves, etc. in terms of DOMA tho, idk. can't say anything about that. LOL. but i do believe people genuinely see the light and change their positions (going with the flow of popular opinion) and as long as they see the light it's ok with me idc. 

edit:

idk about T? can transgendered people serve in the military now? idk sounds like a stupid question i would think yes but not sure considering people are fighting over bathrooms and **** in the news. 

Ask any gay person who were above 18 when DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell was signed into constitution, if they say the bills protected them, then I take what I said back. 

[SpadesToStart 3,471]

I get why she chose Hilary. Gaga would stand to lose a lot of money under Bernie's tax plan

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

10 minutes ago, Fahs said:

It's not that I want to see what I want to see. It's her opinion after all and I completely respect it, however, I am also expressing how I feel about her decision which is also valid.

Hillary has in many ways done a lot of damage to the world. You're Lebanese and you should know that her decision to go into Iraq was a big mistake. Many innocent people ended up dying and we can't deny the fact that Hillary contributed in a way to allowing these massacres to happen. This is not to mention her ties and support for Al-Saud, the ruling family of KSA whom until today carry out inhumane public executions. Hillary has done so much significant harm and has changed stances on so many key issues of the world that I find it hard to trust her as a president/commander in chief, this is why Gaga's decision was surprising to me.

Gaga has supported the Clinton's for years, and this is exactly why I mentioned my surprise, it looks like she had just fixated on supporting the Clinton family that she's not giving the other candidate a chance. but then again, I wouldn't know about that and it's just an "assumption".

Thanks for your input. I like seeing posts like these.

Well it wasn't her decision. She voted for it, but presumably because that's what the administration was looking into doing. 

In any case, it's clear that it was a mistake (huge one...like..massive) but I'm not sure why all the blame is being pinned on her. It's not like the war wasn't going to happen if she disapproved of it. 

One can make the case that she would have stood against it if she didn't want it. Well, if I remember correctly, most Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. One can easily say she represented those people. If I also remember correctly, many of those people were democrats as well.

So it's unfair to say it was not at least intended for American interests.

Furthermore, the support of KSA has pragmatic reasons. There needs to be an alliance with SOMEONE in the Middle East that isn't Israel. Saudi Arabia provides the most benefit to the USA. It's not going to be Iran. Most other countries are weak in comparison. So while I'm sure it's not the most pleasant alliance, it's understandable. As a Lebanese, I'm well aware of the situation. In the end, their blatantly horrendous practices in terms of human rights does not outweigh their strategic usefulness.

One can make an argument that the close ties with the West has made Saudi Arabia more open over the years. Just recently, women have gained ground on their rights. Saying that the USA had no part to play in this would be misguided. Sometimes the best way to influence those you disagree with is to keep them close, especially when they do not harbor any ill will towards you. 

What I've noticed is that you've only focused on her negatives and then used that as a generalization for her entire character. Isn't that a little unfair?

Considering that Bernie and Hillary are very much similar in their stances in most regards, I fail to see why Gaga wouldn't support her. They only differ on foreign policy (where Bernie actually has no stance to talk about) and economics (in which frankly both sides have their pros and cons). Why would anyone be shocked that Gaga wouldn't support her? I won't claim that friendship has nothing to do with it, but perhaps that friendship gives her a fair amount of trust in Hillary to do what she thinks is right. How is that not grounded in reason?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Put it this way, Bernie's supporters are far more articulate at explaining why they are voting for him than Hillary's mob are.

Erm...give me one example in this thread. Most posts are saying why they won't vote for Hillary as opposed to why they want to vote for Bernie...

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, SpadesToStart said:

I get why she chose Hilary. Gaga would stand to lose a lot of money under Bernie's tax plan

Most Americans would. His policies demand higher taxation across the board. In fact, it would hurt those in the middle class the most since they don't qualify for aid, and aren't rich enough to ignore the difference.

Considering the USA's consumerist society, this is not going to go over well no matter how you put it. The money has to come from somewhere, and you should know that it isn't going to be solely from rich people like many Bernie supporters presume.

[Eighteen 5,430]

32 minutes ago, Fahs said:

Ask any gay person who were above 18 when DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell was signed into constitution, if they say the bills protected them, then I take what I said back. 

i don't have specific examples from people but try thinking critically about it, about the time of implementation, the attitudes of the GP at the time, etc. don't think of it in terms of how things are today. the military widely DISCHARGED gay people and DADT in some ways provided protection against that because the politics and attitudes of the time would not allow anything further than that to be passed. it was a stepping stone in a way, an ugly one, but a stepping stone nonetheless, that allowed people to see that gay people could remain in the military and the military would operate as it always had. 

here is an excerpt from this essay: http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html

(early 1990s)

"By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military's ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve "the real, practical problems that would be involved" in implementing a new policy. Clinton's proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public.

After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy’s constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely."

and then

"Throughout this time, public opinion appeared to favor allowing service by openly gay personnel. A December, 2003, Gallup poll registered 79% of US adults (including 68% of self-described conservatives) in favor of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly."

 

as for DOMA  i have nothing to say about it rn. LOL.

edit:

when thinking about this, keep in mind that change must happen incrementally, that to force something down someone's throat will make them wince evermore at the idea. they must come to their conclusions on their own, and that takes time. it unfortunately cannot happen all at once when talking about the attitudes of so many people. 

[mcoop 628]

29 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Put it this way, Bernie's supporters are far more articulate at explaining why they are voting for him than Hillary's mob are.

Oh look. Another attack. I figured that was your go to response. You can't even hold a decent conversation/debate without the mud slinging. 

I have better things to do with my time. Mud-sling with someone else.

[Fahs 183]

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Thanks for your input. I like seeing posts like these.

Well it wasn't her decision. She voted for it, but presumably because that's what the administration was looking into doing. 

In any case, it's clear that it was a mistake (huge one...like..massive) but I'm not sure why all the blame is being pinned on her. It's not like the war wasn't going to happen if she disapproved of it. 

One can make the case that she would have stood against it if she didn't want it. Well, if I remember correctly, most Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. One can easily say she represented those people. If I also remember correctly, many of those people were democrats as well.

So it's unfair to say it was not at least intended for American interests.

Furthermore, the support of KSA has pragmatic reasons. There needs to be an alliance with SOMEONE in the Middle East that isn't Israel. Saudi Arabia provides the most benefit to the USA. It's not going to be Iran. Most other countries are weak in comparison. So while I'm sure it's not the most pleasant alliance, it's understandable. As a Lebanese, I'm well aware of the situation. In the end, their blatantly horrendous practices in terms of human rights does not outweigh their strategic usefulness.

One can make an argument that the close ties with the West has made Saudi Arabia more open over the years. Just recently, women have gained ground on their rights. Saying that the USA had no part to play in this would be misguided. Sometimes the best way to influence those you disagree with is to keep them close, especially when they do not harbor any ill will towards you. 

What I've noticed is that you've only focused on her negatives and then used that as a generalization for her entire character. Isn't that a little unfair?

Considering that Bernie and Hillary are very much similar in their stances in most regards, I fail to see why Gaga wouldn't support her. They only differ on foreign policy (where Bernie actually has no stance to talk about) and economics (in which frankly both sides have their pros and cons). Why would anyone be shocked that Gaga wouldn't support her? I won't claim that friendship has nothing to do with it, but perhaps that friendship gives her a fair amount of trust in Hillary to do what she thinks is right. How is that not grounded in reason?

I think you make great points in your post and I agree with you. Just to make myself a little clearer, I'm not trying to put the blame all on Hillary, but I think I might be a little idealistic here to say that I would have liked to see her form her opinions far away from political benefits. I understand sometimes you have to make certain decisions to gain things in other deals which is how politics work, however, I do like the fact that Bernie stood his ground against the Iraqi war even though the majority of people in the USA supported the war in Iraq at the time.

I think I just admire the fact that Bernie has always stood for the same things and doesn't seem to be phased by where the tide is going.

I also grew up in the Middle East and have been seeing Hillary's face ever since i was a kid. I reached a point where I grew sick and tired of seeing the same political faces for over two decades making decisions that have harmed many countries in the Levant. Therefore I think my passion towards Sanders sometimes does cloud my fair judgment towards Clinton. 

This was great! I enjoyed this conversation with you.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, SpadesToStart said:

I get why she chose Hilary. Gaga would stand to lose a lot of money under Bernie's tax plan

That tax plan would never stand a second of a chance of being passed. Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that. Secondly, his tax plan would also impact the middle class and state taxes. 

If Gaga's motivations were to protect her money, she would be supporting a Republican. If she cared that much about taxes, she would have bought a house, actually houses, five or six years ago. 

It's disgusting how fans are tearing down Gaga personally as being money-hungry, unintelligent or sexist simply because she is casting one vote for a candidate that they don't support. Think about how ridiculous that is! Gaga is a thirty year old adult, who has shown herself to be an intelligent individual and one that deeply cares about human rights. Fans are really going to devote time to tearing Gaga down with these ridiculous implications because she supports a candidate they don't? 

[Fahs 183]

43 minutes ago, Whispering said:

That tax plan would never stand a second of a chance of being passed. Anyone with a drop of common sense knows that. Secondly, his tax plan would also impact the middle class and state taxes. 

If Gaga's motivations were to protect her money, she would be supporting a Republican. If she cared that much about taxes, she would have bought a house, actually houses, five or six years ago. 

It's disgusting how fans are tearing down Gaga personally as being money-hungry, unintelligent or sexist simply because she is casting one vote for a candidate that they don't support. Think about how ridiculous that is! Gaga is a thirty year old adult, who has shown herself to be an intelligent individual and one that deeply cares about human rights. Fans are really going to devote time to tearing Gaga down with these ridiculous implications because she supports a candidate they don't? 

It won't be the first time in US history were taxes are raised. Taxes went up to over 80% under Roosevelt's term. These things are possible and have been done before. Nothing is impossible.

[mmm 879]

10 hours ago, Whispering said:

What Gaga has put out to the public matches up with Hillary. 

I don't care what you believe (have made up in your head) and neither does Gaga. Intelligent, informed individuals choose their candidate based on who matches up best with the issues they find to be important. 

The point ive made from the begining is Gaga is a hypocrite and condtradicting herself by voting for Hilary.. if you have an argument against that, we can talk about it but all you are doing is saying invalid things like giving me the definition of voting and telling me everyone has the freedom to vote for however they want. Also, I never said you or Gaga cared what I believe.

12 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

 

Was there supposed to be a response or something?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,359]

8 minutes ago, faysalaaa1 said:

The point ive made from the begining is Gaga is a hypocrite and condtradicting herself by voting for Hilary.. if you have an argument against that, we can talk about it but all you are doing is saying invalid things like giving me the definition of voting and telling me everyone has the freedom to vote for however they want. Also, I never said you or Gaga cared what I believe.

Was there supposed to be a response or something?

 

[mmm 879]

1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

 

?