Lazy Tom, where's the outrage?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/...tcmp=hpbt3

(06-17-2016 03:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Lazy Tom, where's the outrage?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/...tcmp=hpbt3

Actually TAKING money from them is not nearly as bad as GIVING it to them.

(06-17-2016 03:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 03:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Lazy Tom, where's the outrage?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/...tcmp=hpbt3

Actually TAKING money from them is not nearly as bad as GIVING it to them.

And I guess throwing gays off tall buildings isnt as bad as chopping off their heads.

(06-17-2016 03:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 03:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Lazy Tom, where's the outrage?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/...tcmp=hpbt3

Actually TAKING money from them is not nearly as bad as GIVING it to them.

When you are an anti-gay country, and donations to the Clinton Foundation buy you political favors/access to Hillary Clinton - it is WORSE than giving it to them.

(06-17-2016 03:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 03:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 03:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Lazy Tom, where's the outrage?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/...tcmp=hpbt3

Actually TAKING money from them is not nearly as bad as GIVING it to them.

And I guess throwing gays off tall buildings isnt as bad as chopping off their heads.

I really don't get your point. If the Saudis decided to write me a check, I'd cash it. I certainly wouldn't do anything for the money. Or in return for it.

Sure, this raises eyebrows, but HRC has been a pretty strong advocate. Much better than Trump who prostrated himself in an attempt to woo Qadaffi and slavishly adores Putin. Would I prefer they didn't talk to them? NO. It matters not who you talk to, but what you say to them.

BTW, I thought HRC had the best comment on Sunday. She called out the Saudis and Qataris by name for allowing their citizens to fund terrorism.

But Kudos to Fox News for mentioning one country that is not Muslim that treats its LGBT citizens extremely poorly (Jamaica). More of this please and we might actually think your criticism is based upon the discrimination and mistreatment of us rather than some myopic and cynical desire to use some, but not all, forms of violent homophobia for your own ends.

It is just fine and dandy because it is Hillary.

(06-17-2016 03:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is just fine and dandy because it is Hillary.

No. It raises some very minor questions. But HRC has a record, and a good one (especially compared to Trump/the GOP) on our issues. Its not a perfect one. But much better cannot be the enemy of perfect (unlike the factions in the GOP, who insisted on perfect and ended up with Trump as a result).

Hillary is funded by countries that execute homosexuals and Chick-fil-a opened on a Sunday to feed those giving blood to support the victims of a shooting (by a gay Muslim)...

Confusing times for some.

Hillary has always been available to those who pay for access regardless of who they are or what they believe.

Why is this news?

I guess we now know why she cant say Islamic Terrorism...

Well, at least those countries have a great history regarding their treatment of women.

(06-17-2016 04:32 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Hillary is funded by countries that execute homosexuals and Chick-fil-a opened on a Sunday to feed those giving blood to support the victims of a shooting (by a gay Muslim)...

Confusing times for some.

What's the confusion?

HRC has a record to fall back on. A largely good one. And she publicly called out the Saudis and the Qataris on Sunday.

And Trump does too.

He's all over the UAE and prostrated himself to Qaddafi. And Putin too. DJT, really doesn't have a record. And God only knows what he'd do as President

(06-17-2016 04:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Well, at least those countries have a great history regarding their treatment of women.

You are free to opine that HRC is worse on respecting women and womens rights than DJT.

And Trump...is in bed with the Emiratis and was in bed with Qadaffi too.

---

I don't think this line is really going to be a profitable one for you guys politically. Sure, bring it up. At some level, I'm glad someone is giving her some grief over this.

But to argue that HRC would be less of an advocate for women or LGBT persons than Donald Trump at this point is risible.

(06-17-2016 05:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 04:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Well, at least those countries have a great history regarding their treatment of women.

You are free to opine that HRC is worse on respecting women and womens rights than DJT.

And Trump...is in bed with the Emiratis and was in bed with Qadaffi too.

---

I don't think this line is really going to be a profitable one for you guys politically. Sure, bring it up. At some level, I'm glad someone is giving her some grief over this.

But to argue that HRC would be less of an advocate for women or LGBT persons than Donald Trump at this point is risible.

(06-17-2016 05:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 05:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 04:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Well, at least those countries have a great history regarding their treatment of women.

You are free to opine that HRC is worse on respecting women and womens rights than DJT.

And Trump...is in bed with the Emiratis and was in bed with Qadaffi too.

---

I don't think this line is really going to be a profitable one for you guys politically. Sure, bring it up. At some level, I'm glad someone is giving her some grief over this.

But to argue that HRC would be less of an advocate for women or LGBT persons than Donald Trump at this point is risible.

Here's what I think LGBT Americans want from our foreign affairs agenda:

1) Strong condemnation of anti-Gay laws and strong diplomatic and economic pressure to back that up.
2) Automatic asylum for LGBT refugees from anti-Gay countries. Especially for those fleeing execution regimes, even if those refugees come from a Muslim heritage
3) Strong opposition to anti-Gay countries/parties that seek to expand influence in less repressive regions (Putin, and most of the Euroskeptic parties)
4) An end to US AID and other taxpayer funding for nations that engage in gross violations of LGBT civil rights
5) An end to taxpayer deductions for charities that funnel money through anti-Gay foreign organizations (defined as those that publicly support extreme anti-Gay measures)

Obama has been, by far, the best President on these issues. And I'd give him a C-.

Trump is in a bromance with Putin. And he won't allow LGBT refugees to come here. And he's somewhat aligned with the anti-Gay parties of Europe. And who knows what he'll do about funding.

Unfortunately, no one is going to move forward on issue 5. Too many churches do that.

My guess is that Clinton will be no worse than Obama. And might be a bit better. Trump will be far worse (especially on asylum).

---

Nuking Raqaa isn't going to help the LGBT people there. It will kill them too. Military action frequently leaves our community in WORSE positions than before the military action.