Didn't Trump Say He Was Going To Be "Good For The Gays?"

[A Director]

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-hiv-testing-e76da0eb9965

[qolbinau]

He'd say anything to be elected - as would Hillary who had to do a complete 180 on gay marriage to get the votes. We need politicians with values they are willing to believe in and stand up for - not bend at will when faced with pressure. We had a candidate like that, but unfortunately we missed our chances. 

[Miss American]

Bernie was "states' rights" until 2009. 

Clinton wasn't running for President when she came out in favor it. 

Obama was already President when he did!

[LYLS3637]

qolbinau said: "He'd say anything to be elected - as would Hillary who had to do a complete 180 on gay marriage to get the votes. We need politicians with values they are willing to believe in and stand up for - not bend at will when faced with pressure. We had a candidate like that, but unfortunately we missed our chances."

 

So it's perfectly ok for Bernie, Obama, Biden, and every other Democratic/progressive figure to "evolve" on gay marriage, but Hillary can't?

[henrikegerman]

LYLS3637 said: "So it's perfectly ok for Bernie, Obama, Biden, and every other Democratic/progressive figure to "evolve" on gay marriage, but Hillary can't?"

What disturbs me about Hillary Clinton and same sex marriage is not that she, like almost every other Democrat, evolved on the issue.

What disturbed me greatly both in 2002 and afterward, is that Clinton, then US Senator for New York, so staunchly and implacably declared herself against same sex marriage as a New York state rights position.  Not as a federal one. 

For Clinton and others in her party at the time to not believe that same sex marriage should be recognized as a federal right is one thing.
For Clinton to be so against New York state recognizing same sex marriage in 2002 because "marriage is between a man and a woman" was quite another. 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-flashback-no-new-york-should-not-recognize-same-sex-marriages/article/979108

This doesn't let others off the hook who similarly skirted same sex marriage as a state rights issue.




 

 

"

 

[LYLS3637]

^ Bernie Sanders had the same argument as late as 2006. 

Why is he a gay rights pioneer while Hillary is criticized?

[henrikegerman]

Are you saying that Sanders at any time was against any Vermont legislative effort to recognize same sex marriage as a state issue?

If that's true, then he should be subject to the same criticism that I have for Clinton's statements in 2002.

But I'm not sure that's true.

Vermont had same sex marriage in 2009, the Fourth State to do so.  I don't believe Sanders was opposed to it then. Was he opposed to it before?

New York voted same sex marriage in 2011.  I don't believe Clinton voiced any support for same sex marriage in New York until after it was passed.  

[LYLS3637]

http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/ 

If he was in support of marriage equality from the beginning, he did some masterful political spin to make it look like he wasn't.

[henrikegerman]

Lyls3636, I'm all in favor of objectivity and fairness when it comes to evaluating any and every politician.  Including the Clintons, Obama and Sanders.

But even the article you posted acknowledges that Sanders was way ahead of the game in supporting gay rights.. 

And makes clear that he voiced support for same sex marriage in 2009, when it passed in Vermont, as opposed to Clinton who did so four years later in 2013, two years after New York passed it.

My point is that in 2002, I had a very negative reaction to Clinton's interview with Chris Matthews. 

I supported and worked for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election.  And it's a damned shame she's currently not our president.

But in 2002 to hear her affirmatively oppose New York state efforts to recognize same sex marriage (as a state issue!) and to do so so staunchly because "marriage is between one man and one woman" was deeply disturbing to me as someone who had supported and worked for her to become my senator.
 

And I would have had the same reaction for any Democrat representing New Yorkers (including myself) at the time.

[madbrian]

Only we Dems can take an anti-Trump thread and convert it into a circular firing squad.

[henrikegerman]

madbrian said: "Only we Dems can take an anti-Trump thread and convert it into a circular firing squad."

Madbrian, I don't think anyone's firing at each other.

And what's wrong with engaging in a challenging discussion that allows for differences between members of the same party?
 

 

[Cat Guy]

madbrian said: "Only we Dems can take an anti-Trump thread and convert it into a circular firing squad."

 Yes.

I don't care when or why people such as Clinton or Obama or Sanders come out in support of LGBT rights.  I care only that they DO.  Our focus should be on those who DON'T.

 

[Miss American]

Blame it on the queen from the oceanic penal colony that doesn't have same-sex marriage. She's the one taking about "we had a candidate"

[madbrian]

henrikegerman said: "...And what's wrong with engaging in a challenging discussion that allows for differences between members of the same party?"

Absolutely nothing, and it would be a terrific topic for its own thread.  I think it's much more topical to discuss Trump's agenda, and what can be done about it.

[javero]

madbrian said: "Only we Dems can take an anti-Trump thread and convert it into a circular firing squad."

From my vantage point it gets worse for you Dems.  Bernie's group, Our Revolution, posted a press release earlier today announcing a new President, Nina Turner, vice Jeff Weaver.  Ms Turner is bright and well-versed in the panoply of progressive causes, but subtlety is arguably not her strong suit.  I foresee a summer of internecine warfare among Dems.  After all is said and done, I hope you can coalesce around gubernatorial and House candidates who are actually electable in practice.  We independent voters are still in your corner for now.

Our Revolution press release here.

 

[madbrian]

javero said: "...After all is said and done, I hope you can coalesce around gubernatorial and House candidates who are actually electable in practice.  We independent voters are still in your corner for now."

^^THIS.^^

[LYLS3637]

javero said: "madbrian said: "Only we Dems can take an anti-Trump thread and convert it into a circular firing squad."

From my vantage point it gets worse for you Dems.  Bernie's group, Our Revolution, posted a press release earlier today announcing a new President, Nina Turner, vice Jeff Weaver.  Ms Turner is bright and well-versed in the panoply of progressive causes, but subtlety is arguably not her strong suit.  I foresee a summer of internecine warfare among Dems.  After all is said and done, I hope you can coalesce around gubernatorial and House candidates who are actually electable in practice.  We independent voters are still in your corner for now.

Our Revolution press release here."

 

What if the candidates endorsed by Our Revolution lose their primaries? Will their supporters actually step up, do what's best for the country, and vote for someone who may not pass their purity test? Or will they sulk and cry foul while the GOP continues to destroy every social safety net we have?

[adamgreer]

Miss American said: "Blame it on the queen from the oceanic penal colony that doesn't have same-sex marriage. She's the one taking about "we had a candidate"

 

Bingo!!!

[SonofRobbieJ]

adamgreer said: "Miss American said: "Blame it on the queen from the oceanic penal colony that doesn't have same-sex marriage. She's the one taking about "we had a candidate"

 

Bingo!!!

Exactly.  A thread on that awful president person defunding HIV treatment has had nearly every single response about how bad or good Democrats are.  Jesus Flipping Christ...now really isn't the time.

 

[Miss American]

That Bernie cult of personality is strong. I wish they'd made good on all their DEMEXIT shrieking. We already know compromise (at least with people presumably on their same side) is anathema to them, so I'm not sure what the point of them staying in the party is, except to ensure the Democrats never win again. 

[Cat Guy]

SonofRobbieJ said: "A thread on that awful president person defunding HIV treatment has had nearly every single response about how bad or good Democrats are.  Jesus Flipping Christ...now really isn't the time."

I agree.

The problem for me is that there is just so much negative news coming out of D.C. and, more specifically, the White House.  It's hard to keep up.  Before we have time to process the fact that the Homophobe-in-Chief has cut funding for HIV treatment, we are drawn into something new.  Today, it was the Sexist-in-Chief's filthy tweet against a respected MSNBC female journalist.  (And as I write this, the female Deputy White House Press Secretary is, of course, defending that tweet....and bashing the press for asking about the tweet.)

All I can do is speak out whenever and wherever I can, and VOTE in every single election that comes along.

 

 

[Roscoe]

The only people dumb enough to believe Trump when he said that are the people who are dumb enough to vote for him in the first place.

[LYLS3637]

Roscoe said: "The only people dumb enough to believe Trump when he said that are the people who are dumb enough to vote for him in the first place."

 

YES! This should not come as a shock to anyone. And if it does, there's nothing that can be done for you.

[adamgreer]

Roscoe said: "The only people dumb enough to believe Trump when he said that are the people who are dumb enough to vote for him in the first place.

 

This would be the likes of Broadway Concierge, Trump apologist!

[qolbinau]

adamgreer said: "Miss American said: "Blame it on the queen from the oceanic penal colony that doesn't have same-sex marriage. She's the one taking about "we had a candidate"

 

Bingo!!!

 

"

Well don't even get me started on why we don't have gay marriage - but I'll give you a hint, it has a lot to do with awful and wrong (both factual and immoral) religious beliefs. Of course I'm guessing you all would be on board with this criticism because it is thanks to a so called 'white religion'. Should we be talking about a religion that puts gay people to death then suddenly gay rights don't matter anymore and it's 'racist'. (Maybe in hindsight it's starting to explain a lot). 

I didn't anticipate the thread would turn into the direction it did but I personally find this discussion more interesting because as someone  said a couple of posts above - no one should be shocked that a Republican president would hold these values. I find it much more shocking that a candidate fetished by many gay people once described marriage as between a man and woman and supported Doma! As far as I'm aware, her opponent did neither. And I think if anything the standards for Hillary should be higher because she has been a much more influential public figure than her opponent. 

Those "I'd bottom for Hillary" shirts are ironically appropriate because it probably describes what Hillary and her husband did for gays in the past (**** them over).