Before you think Clinton is an LGBT ally, read this....

[Kayla 7,595]

15 minutes ago, Spyro said:

 

your avis look the same. lele

we r lovrs

 

on topic though, even with Hillary's questionable track record I have more faith in her to do what's right than Trump  

[AJH219 4,448]

28 minutes ago, Squidward T said:

 

How can you accept her recieving donations from countries that execute homosexuals? 

I didn't say she was perfect  I treat it the same way I do, say, Cirque du Soleil cancelling all their shows in North Carolina yet performing for six weeks in Russia this year; acknowledge their support but also acknowledge it comes with certain hypocrisies. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 hours ago, Squidward T said:

Lets look at her and her husbands history shall we

 

Bill Clinton signed into law the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy which prevents LGB soldiers from revealing their sexuality openly while in combat, this act caused thousands of discharges for soldiers who bravely fought for our country. 

Bill Clinton signed into law DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which strictly forbid same sex marriages in 49 states and allowed religion organizations to discriminate against Same Sex couples. 

Bill Clinton said in an 1995 interview with Time Magazine that "homosexual marriage threatens the country and religious freedoms."

Hillary Clinton has said that she does not support same sex marriage. It wasnt until she ran for president that she "evolved" on the issue. 

Hillary Clinton has accepted substantial money donations from countries that support that death penalty and criminal punishment for homosexuals. 

 

Do not buy into this fraud 

Is this your response to Hillary's LGBT stance? Well...

First and foremost I find it quite funny that you think people don't know history at this point in the election process. If they didn't, then they clearly did not properly research their candidate for their primaries. 

So who are you addressing here? Informed people already know the tea. Are you just making this post in an attempt to convince yourself?  

------

It's fascinating that you are conflating Bill Clinton's decisions with Hillary's. 

Do you ever link any of the male candidates with the decisions their wives have made? I sense a hint of misogyny here. Apparently the wife must share the husband's values like a good housewife she is. 

She should have criticized her husband publicly and embarrassed him! That's what she should have done!  

Don't employ revisionist history in an attempt to make your points. Those laws were enacted decades ago when you were still a fetus. Do you think the world was as gay-friendly as it is today back then?

PRC has B+ on polling according to fivethirtyeight

Look at that graph. Look at how volatile the approval for homosexuality was during the 1990s.

DOMA and DADT were defensive measures to protect LGBT people appeasing the bigots, thus allowing LGBT to raise support in peace without fear from further persecution.

Many gay people who actually lived during that time have stood up for their implementation and pardon me for believing them over you. Gay soldiers could serve their country without being worried about being asked about their sexual orientation. Gay couples could have domestic partnerships without fear of their relationships being dissolved as anti-gay sentiments fluctuated.

Of course many also disagree. Some say there wasn't much risk. Also the implementations were abused, as they always are, but that speaks more about the people who were enforcing them as opposed to the intentions of the ones who enact them don't you think?

That's irrelevant though. That's how perceptions are. Implying that their implementation was outright hostile and anti-gay is just ridiculous considering the circumstances. These laws do not hold ground nowadays due to increase of support but 20 years ago was a far different time. 

Furthermore that quote about Bill Clinton is unsubstantiated. I could not find it, so don't make up quotes in your failed attempt to paint him as a homophobe.

Either way, he regrets his part in implementing them and wish there could have been another solution. At this point, how is it relevant? Do we judge people by what they did or said 20 years ago or what they stand for today? 

Implying otherwise is implying I should chastise my own mother for being homophobic before I came out. What kind of backwards logic? We embrace our allies no matter their past.

----

Let's get back to Hillary.

I'm glad you didn't try to bullshit this one. Yes she did not support same-sex marriage but she did not oppose it.

Read this politifact article. Politfact is a Pulitzer-prize winning fact checker so I suggest you trust it.

I'll quote the important parts in spoilers.

Spoiler

December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.

Well **** that goes against your claims of her necessarily sharing her husband's values....

Spoiler

January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

This justifies her position about same-sex marriage not being about against homosexuality but being a hang-up around the institution of marriage.

Hillary was from a different generation. Most people shared the same sentiments at the time. 

Spoiler

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

So basically she voted against anti-LGBT laws and denounced people who were more concerned with the Constitution than the marriage rights themselves, once again fortifying her stance being based on a hang-up as opposed to anti-gay sentiments

Spoiler

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

Poll by fivethirtyeight, the most trusted website on the Internet.

So she stated indirect support far before it became "the popular thing" to do. Approval at the time was still 35/58.

Spoiler

 

August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

 

 

 

What a horrible position to have.... full rights and liberties in civil unions while leaving marriage for opposite sex... how anti-LGBT of her.

Spoiler

March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013.

Omg....7 WHOLE years later she changed her mind. What a flip flopper! From full rights and liberties in civil unions to same-sex marriage. What a huge jump over 7 years!

Throughout that whole time she was an unchanging stagnant robot who could not allow her experiences to change her mind. Nobody does that! I mean look at that graph. Americans were also stagnant and Hillary is not an American to be influenced by the culture. I'm sure you have the same exact mindsets you had 6 years ago!

-----

So... so far you're using her husband's implementations and implying that not being supportive of same-sex unions (while not outright opposing and fighting them) somehow someone makes someone anti-LGBT.

How reductive of you to reduce someone's entire position to one issue.  

Of course you bring up donations from countries, because that somehow makes her accomplice to their actions.

Who needs that money right? Let me remind you that the money goes INTO the foundation not the other way around. The money is used for her liberal agenda. Why would she refuse it when she can use the money to help people. 

I mean...almost 10 million people with HIV or AIDS around the world have benefited from more affordable medicine because of the Clinton Foundation. And since 2002, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has reduced the cost of HIV and AIDS medications in many countries from over $10,000 per person per year to just $100 to $200 per person per year.

But of course not taking money from people who live in those countries is more important than those lives.You do realize that it's actually country as in singular, since Saudi Arabia is the only country that Hillary has active diplomacy with which has executions for gay people... 

Also how dare she have cordial relationships with PEOPLE from countries that aren't Canada on LGBT rights! We should push away those with policies we oppose, not interact with them to bring them over to the proper side over time. Who needs leverage? The fact that women in Saudi can now drive is in no part due to liberal ideologies and beliefs being transferred through cultural interactions!

She must be friends with them too! It's not like she has denounced Saudi Arabian leadership for supporting terrorist organizations in the past..... and just a few days ago too. 

How about you treat it as the gray area it is rather than demonize her for it?

Those donating to her KNOW what she fights for.

This is the same woman that stood in front of the UN and made a historic speech on LGBT rights.

Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. 

She essentially put LGBT rights on the international stage. You can read many articles about their impact.

Here's one

-----

Hillary has dedicated her entire career to fighting for human rights. Of course there's only so much she can do, and Hillary focused more on women's and children's rights than other demographics. How evil of her for not being a PFLAG member.

----

Either way, look at her current positions. Those are what matter right now, and they are far better than any other candidate backed by experience and tempered by reason.

Hillary is by no means the perfect ally, but she is one regardless and has the history to prove that she has always been genuinely sympathetic to the causes.

-----

So once again, I ask you. What are you trying to prove here when all you've done is exhibit your own gross misinformation and shortsighted perceptions?

Go to Trump supporters' Reddit page. You'll find similar people there.

[Andreyw 4,285]

Not into politics , but I'd rather have Hilary than trump 

[RAMROD 117,978]

Too bad, Bill kinda cute when younger l, no wonder he was a womanizer 

I blame all his wrinkles to Hillary, must be all the stress to put up with her.

 

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

45 minutes ago, Rebel Heart said:

I agree that people change etc but the fact that she didn't speak in favor for gay marriage until 2013 just shows me how it's all fake and only for political gain. It just shows how her opinion changes with what's popular tbh

She was Secretary of State for 4 years, she was forbidden to give or announce her views on politics at the time.  A year later when she was invited to The Human Rights Campaign to speak, is when she finally gave out her support for Gay Marriage.  Obama actually did it the year before when he was run for re-election!  

 

[Seeka 12,372]

@LebaneseDude

I think you kind of ripped off the entire head in trying to get that weave.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Seeka said:

@LebaneseDude

I think you kind of ripped off the entire head in trying to get that weave.

I'll just link this thread from now on

[PaperIz 7,354]

She flip flops so that's the reason. One reason I don't trust her. Glad she's on our side now but what is gonna keep her from flipping again?

[FATCAT 60,933]

1 minute ago, PaperIz said:

She flip flops so that's the reason. One reason I don't trust her. Glad she's on our side now but what is gonna keep her from flipping again?

Well, a lot of peoples worry isn't that she changes her public opinion frequently, it's that she might hold views contrary to her "current" platform. It's like ordering the BLT, expecting the BLT, and then getting upset when they hand you a BLT salad. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

She flip flops so that's the reason. One reason I don't trust her. Glad she's on our side now but what is gonna k

 

4 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Well, a lot of peoples worry isn't that she changes her public opinion frequently, it's that she might hold views contrary to her "current" platform. It's like ordering the BLT, expecting the BLT, and then getting upset when they hand you a BLT salad. 

You still call the trajectory I outlined above as flip flopping? 

Also she does not change her opinions frequently. Throughout the last year her only changed position was the TPP for outlined reasons that are very clear cut and reasonable. Stop employing hyperbole. She does not flip flop any more than a reasonable politician (or person) would. 

 

[FATCAT 60,933]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

 

You still call the trajectory I outlined above as flip flopping? 

Also she does not change her opinions frequently. Throughout the last year her only changed position was the TPP for outlined reasons that are very clear cut and reasonable. Stop employing hyperbole it's getting tiring.

I didn't say it was or wasn't flip-flopping, but bringing up TPP solidifies their argument. 

[mmm 879]

1 hour ago, Dora said:

I don't like Hilary. But she developes with the country. She represents what most Americans want.  Back then America wasn't for the gays, now America is so now Hilary is.  And that's what the president should be. They should represent what Americans wants.

lol then why vote for a leader with no opinions or moral principles?

[Spyro 8,438]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

Is this your response to Hillary's LGBT stance? Well...

First and foremost I find it quite funny that you think people don't know history at this point in the election process. If they didn't, then they clearly did not properly research their candidate for their primaries. 

So who are you addressing here? Informed people already know the tea. Are you just making this post in an attempt to convince yourself?  

------

It's fascinating that you are conflating Bill Clinton's decisions with Hillary's. 

Do you ever link any of the male candidates with the decisions their wives have made? I sense a hint of misogyny here. Apparently the wife must share the husband's values like a good housewife she is. 

She should have criticized her husband publicly and embarrassed him! That's what she should have done!  

Don't employ revisionist history in an attempt to make your points. Those laws were enacted decades ago when you were still a fetus. You think the world was as gay-friendly as it was back then?

PRC has B+ on polling according to fivethirtyeight

Look at that graph. Look at how volatile the approval for homosexuality was during the 1990s.

DOMA and DADT were defensive measures to protect LGBT people appeasing the bigots, thus allowing LGBT to raise support in peace without fear from further persecution.

Many gay people who actually lived during that time have stood up for their implementation and pardon me for believing them over you. Gay soldiers could serve their country without being worried about being asked about their sexual orientation. Gay couples could have domestic partnerships without fear of their relationships being dissolved as anti-gay sentiments fluctuated.

Of course many also disagree. Some say there wasn't much risk. Also the implementations were abused, as they always are, but that speaks more about the people who were enforcing them as opposed to the intentions of the ones who enact them don't you think?

That's irrelevant though. That's how perceptions are. Implying that their implementation was outright hostile and anti-gay is just ridiculous considering the circumstances. These laws do not hold ground nowadays due to increase of support but 20 years ago was a far different time. 

Furthermore that quote about Bill Clinton is unsubstantiated. I could not find it, so don't make up quotes in your failed attempt to paint him as a homophobe.

Either way, he regrets his part in implementing them and wish there could have been another solution. At this point, how is it relevant? Do we judge people by what they did or said 20 years ago or what they stand for today? 

Implying otherwise is implying I should chastise my own mother for being homophobic before I came out. What kind of backwards logic? We embrace our allies no matter their past.

----

Let's get back to Hillary.

I'm glad you didn't try to bullshit this one. Yes she did not support same-sex marriage but she did not oppose it.

Read this politifact article. Politfact is a Pulitzer-prize winning fact checker so I suggest you trust it.

I'll quote the important parts in spoilers.

  Reveal hidden contents

December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.

Well **** that goes against your claims of her necessarily sharing her husband's values....

  Reveal hidden contents

January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

This justifies her position about same-sex marriage not being about against homosexuality but being a hang-up around the institution of marriage.

Hillary was from a different generation. Most people shared the same sentiments at the time. 

  Reveal hidden contents

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

So basically she voted against anti-LGBT laws and denounced people who were more concerned with the Constitution than the marriage rights themselves, once again fortifying her stance being based on a hang-up as opposed to anti-gay sentiments

  Reveal hidden contents

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

Poll by fivethirtyeight, the most trusted website on the Internet.

So she stated indirect support far before it became "the popular thing" to do. Approval at the time was still 58/35.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

 

 

 

What a horrible position to have.... full rights and liberties in civil unions while leaving marriage for opposite sex... how anti-LGBT of her.

  Reveal hidden contents

March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013.

Omg....7 WHOLE years later she changed her mind. What a flip flopper! From full rights and liberties in civil unions to same-sex marriage. What a huge jump over 7 years!

Throughout that whole time she was an unchanging stagnant robot who could not allow her experiences to change her mind. Nobody does that! I mean look at that graph. Americans were also stagnant and Hillary is not an American to be influenced by the culture. I'm sure you have the same exact mindsets you had 6 years ago!

-----

So... so far you're using her husband's implementations and implying that not being supportive of same-sex unions (while not outright opposing and fighting them) somehow someone makes someone anti-LGBT.

How reductive of you to reduce someone's entire position to one issue.  

Of course you bring up donations from countries, because that somehow makes her accomplice to their actions.

Who needs that money right? Let me remind you that the money goes INTO the foundation not the other way around. The money is used for her liberal agenda. Why would she refuse it when she can use the money to help people. 

I mean...almost 10 million people with HIV or AIDS around the world have benefited from more affordable medicine because of the Clinton Foundation. And since 2002, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has reduced the cost of HIV and AIDS medications in many countries from over $10,000 per person per year to just $100 to $200 per person per year.

But of course not taking money from people who live in those countries is more important than those lives.You do realize that it's actually country as in singular, since Saudi Arabia is the only country that Hillary has active diplomacy with which has executions for gay people. 

Also how dare she have cordial relationships with PEOPLE from countries that aren't Canada on LGBT rights! We should push away those with policies we oppose, not interact with them to bring them over to the proper side over time. Who needs leverage? The fact that women in Saudi can no longer drive is in no part due to liberal ideologies and beliefs being transferred through cultural interactions! She must be friends with them too!

It's not like she has denounced Saudi Arabian leadership for supporting terrorist organizations in the past..... and just a few days ago too. 

How about you treat it as the gray area it is rather than demonize her for it?

Those donating to her KNOW what she fights for.

This is the same woman that stood in front of the UN and made a historic speech on LGBT rights.

Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. 

She essentially put LGBT rights on the international stage. You can read many articles about their impact.

Here's one

-----

Hillary has dedicated her entire career to fighting for human rights. Of course there's only so much she can do, and Hillary focused more on women's and children's rights than other demographics. How evil of her for not being a PFLAG member.

----

Either way, look at her current positions. Those are what matter right now, and they are far better than any other candidate backed by experience and tempered by reason.

Hillary is by no means the perfect ally, but she is one regardless and has the history to prove that she has always been genuinely sympathetic to the causes.

-----

So once again, I ask you. What are you trying to prove here when all you've done is exhibit your own gross misinformation and shortsighted perceptions?

Go to Trump supporters' Reddit page. You'll find similar people there.

Let me tag @Squidward T this tea

 

[Manul 7,377]

still better than Drumb