HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LostOne4Ever » Journal
Page: 1

LostOne4Ever

Profile Information

Gender: Confused
Hometown: Somewhere in Texas
Home country: USA
Current location: What part of lost do you not understand?
Member since: Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:29 AM
Number of posts: 8,139

About Me

Hi I am Lost. In fact, I am pretty sure I made a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Anyone know the way to Cucamonga?

Journal Archives

Everything I stated is a verifiable fact and nothing was misrepresented and I will prove it.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]What I said was this:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]My most passionate issues is LGBTQ rights

Yet I voted for someone for president who stood before the senate and told the world marriage is the union of a man and woman. A person who lambasted a form for being inclusive of LGBTQ people out of fear of what Fox news might think. A Person who only supported SSM after it reached over 50% popularity.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]There are three claims here. The first that said candidate stood before the senate and told the world marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Again this is a verifiable fact and here is the proof, a video of her doing just that:[/font]



[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Further:[/font]



[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]and: [/font]



[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]My second claim was that she got upset about an LGBTQ inclusive form because of Fox News. Again, this is a fact:[/font]

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/10/01/hillary-clinton-opposed-pro-lgbt-changes-state-department

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]These are her exact words from the article:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Hillary Clinton[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]“I’m not defending that decision, which I disagree w and knew nothing about, in front of this Congress. I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father. We need to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by Palin et al.”

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Again a verifiable fact and exactly as I said it was. Finally, I acknowledged that she did EVENTUALLY come around to supporting SSM, BUT ONLY AFTER it was polling above 50% support. Again, this is easily verifiable:[/font]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]She officially came out in support in March of 2013, but support for SSM reached above 50% back in 2012:[/font]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]So again, what I said was a pure fact, and there was no misrepresentation at all. However, YOU misrepresented what I said. You posted her campaign position during the 2016 election, which I never even mentioned:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]mercuryblues[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Here is her platform on LBGTQ rights

As president, Hillary will:
Fight for full federal equality for LGBT Americans. Hillary will work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, continue President Obama’s LGBT equality executive actions, and support efforts underway in the courts to protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in every aspect of public life.
Support LGBT youth, parents, and elders. Hillary will end so-called “conversion therapy” for minors, combat youth homelessness by ensuring adequate funding for safe and welcoming shelters, and take on bullying and harassment in schools. She’ll end discriminatory treatment of LGBT families in adoptions, and protect LGBT elders against discrimination.
Honor the military service of LGBT people. Hillary applauds the Pentagon’s decision to allow transgender personnel to serve openly, and as Commander-in-Chief, she will upgrade service records of LGBT veterans dismissed due to their sexual orientation.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Your exact words. I never mentioned any of that. Then you posted her voting history:[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]mercuryblues[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]her voting record

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Civil_Rights

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]I didn't mention her voting record at all. Or her HRC rating (which is still lower than Bernies rating.)

But despite not addressing one thing that I actually said (and quoted above as proof), you then claim I misrepresented facts (Which I have proven I did not) and then you said what I said was disproven when you did no such thing:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]mercuryblues[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]You misrepresented the facts to suit your bias. When your 1st paragraph was easily disproven, I consider the rest of what you wrote also subject to your bias.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Again, you didn't disprove a word I said because you didn't address a word I said. Further, I have proven that everything that I did say was 100% true and factual.

The person who is using alternative facts to suit their bias is not me, but you. Maybe before accusing someone of misrepresenting things and being biased you should take a long look in the mirror.
[/font]

[hr]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]That said, debating Hillary Clinton's less than pristine record on the issue of SSM was not and is not my intention. In fact, I was trying to avoid using her or Bernie Sanders names entirely because I didn't this discussion to become about them. My point was voting for someone who is in favor of curtailing some of your rights for the greater good.

Which is why I am glad you brought up her voting history because that only further proves the point I am making. The video of her calling marriage a union of one man and one woman is from where she was actually arguing against making a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

You see she was doing the very thing I advocated for: Compromising on part of an issue for the greater good. She was denouncing ever legalizing gay marriage but arguing that if states want to do so they should be allowed to legalize it (ie for states rights). She threw marriage equality under the bus in order to protect states rights.

She and Bill did a similar thing on Don't Ask Don't tell. They campaigned on allowing homosexuals to be allowed into the military, but support for that was nil. In fact, many people in legislature were working on a bill to specifically discriminate against homosexuals in the military. What did she and Bill do?

They passed Don't Ask Don't Tell as a compromise legislation:[/font]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Origin

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]She did exactly what advocated in my post, checking your ego at the desk and taking a compromise position for the greater good.[/font]

My most passionate issues is LGBTQ rights

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Yet I voted for someone for president who stood before the senate and told the world marriage is the union of a man and woman. A person who lambasted a form for being inclusive of LGBTQ people out of fear of what Fox news might think. A Person who only supported SSM after it reached over 50% popularity.

I passionately support privacy rights, but again I gave this woman my vote despite knowing she voted to gut those rights via the patriot act.

I deeply believe in autonomy rights, but I voted for this someone who said they were willing to compromise on Abortion rights, and chose a VP who supported the Hyde amendment.

I did this because she was the democratic candidate for president and I know that while she had thrown my issues and rights I care about under the bus time after time, that her party in the end had my back on those issues and overall it would protect them.

The Person I did want to be president (lets call him candidate X) lost the primary. His critics said he was a purist who would never compromise; but, he also understood the need to put one's own ego aside for the greater good. He told his supporters that we had to be realisitic and that we should vote for her. So much for him being a purist. Anyway, I voted for her. But many of my fellow supporter didn't want to...and they were all shamed for it.

Now he is telling us to vote for another flawed candidate; because, overall this person would help the party out and all the issues I cared about. But now he and his supporters are being shamed for not demanding Purity. Apparently, party unity only matters around here when its one's favored candidate running.

I have held my nose and supported people who were willing to sacrifice my rights time and time again, because it was for the greater good. Because that is how progress is made. By pushing for your rights and your issues as hard as you can when it is feasible, and then biting your lip and making compromises when the time calls for it. It sucks but so long as you are moving forward you grin and bear it. Two steps forward and one step back is still a net gain of a step forward.

Why? Because if you don't you might not lose just one right but two or three. Or even all of them. When you put purity over the overall greater good you are not protecting that right, but rather putting your ego ahead of everything.

Just look at the situation we are in now. Trump got about the same number of votes as Romney did. Had the same people showed up in 2016 as did in 2012 we would have won. But those people didn't show. And now all the issues and rights Obama fought for are now in jeopardy. Instead of having a person in charge who is willing to sacrifice or endanger just one of our rights, we this overgrown umpaloompa threatening all of them.


Does this mean I think we shouldn't fight to keep these rights relevant to the party? Absolutely not. I will always fight so that the party puts civil rights and liberties first and foremost. But I know that there will be times I have to vote for someone who doesn't agree with me 100%.

When that times comes I will do what I always do: I will check my ego at the desk and vote for the overall greater good.[/font]
Go to Page: 1