Bill Clinton: Hillary Is 'A Little Put Off' by Gays 'Acting Out'

[ThisGuyTony 34,856]

Well that was the 90's. Maybe she became more educated and better understood on gay culture over the past couple of years? 

[holy scheisse 22,905]

49 minutes ago, Raikou said:

Buy Breathe in, Breathe out on iTu... wait.

Welp, keep propagating the villainization of femininity, Hilza!

This has nothing to do with her being a woman 

this is a critique of her morals and an inconsistency in her stances. 

20 minutes ago, AJH219 said:

I hate when gays act out too  

But seriously, 1999   Literally most people in the 90's hated gays. This comment is neither surprising or worthy of some kind of uproar. Don't we have more pressing present issues to worry about? Good grief  

Some old dude called me a ******* at the bar last night. Since when is gay rights an issue that's been conquered? People are still homophobic. I'd rather my leader be somebody who has always supported me rather than only begun to say they support me 3 years ago. 

[brendablethyn 536]

Hillary believes whatever is politically popular. The woman has no inner core or beliefs. She just believes in power. 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

The USA only got to where it was today through temperance, not recklessness.

Except when we're talking about invading the Middle East ofc.

Which is exactly where this admittedly often annoying Bernie rhetoric matters: it also wasn't popular to oppose the Iraq invasion of 2003 but there were still plenty of people who actively tried, incl. Bernie. Now that was very much a possible political suicide as well, since opposition was almost equal to being a traitor. But you would claim that it was better to just run along with the general consensus in that case?

I don't disagree very much about the case of the LGBT community in general (though I absolutely reject your case that "times weren't changing by the late 80's" - thanks for the continuing insult about me revising history btw - everyone should know that the 80's marked the beginning of a growing visibility of the gay movement; the battle was already being fought at that time, GLAAD was being set up and influencing media organizations, there were politicians who showed their support in their personal lives and their legislations which was extended through the 90's. No one's claiming the majority of people were supportive of the gay movement, but there were politicans and important figures who stuck their necks out, and I refuse to believe that more couldn't have been done and a lot faster if more of them, incl. Bernie and Hillary, did it as well. **** the fact that they have to represent the people, most people are uninformed bigots who dance to the tune of politicians anyway.), but it's in these areas that the subject becomes more urgent.

[JevyDuty 2,961]

6 minutes ago, holyscheisse said:

People are still homophobic. I'd rather my leader be somebody who has always supported me rather than only begun to say they support me 3 years ago. 

I'd rather my leader know both state of minds in order to pave the way for those lost souls to join us. Having a different journey is not something to be frowned upon. Perfection is overrated.

[AJH219 4,448]

15 minutes ago, holyscheisse said:

This has nothing to do with her being a woman 

this is a critique of her morals and an inconsistency in her stances. 

Some old dude called me a ******* at the bar last night. Since when is gay rights an issue that's been conquered? People are still homophobic. I'd rather my leader be somebody who has always supported me rather than only begun to say they support me 3 years ago. 

Did you fcking read what I wrote? I said we STILL have pressing issues to worry about. Nowhere did I say things were perfect  If you're going to pitch a fit towards me, at least be intelligent enough to read what I wrote properly  

[Helxig 45,335]

She only 'changed' her opinion about us when it became popular opinion to favour LGBT groups, and therefore also became a risk for her to oppose us. She still doesn't care for us, her opinions surely haven't changed, she just wants to do anything to win. Which is blatantly obvious given how damn frequently she's changed her stories and opinions on matters, straight out lied, and changed her whole persona to try and gain popularity with different groups.

[Luc 4,776]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

It's also legit to say someone who is that blatant a flip flopper shouldn't be in the White House. So eh.

I'd actually say a pragmatist/technocrat would be way better for the White House than an idealist. One needs to be able to respond to things happening around the world, and take appropriate measures, even when those are against your ideals. When idealistic, you can be more easily played by foreign powers. You can be made use of.

[Sid 6,755]

1 hour ago, brendablethyn said:

Hillary believes whatever is politically popular. The woman has no inner core or beliefs. She just believes in power. 

This. I have absolutely no faith she would continue to fight for me once she's in the white house. I gave up on her when i tried to figure out her views from things she's said and every other interview has her saying the exact opposite of the thing she said the time before. It would actually be embarrassing for me to say 'I support Hillary Clinton' because if someone asked why, I literally couldn't tell you what her views on anything actually are because she's somehow managed to support both sides of everything 

[SKANK 14,288]

"But it was the 90's...blah, blah, blah, cultural relativism, blah blah blah."

If your moral compass only points in the direction of progress when it is comfortable and popular to do so then you are not a leader, you are a follower, and you do not have my vote.

[Goosey 3,017]

3 hours ago, IWantTheFame said:

This. I have absolutely no faith she would continue to fight for me once she's in the white house. I gave up on her when i tried to figure out her views from things she's said and every other interview has her saying the exact opposite of the thing she said the time before. It would actually be embarrassing for me to say 'I support Hillary Clinton' because if someone asked why, I literally couldn't tell you what her views on anything actually are because she's somehow managed to support both sides of everything 

Her views are whatever her focus groups recommend. 

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, holyscheisse said:

This has nothing to do with her being a woman 

this is a critique of her morals and an inconsistency in her stances. 

Some old dude called me a ******* at the bar last night. Since when is gay rights an issue that's been conquered? People are still homophobic. I'd rather my leader be somebody who has always supported me rather than only begun to say they support me 3 years ago. 

Always? Whelp, that's no one this election cycle. I guess there was no one to vote for in the past year. 

Maybe at the local level, you might find someone to vote for? Maybe...

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, Helxig said:

She only 'changed' her opinion about us when it became popular opinion to favour LGBT groups, and therefore also became a risk for her to oppose us. She still doesn't care for us, her opinions surely haven't changed, she just wants to do anything to win. Which is blatantly obvious given how damn frequently she's changed her stories and opinions on matters, straight out lied, and changed her whole persona to try and gain popularity with different groups.

Like Obama and like Bernie?

Who are you going to get that has supported LGBT rights since they were in politics? Either a very young person of a gay person. Maybe a gay person will run in the next election cycle? 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 hours ago, Didymus said:

Except when we're talking about invading the Middle East ofc.

Which is exactly where this admittedly often annoying Bernie rhetoric matters: it also wasn't popular to oppose the Iraq invasion of 2003 but there were still plenty of people who actively tried, incl. Bernie. Now that was very much a possible political suicide as well, since opposition was almost equal to being a traitor. But you would claim that it was better to just run along with the general consensus in that case?

I don't disagree very much about the case of the LGBT community in general (though I absolutely reject your case that "times weren't changing by the late 80's" - thanks for the continuing insult about me revising history btw - everyone should know that the 80's marked the beginning of a growing visibility of the gay movement; the battle was already being fought at that time, GLAAD was being set up and influencing media organizations, there were politicians who showed their support in their personal lives and their legislations which was extended through the 90's. No one's claiming the majority of people were supportive of the gay movement, but there were politicans and important figures who stuck their necks out, and I refuse to believe that more couldn't have been done and a lot faster if more of them, incl. Bernie and Hillary, did it as well. **** the fact that they have to represent the people, most people are uninformed bigots who dance to the tune of politicians anyway.), but it's in these areas that the subject becomes more urgent.

Bringing up the Middle East? Blame Bush and the Republicans for that. I've already told you that voting for authorization to act is not the same as declaring war. As a Middle Easterner, I must emphasize that regardless of the USA's actions, the problems there have been there long ago. Many of them are due to European intervention, not American.

You mention Bernie was against the war. Do you ever know why? It wasn't due to moral righteousness. In fact he did the complete opposite of what most Americans thought was necessary at the time. He simply believes the USA should not act against external threats. That's how he always functions. He does not believe in compromise when he isn't writing the bills. 

He even voted against Amber Alert because of one minor conflict.  

Ultimately, it's a shallow viewpoint of the world if I've ever seen one. People think the world is at peace and everyone is friends.  . Hiding from problems does not solve them.

You are not a "traitor" if you did not want to actively protect US interests. You know who would be though? Clinton. The Senator of NEW YORK, the very state that was a victim of one of the biggest terrorist attacks ever seen. 

Why are you trying to vindicate Bernie while failing to do so for Clinton?

Furthermore, I find it odd that you're failing to see the correlation between pressures that both Sanders and Clinton faced. 

Do you think there were no pressures regarding LGBT rights? The world 10-20 years ago was vastly different than that today. Both of us were not environmentally conscious during that time. Trying to understand their points of view is commendable but ultimately futile. You have little context outside what you read in the media.

It's the same reason I don't press Bernie's flip flops myself. Well... excluding his many, many recent ones at least.

It seems you are employing inconsistent logic when treating matters regarding either one. That's fine. It's simply indicative of bias.

[Didymus 34,380]

11 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You mention Bernie was against the war. Do you ever know why? It wasn't due to moral righteousness. In fact he did the complete opposite of what most Americans thought was necessary at the time. He simply believes the USA should not act against external threats.

That's wildly untrue. His opinions on how to fight ISIS for instance in the broad context of Middle Eastern conflicts as a whole are perfectly in line with leading scholars who study them, and I've studied them myself, under the tutelage of an authority in the field, so don't bother trying to correct me on that. It won't happen.

11 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Why are you trying to vindicate Bernie while failing to do so for Clinton?

My first post was perfectly clear on the matter. I'm showing no hostility towards her in this thread. I only brought up the idea that we might need to think about choosing political leaders who will be ahead of the disasters and are willing to face public defeat because of it. I never said Bernie was the perfect example of that, but in the matters of LGBT rights and the Iraq invasion he is in any case a more admirable one than Hillary (which again is not saying he did enough, which imo he didn't, nor is it saying Hillary doesn't deserve to win). That's not me making a case, that's me just expanding on my original post where I presented both idealism and pragmatism as two viable routes to political ruling, so don't act like I'm making big, clear-cut statements pls, I'm not.

11 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It seems you are employing inconsistent logic when treating matters regarding either one. That's fine. It's simply indicative of bias.

Oh here we go again. You had to give that lame ass punch there, did you? Embarrassing. I honestly don't know how on earth it's even possible I'm showing a bias when I literally defended Hillary here against Andy's attacking OP, and defended the rhetoric of her voters in the matter as legitimate. And then you had to swing in and zoom in on that "flip flop" word as if I was trying to shade Hillary when I clearly wasn't.

So I can only say if there's someone treating of persons in a biased way it's you towards me and it's been going on for weeks now and I'm ****ing sick of it. Like I told you yesterday: respond to what I'm writing or don't. Next time you'll be reported. These personal remarks may be innocent enough when isolated in one post, but when you put them all together they sure make one ugly heap. Unnecessary and disrespectful.