Yes it absolutely did. But it also ensured an amendment to the US Constitution would not happen
There's pretty scarce evidence of that beyond her assurances. The clip above from 2004 lines up with principles of DOMA pretty neatly.
When shown the clip for Sanders saying he wouldn't support gay marriage in Vermont in 2006 you dismissed it, though.
And Sanders' statement of opposition against DOMA at the time was not that gay marriage was right or that gay people should be allowed to marry, but that it was a state's right issue. No one pushed him on it because he was the Rep from Vermont.
And Hillary's statements are consistent with the 2013 amicus brief to the SCOTUS from former Senators Bill Bradley and Chris Dodd, as well as former Senate Leader Tom Daschle and Republican Senator Alan Simpson who wrote
And they believed that enacting DOMA would eliminate the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage—an outcome that would have terminated any further debate about same-sex marriage, potentially for generations.
And during the debate in the House John Conyers mentioned it was being discussed
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on DOMA, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who opposed the bill, criticized his colleagues for being quick to consider constitutional amendments.
There's no official legislative record of lots of things that are discussed as possibilities. That doesn't mean they weren't part of the discussion (Falwell was pushing for his followers to call their Congressmen to get that federal amendment at the time).
As much as it's obvious that gay rights are a good thing now, can we stop pretending that any of the Democratic candidates opinions on gay rights from 9, 11, 19, or however many years ago are relevant? It's been an issue with an incredible amount of coverage and time to sway public opinion, and politicians are people, not unfeeling robots. We should probably just accept that all three Democratic candidates seem pretty strong on LGBT rights and not get into these dumb pissing contests about who supported gay marriage first.
I ate an engineer
+7
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I don't entirely care who was there before it was cool.
What matters is "will this person try to roll rights back and hurt people?" And the answer on marriage and healthcare is an emphatic no from all three democratic candidates, and a solid maybe from quite a few of the republican candidates.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That was pretty good. I didn't expect to like O'Malley as much as I did. All three of them did the usual dodge question and give stump speech tactic, but I felt like Hillary's dodges went off into the weeds a few times. During the gun question she talked about the personal stories of people affected by gun violence, but I don't remember her talking about any policy specifics. I don't know if this is bias but it seemed to me that Bernie was talking more about solutions while Hillary acknowledged problems. Bernie's dodge on dealing with issues outside of Vermont was cringe worthy.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
can this be watched now and not on livestream? like has msnbc kept it up on the site?
I don't entirely care who was there before it was cool.
What matters is "will this person try to roll rights back and hurt people?" And the answer on marriage and healthcare is an emphatic no from all three democratic candidates, and a solid maybe from quite a few of the republican candidates.
It's not a huge game changer for me unless it happens to become a thing a person does. Like coming out against the TPP just before the first debate.
I don't entirely care who was there before it was cool.
What matters is "will this person try to roll rights back and hurt people?" And the answer on marriage and healthcare is an emphatic no from all three democratic candidates, and a solid maybe from quite a few of the republican candidates.
It's not a huge game changer for me unless it happens to become a thing a person does. Like coming out against the TPP just before the first debate.
If she was going to wait until the terms were finalized before taking a position, which is a reasonable approach, when should she have taken her stance against TPP? What would have been an acceptable time for you?
Something that turns me off about Sanders is him straight up lying about TPP. He did in his release, when he claimed corporations could sue US sub-federal governments regarding minimum wage and environmental regulations "if it threatened profits" when the treaty explicitly prohibits that. And when he decried including Brunei and Malaysia with its history of terrible workers rights when part of their inclusion in TPP is making them improve worker conditions. His opposition should at least be fact based.
Its frankly, in my opinion, a more transparently political move in that his political base in Vermont is made up of white social liberals who aren't going to give much of a crap on free trade agreements, and disaffected northern white poor who are too far away from Mexico to blame Mexicans and so are going to blame free trade for outsourcing. Clinton's opposition is likely at least partially political because she knows she's never going to have to actually do anything with TPP. It will either be in place or dead by the time she would be in the WH. Spending political capital in a meaningless intraparty fight is bad politics.
And the idea that Hillary Clinton changing her stance on the TPP being a bad thing is endemic of the shitty state of our politics. She should change her position on this as facts and conditions change. Sanders saying he was anti-free trade in general is fine, except he opposed the TPP without knowing what was in it. It could have been "the US minimum wage will be tied to inflation retroactively to 1960" for all he knew. A rational person changes their advocated policies and positions as not only their understanding of the situation grows but as political realities change. The philosophy that one not only is definitely right, but always has been and anyone who wasn't is the devil, is the ignorant poison that ensures nothing gets done in our government except get Republicans elected where ignorance is most prevalent. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"
The problem with Hillary's position change on TPP is that the things she says she opposes in it were all things that were in the deal when she vigorously supported it (and in fact many of its most obnoxious provisions changed for the better from when she was touting it). She's not changing her opinion in accordance with new facts, unless you count the fact that she's in a Democratic primary. Her position here is nakedly insincere and opportunistic. Of course people should object to that. Our democracy isn't being poisoned by keeping politicians from changing their minds, it's poisoned by pervasive, politically motivated dishonesty.
The problem with Hillary's position change on TPP is that the things she says she opposes in it were all things that were in the deal when she vigorously supported it (and in fact many of its most obnoxious provisions changed for the better from when she was touting it). She's not changing her opinion in accordance with new facts, unless you count the fact that she's in a Democratic primary. Her position here is nakedly insincere and opportunistic. Of course people should object to that. Our democracy isn't being poisoned by keeping politicians from changing their minds, it's poisoned by pervasive, politically motivated dishonesty.
Is it? Why?
Also, you haven't explained how you connect opportunistic to insincere or dishonest.
And I mean, beyond just changing your opinions to line up with new facts, there's also changing your positions to line up with the will of the electorate which is, you know, the entire point of democracy.
"I'm voting for Bernie Sanders, because he doesn’t take any corporate money," the undefeated UFC champion told Maxim in an interview published Tuesday. "I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests."
She continued: "If he doesn’t win against Hillary, then I’ll probably vote for a third party again. To be honest, in 2012 I was against both candidates and so I just picked any third party because I thought if more people voted for third parties then they'd have to take third parties seriously."
People on my feeds who I will charitably not call Berniebros are already touting it as a legitimate political win. : /
"I'm voting for Bernie Sanders, because he doesn’t take any corporate money," the undefeated UFC champion told Maxim in an interview published Tuesday. "I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests."
She continued: "If he doesn’t win against Hillary, then I’ll probably vote for a third party again. To be honest, in 2012 I was against both candidates and so I just picked any third party because I thought if more people voted for third parties then they'd have to take third parties seriously."
People on my feeds who I will charitably not call Berniebros are already touting it as a legitimate political win. : /
Ha ha ha I like Rousey, but c'mon. Have Matt Damon do this, and I'll be impressed.
"I'm voting for Bernie Sanders, because he doesn’t take any corporate money," the undefeated UFC champion told Maxim in an interview published Tuesday. "I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests."
She continued: "If he doesn’t win against Hillary, then I’ll probably vote for a third party again. To be honest, in 2012 I was against both candidates and so I just picked any third party because I thought if more people voted for third parties then they'd have to take third parties seriously."
People on my feeds who I will charitably not call Berniebros are already touting it as a legitimate political win. : /
The second paragraph here completely invalidates any meaning the first might have had.
+9
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
"I'm voting for Bernie Sanders, because he doesn’t take any corporate money," the undefeated UFC champion told Maxim in an interview published Tuesday. "I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests."
She continued: "If he doesn’t win against Hillary, then I’ll probably vote for a third party again. To be honest, in 2012 I was against both candidates and so I just picked any third party because I thought if more people voted for third parties then they'd have to take third parties seriously."
People on my feeds who I will charitably not call Berniebros are already touting it as a legitimate political win. : /
The second paragraph here completely invalidates any meaning the first might have had.
That's certainly some nuanced political commentary on her part...
Posts
When shown the clip for Sanders saying he wouldn't support gay marriage in Vermont in 2006 you dismissed it, though.
And Sanders' statement of opposition against DOMA at the time was not that gay marriage was right or that gay people should be allowed to marry, but that it was a state's right issue. No one pushed him on it because he was the Rep from Vermont.
And Hillary's statements are consistent with the 2013 amicus brief to the SCOTUS from former Senators Bill Bradley and Chris Dodd, as well as former Senate Leader Tom Daschle and Republican Senator Alan Simpson who wrote
And during the debate in the House John Conyers mentioned it was being discussed There's no official legislative record of lots of things that are discussed as possibilities. That doesn't mean they weren't part of the discussion (Falwell was pushing for his followers to call their Congressmen to get that federal amendment at the time).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What matters is "will this person try to roll rights back and hurt people?" And the answer on marriage and healthcare is an emphatic no from all three democratic candidates, and a solid maybe from quite a few of the republican candidates.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I now can't not see this as hipster-esque arguing over who liked what band movement before it was cool and sold out.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It's not a huge game changer for me unless it happens to become a thing a person does. Like coming out against the TPP just before the first debate.
If she was going to wait until the terms were finalized before taking a position, which is a reasonable approach, when should she have taken her stance against TPP? What would have been an acceptable time for you?
Its frankly, in my opinion, a more transparently political move in that his political base in Vermont is made up of white social liberals who aren't going to give much of a crap on free trade agreements, and disaffected northern white poor who are too far away from Mexico to blame Mexicans and so are going to blame free trade for outsourcing. Clinton's opposition is likely at least partially political because she knows she's never going to have to actually do anything with TPP. It will either be in place or dead by the time she would be in the WH. Spending political capital in a meaningless intraparty fight is bad politics.
And the idea that Hillary Clinton changing her stance on the TPP being a bad thing is endemic of the shitty state of our politics. She should change her position on this as facts and conditions change. Sanders saying he was anti-free trade in general is fine, except he opposed the TPP without knowing what was in it. It could have been "the US minimum wage will be tied to inflation retroactively to 1960" for all he knew. A rational person changes their advocated policies and positions as not only their understanding of the situation grows but as political realities change. The philosophy that one not only is definitely right, but always has been and anyone who wasn't is the devil, is the ignorant poison that ensures nothing gets done in our government except get Republicans elected where ignorance is most prevalent. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Is it? Why?
Also, you haven't explained how you connect opportunistic to insincere or dishonest.
And I mean, beyond just changing your opinions to line up with new facts, there's also changing your positions to line up with the will of the electorate which is, you know, the entire point of democracy.
Ronda Rousey is voting for Sanders:
People on my feeds who I will charitably not call Berniebros are already touting it as a legitimate political win. : /
Ha ha ha I like Rousey, but c'mon. Have Matt Damon do this, and I'll be impressed.
The second paragraph here completely invalidates any meaning the first might have had.
That's certainly some nuanced political commentary on her part...