Has Has Senator Warren said anything about the Discrimination law passed in Indiana?

[William769]

It's been widely reported and that many prominent Democrats have spoken in support of the LGBT community over this terrible law that has been passed. National companies & celebrities have threatened to withhold donations & contracts to the plus boycott the State of Indiana if repunlicans continues to publicly assault the LGBT community in this manner.

I've not seen any comments from Senator Warren on this matter. A Google search came up empty.

I would hope that any good Democrat would be outraged. Does anyone have any links to statements from Senator Warren on this matter?

[leftofcool]

1. No links.

[William769]

2. I can't find any either.

[hrmjustin]

3. Nothing on google.

[NBachers]

4. Good question!

[William769]

6. And all I hear is crickets.

[NBachers]

8. How do the crickets stand? Fore us or agin' us?

[libdem4life]

5. As much as I admire Senator Warren on her Big Corporate Money stance, I find any

other position of substance...i.e. presidential material...missing.

Yes, she is Progressive as far as corporate money is concerned. Yes, she is Charismatic. But, no, as she is short on any other matters of substance on which Hillary has been criticized and pillloried. If she and her supporters want her to be a Viable Candidate, she must at least comment on something other than the Corporate Debacle...which is real, but hardly the total realm or reach of Presidential Politics for the long haul.

Plus, she says she's not running and supports Hillary. I mean, really, what's left to parse here?

[Surya Gayatri]

249. ^^^This!^^^

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. Seems that if she was running, she'd make a statement of some kind.

[William769]

9. True.

Hillary is just a private citizen right now & she came out in Support of the LGBT community, Women & minorities that could be affected by this law.

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. Depending on how people interpret the law, it could be used against virtually anyone.

[SidDithers]

61. The Warren supporters / Hillary haters at DU don't give a shit about equality...

unless it's income equality.

Civil right just don't seem that important to them.

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. I wouldn't go quite that far but some folks seems to lack the ability to focus...

I wouldn't go quite that far but some folks seem to lack the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time.

[JI7]

102. maybe not all but it is true of certain ones

[BainsBane]

131. no question about it. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

180. Absolutely, unequivocally. And that has them lose credibility as true Liberals, imo.

And marks them as "one issue" voters and not to be listened to.

[Major Hogwash]

142. That's just silly.

[99Forever]

150. Ri-fucking-diculous.

[SidDithers]

163. It's fucking true...

Just look at this thread, about civil rights and Indiana, and we see 'But what about the TPP?' whining.

Civil rights and equality may not be important to you, but it is to those without your privilege.

Sid

[99Forever]

164. Way to double down on the...

... ri-fucking-diculous.

True to form, always.

[William769]

166. And I see you are not disputing what Sid said.

Tough love is tough for a reason.

[99Forever]

170. Why would I bother "disputing" ri-fucking-diculous?

I'll leave that to the clowns.

[Comrade Grumpy]

255. What he said is absolute obnoxious bullshit. It's really disgusting.

[SidDithers]

174. The truth hurts, eh?...nt

Sid

[SomethingFishy]

183. Actually this "thread" is an attack on Warren.. which devolved

into an attack on her supporters. Typical DU.


Thanks for reminding me why I don't come around here much Sid. If you feel the need to stalk me I'm over at C&L quite a bit. Using that old name...

[Major Hogwash]

196. Seems to me, that is the purpose of threads like this.

To make some claim about some Democrat, and then go after anyone who supports that Democrat.
I come here less often, as well.

[sheshe2]

253. Nail/Hammer.

Thanks Sid.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

178. While that is true, I admit I dont understand why she hasnt spoken out on this, I mean

surely she is as against the law as the rest of us, I say that not as sarcasm.

Weird


But yes Sid, white, privileged, alleged liberals who are really libertarians, dont care about civil rights because they already have theirs

[BlueCaliDem]

181. BINGO, NJNP. It doesn't affect them so they just don't give a d**n.

And that's why I look at them as a bunch of ridiculous opiners - and nothing more. Fair-weather Democratic voters, as well, because they'd hop on the Rand Paul wagon the moment they can without being seen as the Libertarians they really are in heart and soul - and enemies of equal rights and equal justice under our laws.

[Comrade Grumpy]

209. Wow, that's some low, ugly crap you're spewing.

[betterdemsonly]

11. How come it is easier to get Hollywood to come out on these issues

that effect a very small percentage of Americans, but so hard to get them to boycott over issues that harm the overwhelming majority of Americans. Like where were they during the first recall against Scott Walker?

I am pretty sure Warren has no problem with this boycott but I am also sure that the economic conservative, social liberals, don't give a crap about the non-wealthy.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. How does the election of a Governor in a State with less than 6 million people harm the

overwhelming majority of Americans?
Why can't Warren open that famously adept mouth and speak against this?

[closeupready]

116. Probably the same reason "Crash" won over "Brokeback Mountain" -

When a vote is anonymous, we see Hollywood for the vile, conservative morass it is.

[DemocraticWing]

117. We share a common enemy.

It is not the working class vs. LGBT people, it is both of us and the other oppressed peoples of the world against the oppressors. They want us to be divided, to fight, but we'll never get anything we deserve unless we fight together.

[BainsBane]

132. Discrimination and bigotry hurts all people with a conscience

"not a very small percentage of people." Your comment is entirely offensive to me, and I'm straight.

You just made clear you don't give a shit about the "very small percentage of Americans." If it's not about you, as in straight, white men, it just doesn't matter. And you have the nerve to call others conservative? I can think of little more conservative that deciding basic civil rights are unimportant. The Tea baggers care about their pocket books too. It doesn't make them leftist.

[betterdemsonly]

157. I am not a white man.

n/t

[BainsBane]

171. That doesn't make your comment any less offensive

or reactionary.

[betterdemsonly]

172. I think it is reactionary to piss on someone who represents the interests

of the poor and middle class by pretending that is the same as being antigay. If you are playing that game too, you're a reactionary as well.

I am not going to apologize for an offense you made up.

[YoungDemCA]

231. +10000. So fucking transparent

And sadly, he is far from alone around here.

[SidDithers]

252. "I can think of little more conservative that deciding basic civil rights are unimportant."...

Nailed it.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I have also looked because of course she's now a Democrat, but she was a Republican for many

long and extremely definitive years. She has said that her former support for utterly heinous policies was purely about the markets, which I find to be a very dubious standard.
This was certainly an opportunity for her to make her position clear. Perhaps that's what she did.

[William769]

14. ...

[JustAnotherGen]

160. +1

And that's all I have to say 'bout that.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Warren, who was pro gay marriage years before Hillary and Obama?

No doubt, she thinks the law's a fine idea.

[dsc]

16. really?

Both of them came out in support in 2012, given that my definition of many would be more than 2, can you give any statement in 2009 from her. Heck I'll take any from before she decided to run for Senate.

[William769]

19. Well we know of two people that were part of the Reagan years.

Birds of a feather.

[Zorra]

20. Disingenuous. She was not a public figure at that time so whatever she said

would not have been likely to have been recorded.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. "warren to Obama: Evolve already"

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html

So apparently she was at least a bit ahead of the curve. And HRC was still equivocating for a while afterwards.

[dsc]

71. that was march of 2012

Obama changed his mind in May of 2012, I know because he did so on the day I was traveling home to see my dad for the last time. Manny said several years, that is two months.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. That doesn't indicate the earliest she held the position, only that she was challenging Obama at

that time.

If you can find a place where she, like Obama and Hillary, 'evolved' on the issue, let me know. As far back as I can see she's been a consistent supporter of marriage equality, etc.

[dsc]

76. it doesn't work that way

Manny said, she was for gay marriage, years before either Clinton or Obama, it is up to him to do his homework not me, or for that matter you.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Yes, it does.

She never held contradictory positions, unlike HRC who actually RAN on being against Marriage equality in 2008.

Why is it up to Elizabeth Warren or her supporters to justify... whatever, instead of someone with a documented history of flip-flopping on it, like Hillary?

Oh, right, because she's a hypothetical roadblock on the inevitability highway, and that's all that really matters, yo.

[dsc]

83. Warren voted for Reagan and Bush

so she sure as Hell didn't favor marriage equality or any other gay rights for that matter back then.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. And Hillary voted for Goldwater, and the Iraq War.

derp derp

[dsc]

87. if she voted for Goldwater it was illegal for her to do so

the voting age in 64 was 21 and she wasn't even 18 yet. You might want to buy a calculator. She basically was a kid who followed her parents, Warren voted for Reagan and Bush and God alone knows what Texas Republicans as an adult law professor surrounded by liberals as college faculties nearly always are.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. who wore patent leather shoes to the sock hop, that's the real question.

seriously, Liz Warren is a good democrat. As is Hillary Clinton. A vigorous primary contest is good for everyone, including the eventual nominee. I really don't understand what Hillary's supporters think they're accomplishing by acting as if the primaries are already over, or else an annoying technicality.

She's not the nominee yet. Maybe she will be. Hell, maybe I'll vote for her in the primaries, even.

But if I do, it'll be because her campaign has convinced me that she's right on the issues, not because she's the most inevitable inevitable-est since inevitably inevitable-ing even more inevitable since last inevitability this time with extra inevitabilitude.

[dsc]

147. I may or may not vote for Clinton

I have a problem with double standards. Kerry did exactly what she did and some of his biggest supporters are saying she is unacceptable for doing what he did. That is a problem. On edit this was written before I read your post admitting you changed your mind. I think an honest change of mind is fair.

[William769]

156. Ypur first problem here is the meme that you keep pushing

"Hillary's supporters think they're accomplishing by acting as if the primaries are already over" it's not Hillary supporters saying that it's seems to be everyone else. I damn sure haven't said it.

We are also not the one's pushing the meme "the Queens coronation" we keep getting accused of what other people are saying and when other people get called on it they get upset. Well guess what? They are just going to have to live with it.

I for one am not going to sit idly by & let some get passes when others are being burned in effigy.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. Really? Then what is with the hyperbolic Ralph nader "vote for HRC or else" stuff?

If someone says they wont vote for the nominee, they're an ass, but filliing in the blank any further than that is pointless 15 months out.

In the meantime, she is going to be criticized as would anyone else running in the primaries, because we as a party have differences of opinion on a variety of issues, as well as what is important- the folks objecting to what they perceieve as excessive corporate centrism, 'third way", or what have you... Those differences arent going to go away and to expect that they wont play out in the primaries is facile. Actually, hashing that shit out, from where I sit, is a GOOD thing- which brings me back to my point about a vigorous primary season.

And no, before you mention it, LGBT rights and equality should NOT be an issue on which there is "difference of opinion", nor should it be an area of considered "lesser" importance. I fully admit that I dont completely understand making someone who so obviously until recently played some political pandering games with her position on the matter before belatedly coming around to supporting marriage equality, the supposed standard-bearer for those rights--

But beyond that I dont think it is terribly fair- or even particulalry politically astute- to try to paint the "liz warren wing" as somehow insufficiently committed to LGBT rights.

But likewise, trying to paint people who object to things like Hillary's IWR vote as closet Republicans or just disgruntled Hillary-haters acting from "contempt"- again, it's not doing her team any favors, here.

[brentspeak]

202. Hillary was a self-proclaimed "Goldwater girl"

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

Hillary Clinton ("Living History," page 21):"I was also an active Young Republican and, later, a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit and straw cowboy hat emblazoned with the slogan "AuH20." … I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide."

And before finally becoming a member of the Democratic party, she interned and worked for both Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller -- Republicans.

[dsc]

203. I am not saying she didn't support Goldwater

but she sure as hell didn't vote for him. My point being that she was too young to do so.

[William769]

204. I am surprised you decided to partake in this thread.

Trying to deflect from the OP I see.

[zappaman]

213. Man, this thread really got to you, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026433982

[sheshe2]

254. Thanks for that link, zappaman!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. Hillary supported Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and was a TX organizer with Bill in 72 for George McGovern

Elizabeth Warren supported Richard Milhous Nixon in both elections

derp derp

[Warren DeMontague]

128. the point is, if Hillary is such a great candidate, how about letting her win the primaries?

what's with the abject panic at the thought that someone might interfere with the inevitability train..... again?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. Please review my posts...

I refrain from browbeating folks into voting for the candidate of my choice...I belong to the "people will do what people will do" camp.

[CTyankee]

206. Please read Warren's book "A Fighting Chance." She talks about her history and

her evolution as a Democrat. She came a long way from Oklahoma and lays it out very honestly in this book. If you want to understand her, you must read this book where she talks to the reader in her own terms and quite forthrightly. You will have your questions answered by her.

[Cali_Democrat]

122. Hillary wasn't old enough to vote for Goldwater.

You've been fed misinformation.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. you are correct.

despite being a Goldwater girl, she wasn't old enough to vote for the guy.

[Cali_Democrat]

130. I know you're a smart guy, Warren

But I don't think it makes sense to go after Hillary for being a "Goldwater girl"....especially when Elizabeth Warren was voting Republican well into her 40's. She supported Reagan when he was cracking jokes about gays dying from AIDS.

Hillary was a teenager when Goldwater was running for President. I don't think she ever voted for a Republican.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Believe me, whether or not I vote for HRC in the primaries will have nothing to do with her being a

Goldwater Girl. Promise.

I was reflecting on the absurdity of going back to Warren's voting for Reagan, or whatever. And no, you don't have to remind me how wonderful the Reagan years were, either. I cut my teeth as a political activist during those years.

A few things, one, Warren probably won't run, so pre-emptively going after her is a waste of time, not that wasting time ever stopped anyone on DU. But if she does, all the better for the party. She clearly has energized people and articulated issues which many felt have not been adequately addressed by other portions of the leadership. Either way, whoever she voted for in the 80s, we're lucky to have her now.

I also don't think that Hillary's IWR vote is anything like bringing up Warren's former Republicanism. The IWR vote is part of Hillary's record of governance, so it speaks directly to her arguments that she should be president. As I said in my other post, I don't think it's a dealbreaker anymore, but I do think her supporters shouldn't be shocked and dismayed that it's going to come up. It will.

Lastly, and this is something maybe people don't grok- I like Hillary Clinton. I like both Clintons. I stood with 60,000 other people at the Daley Center on a sunny day in October of '92, to cheer for those two, and Al and Tipper. It was one of the most inspirational days of my life, and whatever Liz Warren was doing at the time, personally I was more than ready for 12 years of Reagan-Bush to be over.

So if Hillary wants to be the nominee this time, great- but she'll need to earn it, like anyone else. And she is probably going to need to (or want to) unite the party-- my word to the wise to her supporters, at this early stage in the game, is not to treat everyone who questions or even criticizes her as an enemy, or the equivalent of a Nader supporter circa 2000. And DU in general is probably going to want to pace ourselves- I mean, it's only March of 2015.

[Jim Lane]

222. While we're all demanding links, do you have one?

The public record is that Warren was a registered Republican at one point. From that, people who dislike her say that she therefore voted for Republicans (all Republican candidates for all offices, apparently, because I've never seen any distinctions drawn) and that she therefore supported Republican policies (all policies of all Republican candidates, apparently, because again I've never seen any distinctions drawn).

Do you have any evidence for any fact other than her party registration?

As for favoring marriage equality, I personally voted for Bill Clinton's re-election even though I disagreed with his signing of DOMA. Is it your view that anyone who voted for Clinton in 1996, indeed anyone who was a registered Democrat as of that time, didn't favor marriage equality?

[hrmjustin]

35. Do you have proof of that?

[MannyGoldstein]

68. ...

http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/12/protecting-and-promoting-equality/

[hrmjustin]

70. Thank you.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. You're welcome. nt

[hrmjustin]

80. That was from 2011. anything earlier?

[MannyGoldstein]

81. No, but that was soon after she declared her candidacy for the Senate

It would have been strange to make a public pronouncement on the subject prior to being a public person, I think, unless she was asked (and I haven't seen evidence that she was).

[hrmjustin]

85. So all we know is that she beat Hillary on this by a few months.

[MannyGoldstein]

90. A year and a half, at least.

There's never been a statement by Warren against same-sex marriage.

[hrmjustin]

91. I am gay and have no problem supporting Hillary.

Hillary was SOS so she couldn't give political statements till after office.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I supported marriage equality in the freaking 70s./NT

[MannyGoldstein]

99. And you can link to proof of that?

Thanks in advance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. I will sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury.../NT

You're welcome.

[dsc]

108. not unless you are engaging in some new math

Hillary endorsed marriage equality in March of 2013 while Warren did so in December of 2011, that is a year and three months, last I checked that isn't a year and a half.

[msanthrope]

184. In the 90s, when her Chief of Staff started dating David Brock, HRC

refused Repuke requests to fire him. She has always been pro-gay.

[hrmjustin]

185. I marched with her in 2001 in the pride parade.

Love her and trust her.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

189. Always?

"marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is, as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Hillary Clinton (2000).

You can continue to lie to yourself....

[msanthrope]

190. Always. Let's not forget that many politicians...including

Howard Dean, did not publicly approve of equal marriage 15 years ago.

[William769]

191. Instead of cherry picking let's do the whole thing, shall we?

Well of course we will! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

there is a lot more to Gay civil rights than just Gay marriage, but I am pretty sure you already knew that.

[dsc]

72. that isn't even half a year since Obama

[MannyGoldstein]

77. True, my bad. But Hillary took another year, IIRC

And Warren took a public stand very soon after entering her first public race - it would have been strange for her to take a public stance before becoming a candidate (unless specifically asked).

[dsc]

82. so let me get this completely straight

Hilary not taking a stand as SOS, a position which has historically never taken positions on domestic issues, is a problem but Warren who was a private citizen would have been strange to take a position. Now just how isn't this a double standard? But the point remains you used the word years and the word Obama so I am still waiting for you to give a citation to back that up. You don't even have years before Clinton since she announced her support in March of 2013 a mere 46 days after stepping down as SOS a position that required her not to address domestic issues.

[MannyGoldstein]

92. SOSes don't take stands on domestic issues?

You're going to go with that? Seriously?

I wrote "public stance". Maybe you publish all of your stances, all of the time, but most private people don't.

And finally... what part of "my bad" do you not understand. I took responsibility for my screw up.

[dsc]

95. yes seriously

Name one, just one statement on any domestic issue that Kerry has made as SOS. He has been that for over a year now.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. How much will you pay me for each statement on a domestic issue

that Hillary herself made as SoS? I'm heading out now for a while, I look forward to seeing a remunerative response when I return.

[dsc]

100. she didn't make any

that is my point. She wasn't going around making pronouncements on taxes, or civil rights, or anything else that is purely domestic. She was doing her job. Kerry wasn't on TV talking about the Mike Brown shooting nor should he have been.

[MannyGoldstein]

110. You get one freebie

http://thehill.com/video/administration/235501-clinton-obviously-quite-excited-about-supreme-court-healthcare-ruling

Additional examples, if you'd like them, will be charged at $100 each. (You couldn't have googled this yourself?)

[dsc]

250. that isn't an issue

once SCOTUS decides it is done, or at least that is how it used to be. That said, she was asked and responded which is different from issuing statements, especially ones that went against admin policy as a pro marriage statement would have for the majority of her tenure.

[hrmjustin]

101. You are aware there is a long standing prractice of SOS not taking political stances in office?

Why do you think Hillary was not on the campaign trail in 2012?

[MannyGoldstein]

111. Someone needs to tell that to Hillary, e.g.,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6430998

[hrmjustin]

112. She was asked a question as a member of the administration.

Not the same thing.

[octoberlib]

17. You have a good point . I don't know why she hasn't made a statement.

She was vocal about same sex marriage.



Elizabeth Warren to Obama: Evolve already


By BYRON TAU | 3/22/12 2:04 PM EDT
Massachusetts Senate candidate and former interim head of the consumer bureau Elizabeth Warren says in an interview with the Washington Blade that President Obama needs to evolve already on the issue of same-sex marriage:

Asked whether she wants Obama to finish evolving and support same-sex marriage, Warren chuckled and responded that was indeed her view.

“I want to see the president evolve because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right,” Warren said.

Warren expressed similar sentiments about the Democratic Party platform, saying it would build support for ending the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.

“I’d be glad to see it included in the Democratic platform,” she said. “It helps raise awareness of the impact of DOMA and it helps build support to repeal it.”

Still, it's easier for Warren to be out in front of Obama on gay marriage, running for Senate in a blue state where 60 percent of residents say gay marriage should remain legal. But it's a question that has divided liberal and progressive activists over whether the president should risk a political backlash by endorsing gay marriage before the election — but all seem convinced that Obama will ultimately come down on the side of marriage equality. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html

[William769]

18. That was nice back then.

But it's now that we are trying to fight these shitty laws.

[octoberlib]

21. I hear you. A " religious freedom bill" was proposed a

couple days ago in NC legislature. I tweeted Tim Cook( we have an Apple data center here) , Keith Olbermann and everybody else I could think of to put pressure on them. Our legislature isn't representative of the voters due to gerrymandering. Despite what you've heard about NC , it won't be popular , if it passes. I hope they see what's happening in Indiana and and call it off. They're all owned by corporations so maybe if even businesses threaten to leave the state that will have some influence.

[William769]

23. Right now we are look at up to 28 States with these laws.

We take one step forward & get knocked back 5.

[Zorra]

22. Elizabeth Warren to Obama: Evolve already

Asked whether she wants Obama to finish evolving and support same-sex marriage, Warren chuckled and responded that was indeed her view.

“I want to see the president evolve because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right,” Warren said.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html

[William769]

24. I saw that.

But what about now?

[Zorra]

25. Maybe she has the flu? Maybe Goldman Sachs has her tied up in a basement somewhere?

The points are, she's not a homophobe, and she's not running for President, so why are you singling her out on this?

Where is Al Franken's statement? Where is Diane Feinstein's statement? Where is Barbara Boxer's statement?

Where is Harry Reid's statement? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi?

[William769]

28. For the same reason her supporters keep posting bullshit here.

It's my way of saying I'm mad as hell over this shit and I'm not going to take it anymore. If Warren supporters think this is going to be a one way street, they are sadly mistaken.

Once again She has been awfully quiet and I would like to know why.

[Zorra]

31. OK. Fair enough. Why do you think she has not issued a statement on this yet?

I was thinking, maybe it might be because she's currently under attack by the most wealthy and powerful institutions on the planet?


Elizabeth Warren Fires Back After Wall Street Threats

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-donations_n_6959228.html

I would like to hear her issue a statement also. Maybe she will after the smoke clears.

[William769]

32. Changing the subject does not alter the fact.

Sorry.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. And which bull@#$% would that be?

Thanks in advance.

[Major Hogwash]

141. If Warren had a group that had already raised $700 million dollars for a campaign . . .

. . . that didn't even exist, do you think the majority of people here would think she was running?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. I have no doubt Senator Warren thinks the law is odious...

That being said my concern is that some folks are fixated on the 1%/99% dichotomy to the exclusion of every other issue.

[sheshe2]

26. I have been working a lot of hours....

So, I may have missed it. Wait, no just Googled, nary a peep. Hmmm~

[William769]

30. Hmmm~

[brooklynite]

27. Tweet Of The Day: Hillary Clinton On Indiana Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Law

Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton

Follow

Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/indiana-governor-mike-pence-anti-gay-bill_n_6947472.html …

[William769]

29. And Hillary is just a private citizen & she had something to say.

[joshcryer]

33. LOL!

Prefect.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I'm glad she spoke up.

Hopefully this bodes well for her running a campaign on more than just shitty country music songs and "my most inspirational bible verse".

Maybe we can find out where she sits on the CARERS act, but I won't hold my breath.

[paleotn]

34. Oh my God!!!

She hasn't said anything publicly yet! That must prove she's a closeted homophobic theocrat!

And exactly how many of the 188 Democratic Congress members, 44 Democratic and 2 independent Senators have or have not made a public statement on Indiana's egregious, theocratic stupidity?

[William769]

36. You would be surprised how many have.

So here's to you with

[octoberlib]

39. I just tweeted her and asked for a statement.

[William769]

40. Good.

[paleotn]

47. Don't forget your tinfoil hat....

[paleotn]

44. Got numbers?

[William769]

59. Go to twitter get all the numbers there.

[paleotn]

146. Riiiight!

[joshcryer]

37. Give her time!

It takes her around week to opine about social issues.

[William769]

38. l'll be waiting with bated breath.

[joshcryer]

69. Ferguson comes to mind.

Though Clinton took longer than Warren to say anything. (And, of course, Clinton took a far bolder stance.)

It's a mixed bag, good that Clinton is addressing important issues immediately now, the twiddling of thumbs is annoying. I guess it tells us who's running and who isn't.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Maybe she hasnt felt a need to, since her record of supporting equality is unequivocal & consistent

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/elizabeth-warren-to-obama-evolve-already-118346.html


http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/03/21/exclusive-elizabeth-warren-pledges-to-lead-on-lgbt-rights/

Unlike some other people

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

[William769]

46. That's old news why not post Current news?

Oh wait, we know why.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Right, the ACTUAL positions taken by Presidential Candidate Clinton in 2008 are totally irrelevant

to anything regarding hypothetical Presidential Candidate Clinton 2016.

[William769]

56. She is the one that said Gay rights are Human rights.

Yes I really like her as a Hypothetical in 2016.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. She's right.

I haven't made up my mind who I will support in the primaries- which, last I checked, have not been cancelled- however, the panicked desperation on the part of some of her erstwhile supporters to make sure she isn't "robbed" of her inevitability this time, is simply weak.

If she's the best, strongest candidate, GREAT. Then she'll win easy. Fucking awesome for everyone.

But the people who support Liz Warren (or anyone else from our party) are on the same team. Warren probably won't even run, so the point of the desperate "stop it before it starts" crap just eludes me.

[YoungDemCA]

233. There are people who *claim* to support Liz Warren/Sanders/etc. in one breath...

...while in the next breath, do their best to minimize, dismiss, ignore, avoid, or be indifferent or even antagonistic to core Democratic constituencies and their issues. Like equality. Like civil rights. Like discrimination. Want evidence? Just ask the many women, persons of color, or members of the LGBT community who have experienced-and continue to experience-the disdain and dismissals and even outright bigotry.

Pardon me if I don't think said people are nearly as "principled" as they say they are.

[Warren DeMontague]

247. Who on DU has dismissed marriage equality? Being anti marriage equality is against the TOS.

As well it should be.

To try to argue that somehow "the warren wing" is less committed to marriage equality than team Hillary, who only evolved on the position this last election cycle- it's simply too ludicrous a piece of gibberish to even bother with.

It's just something someone here made up because the actual political divisions out in actual reality don't break down in any way that fits into whatever silly narrative is trying to be promoted.

[paleotn]

53. Of course!

....she's a closeted Rethuglican theocratic! Everything she's ever said on the issue of LGBT rights is just a smokescreen for her REAL agenda!!

[obxhead]

42. Nope. Now I'll pose a question...

Where does Clinton stand on trade deals, war, banking reform, etc?

[Chan790]

89. Don't bother...

they don't care what she believes in or does as President as long as Hillary gets elected. DU has a lot of those Clintonites. They're worse then the GOP. At least the GOP doesn't pretend to believe in or support Democratic values.

Hillary's army of sycophants only believe in and support what Hillary tells them they do. If she wanted to put LGBTQ Americans into reeducation camps, empower Wall St. firms to engage in indentured servitude over the American public, bomb Switzerland for the hell of it, cut tax rates for earners over $250,000 to 0%, and engage in anti-competitive trade practices at the expense of the American worker...their ilk couldn't tell you fast enough that those were Democratic values.

They have no values. They're not worth sharing a party with. They're morally-and-economically-bankrupt.

[840high]

113. ..... +10

[99Forever]

43. I get it.

This is supposed to force me into liking Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton.

Got it.

Here's your bucket of fail.

Thanks for playing.

[paleotn]

48. +10000 (nt)

[William769]

51. No one is asking you to so anything.

All I asked for if she made a statement on this and apparently she has not. Got it.

[99Forever]

58. Well bless your heart.

Isn't that special?

[William769]

60. Right back atcha.

[99Forever]

65. Yessir.

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 09:18 AM - Edit history (2)

You sure have a great handle on making friends and influencing people. How can the Hillary Machine lose with wonderful attractive folks like you helping out?

[elias7]

45. I imagine you're not implying she's not a good democrat

She's currently going toe to toe with Wall Street, and I'll cede her a little ground so that she can keep her eye on the ball. Are you now disillusioned? I'm confused with what you are really asking...

[William769]

50. So I should give someone a pass when it comes to my civil rights

Because it's not convenient for them at the time? Is that what you are saying?

[Warren DeMontague]

52. You mean like giving Hillary a pass for being anti-marriage equality until recently?

That kind of pass?

I have no doubt Senator Warren is appalled by the Indiana legislation. The premise of your OP, here, is exceedingly lame.

[William769]

63. As are most of the Anti Hillary threads in GD.

If you want to go back in time it was Mrs. Warren that voted for Reagan & not Hillary. Just satin.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I'm apparently not allowed to go back in time to the IWR vote, which strikes me as way more relevant

Neil Young voted for Reagan, too. People make mistakes, I'm sure LW would characterize voting for Reagan as a 'mistake'.

Goldwater Girl HRC never characterized voting for Bush's Iraq clusterfuck as one, did she?

[dsc]

103. I have no problem going back to the IWR vote

as long as you are consistent in doing so. Did you have the same problem with Kerry in 04? Did you support anyone who was Kucinich or Dean in 04? But I will say her votes for Reagan and Bush do trouble me and I think I have every earthly right to be so troubled. There are literally no gay men my age who didn't lose friends to AIDS which Reagan totally ignored and Bush mostly ignored.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Actually, that's a good question.

I supported Kerry in the primaries in '04, in particular because I thought he was the sensible choice, that his war hero record would innoculate our party from charges of being "soft on terror". In short, I was buying into the same sort of beltway conventional wisdom bs at the time that I suspect led HRC (and other Democrats, to be sure) to vote for that turd even though I know they knew it was predicated on lies, etc.

I was wrong, and after that election I came to the conclusion that we absolutely SHOULD have run someome who would have been able to speak with moral clarity about Iraq. Maybe we would have lost anyway, but we should have tried. At the very least it would have provided the public with a more stark and unavoidable choice regarding endorsing Bush's policies for another 4 years.

After that, no- i felt in 2008 that nominating someone who voted for the IWR was a bad idea, and at the very least the vote should be repudiated by our candidate, something Hillary never did. i would have had similar problems with Biden, etc. as nom.

At this point the IWR is not a dealbreaker for me, but i will be damned if I am going to forget about it or,even worse, accept some folks' assertion that the vote was an indication of shrewd political ability and as such a badge of honor. It is not.

If Liz Warren runs, which she probably won't, I wouldnt be surprised if people did ask her why she supported Reagan. That, too, is a legitimate question.

[BainsBane]

136. Not only do they not hold it against others

They will actively promote people like Kerry and Biden who voted for the war, demonstrating their contempt for Clinton has nothing to do with the war.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. If the "they" in question is me - logical to think, since the person you are responding to was

likewise responding to me - you are flat out, 100% incorrect, and furthermore ignoring several exchanges we have had where I told you explicitly that you are incorrect on that point.

If Biden runs he should be subject to the exact same scrutiny on the IWR vote that Hillary is.

I supported Kerry in 2004, but I realized after the election that we absolutely should have run someone able to speak from a position of moral clarity on Iraq. Maybe Howard Dean would have lost, too, but at least it would have presented a clear choice on the matter. But I acknowledged I was wrong, which to my knowledge is still not something HRC has done on the subject of the IWR vote.

So, "they" do no such thing. I realize that may not gel with whatever cartoon you've got running around in your head, probably the frothing misogynists whose contempt for Hillary is all about the fact that she's a woman (never mind that Warren is, too, but.. hmmmmm.... no matter) ... also I realize that "they" is plural, but personally I don't have any contempt for Hillary.

On the contrary, I eagerly await her actual campaign so we can start to hear directly from her what her positions and plans are, because fuck-all if her erstwhile support team on DU are doing her any favors right now.

[BainsBane]

133. Yes, we've been told it only effects a "very small percentage of the population"

and therefore isn't important.

As for only recently being in favor of marriage equality, you can put just about the entire country in that category.

Literally thousands of threads bashing Clinton, but the group think doesn't allow a simple question about Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. "just about the entire country in that category" - speak for yourself.

but, then, I've always been ahead of my time.

[BainsBane]

182. Ahead of your time?

Now, That's funny.

As for myself, I just bought a new picture frame for a photo of a lesbian wedding I was a bridesmaid in back around 1990. It was in Texas and obviously not a legal wedding, but no less important for the brides.

Go ahead and provide a list of politicians who came out for marriage equality back then when you were so ahead of the rest of us. You know, back when Liz Warren was supporting Reagan and George H. W.

Having seen your posts on gender issues, your comment is especially ironic. You find feminist ideas from the 1970s too "radical.'' You have always had an excellent sense of humor, but that may be your funniest post yet.

[Warren DeMontague]

246. Glad to make you laugh.

I was at at least one lesbian wedding in the early 90s, myself. Maybe two.

Which was sort of the topic, right?

Not sure what the rest of your post is about, but it's not really relevant. If you're trying to make the case that not being opposed to the sports illustrated swimsuit issue, or disagreeing with "progressive" luminaries like Ed Meese, Rick Santorum, or the American Family Association on topics of free expression and nudity makes one a reactionary, that particular piece of swiss cheese logic fail has been repeatedly taken apart on DU over the years...

Now, I"m totes psyched to have that argument (again) but ....this thread probably isnt the place for it.

[BainsBane]

260. Still waiting for the list of politicians who came out for marriage equality in the 80s and 90s

Can your bullshit equating feminism with the moral majority. It's not remotely convincing. I'm bored with your inane, reactionary dribble. Among other things, it's dishonest. Yet it is what you always do in order to justify your 1950s worldview.

It is interesting you invoke the right so often as a way to discredit basic feminism when they share your disdain for it. You really ought to stick to the girly mags that you and the likes of Rush get so much pleasure from. When women write and speak about their rights, you become hopelessly confused.

Predictably, you have no list of politicians who were spoke out for marriage equality in the 80s and 90s, despite your pot shot at Clinton, which you inexplicably thought served as a defense of Warren, who during that time period was supporting Reagan and his policy of allowing viral genocide of gay men. There is a reason so many LGBT members of this site, and gay men in particular, support Clinton over Warren. That of course incurs great wrath around here, leading to idiotic insults that their concern for their civil rights amounts to an alliance with the 1 percent. This from people who pretty obviously have more money and privilege than the most can ever imagine.

[Warren DeMontague]

261. And I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement and apology for deliberately misrepresenting my

position in post #136:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6431446

No matter how many times you try to spin being anti-censorship as "reactionary", it isn't. You can call it orange and smelly, too, and that is equally meaningless. But again, particularly in light of goofy ad hominem nonsense like the above linked post, you aren't really in a position of expertise on honesty.

As far as whatever cartoon caricature you have created, it isn't me, and I would advise you to stop letting him live in your head rent-free-- particularly since he agitates you so profoundly....

but you wouldn't take my advice anyway, wouldja.

[BainsBane]

262. The censorship is in your imagination

Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2015, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

and a deliberately false straw man. In fact it is a blatant lie that you have repeatedly been confronted on. I don't know whether it's because you are simply incapable of dealing with arguments above the most basic level or you are desperate to justify yourself, but either way, it's your problem. You long ago passed my boredom threshold with that bullshit.

I didn't even read past the subject line of your response to my linked post above. There is nothing more tedious than people who insist on making every discussion about themselves. I have no responsibility to cater to your ego.

As for your supposedly living in my head, you overrate your own importance. You don't live anywhere near me, not even in the same century.

[Warren DeMontague]

263. Well TL;DR, yourself.

I s'pose tedious pomposity is in the eye of the beholder, innit?

[elias7]

144. Of course not

this bill was passed literally days ago, and warren has been immersed in committee work that may one day result in you and me getting a fair shake from the banks, the 1%ers, Wall Street-- you're implication is that because she didn't break focus on her work to comment on your pet issue, that this is somehow meaningful.

its an impossible standard, but then, it seems that she's not your cup of tea anyway.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

210. No. You should stand up for your civil rights instead of finding inferences to make

...so that you can feel sorry for yourself. If Elizabeth Warren has done something to constrain your civil rights, speak up. Otherwise, you're stirring shit and you have nothing. There are real problems in the world, including LBGT people being denied rights. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a part of the problem.

[William769]

211. We see this differently.

Silence kills.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

216. Fair enough. I'm glad Elizabeth Warren is on record as a strong proponent of LBGT rights. nt

[zappaman]

54. Shame on you.

She's very busy right now being attacked by banks.
To think she should take the time to craft a tweet or a short statement is ridiculous.
I doubt she even has time to take a breath!

[NuclearDem]

57. I <3 class warrior bullshit.

Unless she's quite literally engaged in an actual sword fight with Goldman Sachs ninjas, she's not too busy.

[William769]

67. Well it's been fun.

Got the answer to my question which is she has not made a statement. Maybe she will in the future when it suits her.

Well I'm off for the evening.

Ya'll have fun now.

[totodeinhere]

74. Senator Warren has consistently stood up for human rights. There

is no doubt in my mind where she stands on the issue of LGBT rights. But is she obligated to immediately speak up on each and every issue that comes up? No I don't think she is. She can only do so much. And why single just her out? There are plenty of other Democratic politicians who haven't spoken out on the issue either. And then some others have spoken. Hillary Clinton tweeted about it to her credit.

[stevenleser]

84. Your point is made, and that's despite the flailings of some.

[William769]

217. Sorry Steve, I just saw this.

[Cha]

97. Dunno, but they sure were raging on President Obama, Yesterday.. about not saying "one peep

about wikileaks tpp".. yada yada yada. I mean it was a Definite that he was telling us to all "Fuck Off" over tpp. Cut and Dried.. no ******* wiggle room. He needed to say something.. right fucking now or.. else!

But, if their person hasn't said anything about something important to us.. it's okay. The hypocrisy is ******* Glaring.

Thank you, William

[Jim Lane]

223. As to your false charge of hypocrisy....

Consider these two cases:
* What Obama, a federal officeholder, says or does about TPP, a federal issue.
* What Warren, a federal officeholder, says or does about Indiana's RFRA, a state issue.

According to you, the only possible reason to treat these cases differently is hypocrisy, on the part of people who blindly support "their person" and criticize others.

I personally don't want Clinton as our nominee but I didn't join in the attack that she had "only" tweeted about the Indiana law and should have done more. The media in general, and DU in particular, get way too heated up about whether Prominent Person X has said something about Current Controversy Y. Public officials should be evaluated based on what they do about their sphere of responsibility. It's usually a distraction from addressing substantive issues.

Now, if someone wants to propose a specific amendment to the federal RFRA, or, what would be more difficult, possible federal legislation to address issues raised by state RFRA's, that would be a legitimate subject to raise with both Obama and Warren.

[Cha]

224. It's only "false" in the eyes of hypocrites.

[Jim Lane]

234. Lovely circular reasoning.

You charge some DUers with hypocrisy based on your assertion that the only difference between two cases is the identity of the politician involved. I point out a sensible basis for the distinction that has nothing to do with such identities. In response, you don't need to bother answering the substance of my argument because... only hypocrites would believe it!

Those of us in the reality-based community don't get to indulge in such self-comforting fallacies.

[Cha]

243. It's a fact.

[Jim Lane]

251. Do you have any basis for that assertion?

Or is your attack on other DUers based solely on name-calling and circular reasoning?

[mcar]

227. Wish I could kick this

Such a double standard here for those who the "real" Democrats like and dislike.

Saying as someone who admires Senator Professor Warren but is tired of the hypocrisy on this board.

[Cha]

228. Saying as someone who admires Senator Professor Warren but is tired of the hypocrisy on this board."

Mahalo mcar!

[mcar]

229. Greetings from Florida cha

[Cha]

244. Aloha from Kauai, mcar~

[Oilwellian]

104. Has Has Senator Warren said anything?

No No, not yet yet. Although I'm sure she will since she's a very strong supporter of LGBT rights.

[TM99]

106. In other words, when did she stop beating her husband?

I mean she did come out when she entered public office stating she has always been against the beating of husbands. She was well before HRC in stating that. And she had to push Obama to evolve and stop beating his wife.

There are tons of prominent Democrats who have not publicly commented on this. Why the attention on her alone? She has not stated like HRC that she is running for President. She is not the current President? Or are you just shit-stirring?

[Doctor_J]

107. is this a Warren bashing thread? I'm getting that stench.

If so, shouldn't it be in the HRC group? It is pretty bizarre to use this to try to take down a democrat.

[William769]

109. Where is the bashing?

Can you answer the question that the OP is about?

And speaking of trying to take down a Democrat, all those anti Hillary threads that clutter up GD on a Daily basis are just in jest I suppose?

If you only knew what you just posted actually sounded like.

Better luck next time.

[840high]

114. Your OP is very transparent and it

was in retaliation to asking if Clinton said anything.

[William769]

115. So are you saying that one is ok to ask but this one is not?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

[840high]

120. You have a right to ask

anything you want. I just gave you my impression. Enjoy your week-end.

[William769]

121. Thank you for your answer.

Received loud and clear.

You enjoy your weekend also.

[closeupready]

118. I luv ya William and hear ya, but we can NEVER trust 'straight' people

to protect our rights or to speak up in defense of GLBT people.

Even our own FAMILIES betray us publicly - casting us out, abusing us, neglecting us where they nurture our 'straight' siblings.

I wish EW were more of a GLBT ally (and I believe she is), but we have to fight our struggles ourselves, for better or worse.

[William769]

119. No truer words spoken.

but we have to fight our struggles ourselves, for better or worse.

[Cali_Democrat]

123. Warren comes across as a one trick pony

She's great when it comes to financial issues, but when it comes to issues of equality, she's really lacking IMO.

What good is increasing taxes on the wealthy if you're dead via a cop's bullet because of the color of your skin? What good is wall street reform when you can't even enter stores because of your sexual orientation?

[winter is coming]

125. "It’s up to us to make sure every child can walk down the street free from fear and distrust."

http://www.elizabethwarren.com/blog/never-afraid

[Cha]

124. Just saw this though.. from Hillary in Tweet form..

http://bluenationreview.com/celebs-happy-indianas-new-anti-gay-law/

[BainsBane]

134. Bill, it only effects "a very small percentage of the population"

It's not like that "very small percentage" is important or anything, not like the straight, white men who actually matter.


And that is what passes as leftism around here? In what fucking universe are civil rights a minor concern?

[Major Hogwash]

140. I agree, as I've already stated there can be no equality without civil rights.

But, you don't hear about the police killing gays in the street like you hear blacks being gunned down, do you?
What really steams me is the idea that Warren has to say something about a law that is only 3 days old!
Or else, she is trashed at DU.
Yet, she has already said she isn't running.

This thread is a perfect example of one-issue voters losing their minds over the coming election.
I expect this to become the norm over the next 8 months or so.

[BainsBane]

169. This hardly constitutes trashing

It's a question. If she were running for president, she would be expected to address a wide array of issues. Yet people here continue to insist she is running, despite her claiming otherwise.

While African Americans certainly face a whole different level of oppression, I don't think it at all productive to pit one subaltern group against another.

[William769]

155. Sadly you are correct.

[Jamaal510]

139. That's one

of the few criticisms I have about her. She's active and talks a great game in economics, but much of the time, I have no idea where she stands on other issues. I have yet to hear about Warren regarding not only this, but also issues related to minorities, foreign policy, incarceration, gun control, the Drug War, etc. Whenever I hear about her on here or elsewhere, it always has to do with her fiscal agenda. I'm assuming that she probably holds left-leaning views on those issues as well, but it would still be nice to hear from her more often on other issues aside from fiscal policy.

[foo_bar]

143. I dunno, I like the idea of politicians as technocrats, not all-seeing oracles

Granted you can't become president without taking a bold stand on issues outside your sphere of expertise, but I feel like that's part of the problem. I mean, I wish contenders were allowed to say "I don't know" or "Let me ask somebody who actually studies this shit for a living" instead of having to effect this facade of omniscient jack-of-all-tradesiness.

[davidpdx]

148. What a particularly nasty post

You and your cohorts really think attacking Warren helps Clinton. It is your nasty behavior that further distances those who dislike Clinton.

There's no doubt in my mind that she's against this, but you also have no idea what kind of schedule she has as a senator. To presume she is homophobic (and please don't try to say that's not what you were implying) because she doesn't put out a statement immediately to your liking is callous and idiotic behavior.

The real outrage should be over those who throw sissy fits and act like children. If the shoe fits.........

[William769]

154. I it's nasty then alert on it.

What part of it is not truthful? Speaking of hissy fits & children...

[davidpdx]

158. Nope, I rarely alert on things

There are too many people on DU that alert posts for the stupidest reason (If I had chosen to alert it I would have done it long before writing this, so if I haven't by now you know I'm not going to). I would rather call your post out for what it really is, a bunch of garbage.

The part that is not truthful is the implication that Warren does not support gay rights because she didn't drop everything and make a statement according to YOUR time preference. It's not even about real outrage, it is because you and your cohorts are so pissed that people are questioning Hillary Clinton's policy positions. Really how dare we? So, please continue to push your fake outrage because you only shoot yourself in the foot by doing so.

[William769]

159. You have your opinion and I have mine.

It is my brothers & sisters that are being disparaged here & plenty of people are speaking out. At Least I know you think that's garbage now. I for one do not.

And I will hold anyone's feet to the fire that stays quiet on the subject.

And yes I am questioning her for staying quiet. You may not like it and you will stomp your feet but that will not stop me.

Welcome to push back. No free passes here.

[davidpdx]

161. No, the way you are going after her out of spite is garbage when you well know it isn't true.

So when she does speak up do you sit there and scream it took her X number of days? Or to you take her at her word? I'm curious whether you will do the charitable thing and give her credit when she does voice her opposition.

Also besides Warren who else are you supposedly holding their feet to the fire?

[William769]

162. It's really quite simple.

For someone who is supposed to be the champion of the Liberal left, not speaking out immediately is bad policy, actually it's vary bad policy.

Because of the push back in the last couple of days we have already got the Governor on the defense to get the law clarified.

Unfortunately Senator Warren was part part of this.

So I would go back to my original question that you say is nasty, what has she said.

We are speaking of the civil rights movement of this century (2000).

And you are giving me crap for doing this? That says a lot about you.

Have a nice day.

[davidpdx]

220. Carry on with your spiteful witch hunt

Have a nice day

[William769]

221. I feel sorry for you because you cannot see the facts here.

You have a nice day also.

[B Calm]

149. What is your agenda?

[William769]

153. The same as everybody else's.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. Yay for another year and a half of 'gotcha' politics postings!

Or at least until the filing deadline, if it turns out she doesn't file.

As has been noted on several other issues, Senator Warren, while certainly in agreement with other Democrats on most issues, prefers to stay laser focused on economic injustice, and not have to spend her time doing pressers on each and every issue that comes up.

[William769]

152. Not to spend time on civil rights.

Gotcha. That is so yesterdays news.

[2banon]

165. Don't know, I've been kinda busy.. What's Hillary said about it?

[William769]

167. It's already been posted in the thread just look.

Sorry to take away your gotcha moment.

[2banon]

168. No problem, I'm running several windows open, email fb etc. so I'm doing quick skims. thought you'd

have mentioned it in your op, since you're raising the question and trying to trounce /shame Warren supporters.

[William769]

173. They don't need my help in doing that.

They seem to be doing just fine on their own.

[Scuba]

175. Has she taken a lot of donations from anti-gay groups? Has she said hater-bashing is wrong?

[William769]

176. Was that the Question?

Deflection is not going to work.

[Scuba]

177. I don't know. Something about this post was familiar, but then there was a serious disconnect.

[William769]

179. And the question still not answered.

I take that back it's been answered, she said nothing but thank's for playing.

[hrmjustin]

186. Looks like you hit a nerve.

[Major Hogwash]

187. You will never convince me to vote for your candidate by bashing other Democratic candidates.

I don't take Tylenol simply because they bashed Bayer Aspirin in their ad campaign.
If their product was so good, as good as they claim, then they wouldn't have to resort to bashing the other product.

The same is true in politics.
If your candidate isn't good enough to brag about their qualities and convince me to vote for them, without bashing and trashing the other candidates, then your candidate isn't nearly as good as you claim.

Trash talk is cheap.

[William769]

188. I am not trying to convince you to do anything.

You are going to vote for who you wish to.

I asked a simple question that no one could answer but do see a lot of deflection including your post.

If people can't answer the question they should just say so.

These are my civil right and the civil rights of my brothers & sisters civil rights at stake, but apparently that is to be pushed under the bus at this time. Well guess what? I'm not going to let that happen.

Gave a nice day.

[BainsBane]

239. Wow, and all those thousands of anti-Clinton threads

Did you post the same thing in them? Because really, in light of all those threads your response here is ridiculous.

I think there is a serious problem with your assertion that asking a question on a politician's position on an issue amounts to bashing. I'm starting to understand why some people here are so disillusioned with Obama. If people responded in 2008 to questions about Obama's positions as they are doing in this thread about Warren, it is little wonder they knew so little about where he actually stoood. Projecting what one wants to believe onto a politician is sure to lead to disillusionment. Additionally, the idea that they can't be questioned is fundamentally antidemocratic.

[Major Hogwash]

242. ". . . so disillusioned with Obama . . . "

Not many actually.

[BainsBane]

258. Quite a few

including some who insist he promised single payer.

[zappaman]

192. Kick!

Very revealing thread.

[B Calm]

193. What's so revealing? She's not running for president.

[zappaman]

195. I know, right? n/t

[B Calm]

197. I know this thread is showing us some right wing trolls with an agenda to divide.

[William769]

198. And the Hillary threads are not?

PRICELESS!

[zappaman]

208. It really is something, ain't it?

[William769]

212. Yes it is.

[B Calm]

225. and the Hillary threads too!

wtf

[zappaman]

207. If you say so!

Kick!

[BainsBane]

240. Because the right is all about gay rights

Some of the reactions in this thread might be funny if they didn't reveal such a stunning lack of awareness.

[Rex]

194. That's a very good question! I would expect a high profile Dem to make a comment.

I just looked at where something like that would be posted first;

http://www.dailykos.com/news/Elizabeth%20Warren#

Got to looking and of all the sites to find this on, oh well news is news, people that ARE speaking out;

http://perezhilton.com/2015-03-27-indiana-lgbt-discrimination-law-celebrity-business-reactions-twitter-instagram#.VRhX0_nF8po

What is the deal with hollywood speaking out but silence by national politicians (except for HRC who has made comments)?

Martina Navratilova ✔ @Martina
Follow
Now in Indiana,thanks to Gov.Pence, we have freedom of “religion”,aka legalized homophobia, and no freedom from “religion”
8:12 AM - 27 Mar 2015

[William769]

199. Thank's Rex.

[Rex]

200. Legalized homophobia.

Is a new term in my lexicon that will be used frequently from now on.

[William769]

201. I will join you in that.

[Rex]

205. Oh dear! I went and read this thread! Some are mad at your Thought Provoking Exercise!

And then turn around and complain about critical thinking skills! I noticed it right away and a hat tip to you sir! Without you, ageis and sadly too few others...these topics wouldn't even be covered in GD! Thank you for making sure people are not allowed to ignore these issues! It is depressing to see so few topics on it in GD with all the members here.

Equal rights for all my friend.

[Comrade Grumpy]

214. Can DU Hillary supporters actually drive people away from voting for her?

It seems like they're trying real damn hard. If she is anything near the asshole some of her Internet friends are, who wants her?

[William769]

215. Sorry to see everyone is still avoiding the question.

But that was expected.

[Comrade Grumpy]

218. Well, I take it she hasn't. So what? Does that disqualify her from something?

Does it mean she hates gays? Is that what you're trying to imply?

I don't follow this endless pro- and anti-Hillary stuff that closely. But this OP, and the performance of posters on this thread, just strikes me as as attempt to trash Warren. A lot of it is pretty low and ugly, particularly from someone who can't even vote in American elections.

[William769]

219. It was just a question.

I Seemed to ruffled a lot of feathers. Sorry but no one is immune to scrutiny here. Hillary and her supporters can attest to that.

[hrmjustin]

226. Wow!

[YoungDemCA]

230. Which people? Hillary is quite popular among the core Democratic constiuencies

Women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBT. A majority of Democrats would vote for her.

[R B Garr]

237. LOL, that's almost verbatim what is posted about feminists here.

If only the Democrats were nicer to you, some of you might vote for them.

Uh huh.

[BainsBane]

238. The Hillary haters certainly have succeeded in getting me to consider Clinton

But I find it interesting that you find a question about a politician's position on an issue to be so upsetting. Is it the fact it's about LGBT rights or that somewhere, someone might not automatically assume Warren is the messiah?

[joeybee12]

232. Well, all the Warren supporters here are busy thanking Hilary for her words on this...

Oh wait, they're not. Must mean it's because Liz isn't running, oh wait, neither is Hilary either...neither has declared.

[JackBeck]

235. What was the response from Senator Warren's staff when you contacted them with the same query?

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

[JackBeck]

257. if you didn't have a chance last week or over the weekend to call them

what was the response from Senator Warren's staff when you called today?

[JackBeck]

264. How about when you contacted them today?

What was their response?

[JackBeck]

265. What was her staff's response when you reached out to them today?

[JoePhilly]

236. Blasphmer!!!!

How dare you ask such a question of E Warren.

This thread demonstrates that DU's self proclaimed high priests of liberalism are not amused with your antics.

And they wonder how Obama "tricked them".

[BainsBane]

241. Exactly!!!

I just made a very similar comment about people's disillusionment with Obama. These cults of personality are not only inane, they are antidemocratic.

[Douglas Carpenter]

248. Why should she? Sen. Warren is obviously a homophobic rightwing religious right troll

probably supported like all of her backers by Karl Rove, The Family Research Council and ISIS. It's mind boggling that everyone cannot see this.

[zappaman]

256. I disagree.

I don't think she is anything like you have stated.
Though it would be nice if she had something to say about Indiana...

[randome]

259. Trolling the trolls.

Cool.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]