Oh so it's OK for Obama to evolve on SSM but not Hillary! Come on. Another double-standard, much?
It's okay for Hillary to evolve on this issue, and even de-volve. But also right to note it as a flip flop. Both Obama and Hillary flip flopped on this issue.
What started this tangent though is that Hillary has flipped on a number of issues, and did so to appear more progressive, to obtain those voters.
Yes, Trump has done this as all politicians do some flopping from primaries to general, but Hillary has done it more. That is partially attributed to the fact of her 'political experience' or fact she's been in the game longer than the other names we are discussing, but is mostly attributed to the idea that she'll go with political expediency as the primary principle, rather than having principled positions on these issue that actually evolve rather than flip.
OK, let's try this again: In the 1990s, the mere idea of gay marriage was not popular. At all. The Clintons could have set back progress had they come swinging for it. Hell it could have cost him the 1996 election.
So, let's try this again. Had Bill said no to gay marriage, and Hillary said yes, I believe all BC supporters would've said, we are voting for BC, not HRC. Or she could've, whenever the topic come up said something neutral, or remained quiet. You're stance on this just bolsters the idea her primary principle is to be politically expedient rather than to maintain her own set of principles.
That's not what my sources are telling me. I know the internet is flooded with Hillary-haters (not talking about you specifically, but there are people out there on some downright crazy websites who have invented and stirred up these narratives).
I'm not talking about haters. But if we're being honest, if anyone says anything negative about her, they are labeled hater, and determined to have a bias. If someone like the ex-secret service guy who came out with tell-all about his time with the Clintons (which shows Hillary in negative light), it is picked up by the haters and promoted as reason not to vote for her. Other side (Dems) are constantly doing same thing with regards to Trump. IMO, how they are behind the scene matters, but isn't as important as how they are about principles/policies in front of the cameras.
And where is your evidence--your cold, hard evidence--that HRC secretly opposes full marriage rights for bi's?
Perhaps you missed where I said: I'm guessing right now she opposes that but really not sure because it can't readily be a principle thing for her, and is more likely just that it isn't popular to hold that position currently.
There are a few things that I for sure would like the candidates to be asked about or speak to, but I'm around 80% sure it won't even come up. Like vaping politics truly matters to me in this election, but it so far has only (very) slightly come up, and so I'm stuck with the impression (that I do consider very accurate) that national dems want them banned and national pubs are more lenient, willing to allow small businesses in this market a fighting chance. I do hope during the debates, this matter comes up (as FDA put forth a significant ruling in 2016), but I do think it unlikely that it does. With the plural marriage issue that I see impacting B-rights, I think there is less of a chance that comes up, though if lots of debate discussion revolves around SSM, then I could see either candidate at least dropping hints about it. I'm guessing both candidates (and of the 4 running, I think GJ-libertarian is exception) would say marriage (during this election cycle) is for two people only.
There are so many anti-Hillary conspiracy theories out there that say that she supports this, she opposes that, that it is going to take a lot to convince me that yet the latest extraordinary claim is actually true.
Okay. I think you are making bigger deal than I am on this issue. I bring it up because I truly think it's not something she's really considering at this point, and mostly because it's not being discussed often enough yet. I do see this as slippery slope logic and always have. Can't make the case for last 20 years that marriage equality is about 'what consenting adults want' and not have that include plural marriages. Those that disagree with this slippery slope, I enjoy discussing with them, and defeating their arguments. Some (who are anti-SSM) use slippery slope as a negative thing, I'm using it as positive/inevitable thing that will eventually occur. I don't think it will be discussed in this election cycle because HRC isn't really progressive and is only willing to go as far as whatever ways the current political winds are a blowing.
And I want you to take a look at your last sentence. You think there is any chance in hell of Alabama deciding for themselves to keep gay marriage legal?
I do think there is a chance. But as I favor SSM, I feel it better left up to states. If majority of a state wishes it for it not to be recognized state law, then I see that as matter of state rights. I realize the havoc that could cause, but is up to each state to determine if they can deal with such political repercussions. IMO, SSM was always inevitable, and so a principled person would've started with this a long time ago and maintained the idea of state rights. I see plural marriage as inevitable, which is why I'm glad I maintain my position on that. I see that as likely occurring within 10 to 15 years, and see the discussion as occurring more and more, which I felt was predictable right after SSM became nationally recognized right. I still think if any state wishes to opt out, they ought to have that right, but realize it could lead to a bit of political havoc - a little for the nation, mostly for that state and perceptions of it.
Finally, which person--HRC, or Trump, because our next president is going to be one of those two--would nominate SCOTUS justices that continue to uphold LGBT rights? Do not underestimate this point. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for the presidency, vote for the Supreme Court. I personally know some people who will be voting for HRC this November for that reason alone.
I'd want to take B out of the LGBT thing for the question to make sense to me. For I see neither speaking to the B at this time. I think HRC appointee is more likely to uphold the current issues impacting the LGT community. For me, that is not the most important issue, and I'm B. It's perhaps because I'm B, and because I feel that group is ignored that it isn't all that important. I also understand B to be the largest group of that community, yet has the least amount to fight for.
Voting for SC is one reason why I would vote this election cycle. Last time I voted, I believe was for Dole in the 90's. Yep, that long ago. Been a proud non-voter between then and now. This election cycle I may actually vote and one of the reasons is SC nomination. With all issues that matter to me, and I think matter to our country I would, without a doubt, vote for Trump (over Hillary).
