As a defense of your gloating about your chosen political party hurting people, I’ll give this a D.
It was mainly just gloating over Democrats having no principles. I realize we live in a country where Democrats are out of the mainstream, so they have to deceive and take stances they don’t really believe in to win elections, but I’ll tell ya, it can’t be fun for you to have to watch that.
It’s pretty shameful that Republicans had such an anti-gay agenda in the 90s. Nowadays they aren’t going to be all that interested in actually passing legislation affecting gays. But on Wall Street issues, well, the Republicans and Clinton should see eye to eye more often than not on that at least.
When someone says that it is absolutely certain they shall be cucked again. It’s in your head.
At the time, Democratic principles were not particularly pro-gay-rights. Your analysis is just more “omg Democrats = evil liars” crap. No, Democrats are not “out of the mainstream” – polling on the issues, Democrats are quite in the middle of the mainstream, for most issues.
I suppose it’s possible that Bill just really disliked gays that much…
I am pleased to see that Warren has yet to endorse Hillary Clinton.
Cite?
Going by the 2014 Pew Political Typology, Dem-leaning groups make up 55% of the population, Pub-leaning groups only 36%.
She will eventually, and so will Sanders.
It was political opportunism – at the time he thought it was a win. Now he regrets it, at a time when pro-gay-rights is more of a winner.
Not sure what your point is – none of us have ever denied that Bill or Hillary sometimes take politically opportune positions. I was mocking and chiding you for the glee you seemed to display in recounting a Republican “victory” which hurt gay Americans and helped no one, and your silly and rote attacks on the Democratic party.
The point was that while Clinton might be a strong fighter, she’s also someone who will make deals that heavily favor Republicans as her husband did. And her husband was a better politician.
It’s possible – good job stating it in such a way that doesn’t express glee about gay people being harmed.
But I wonder who it will be this time? Who do you trust to stand up for the marganalized? Clinton, or Sanders?
All things being equal between the two, Sanders. And I trust either one of them nigh-infinitely more to sand up for the marginalized than any of the Republicans. I’m not sure if Sanders would be more likely to win the general election, so I still haven’t decided if I will support him or Hillary in the primary, since my most important issue is “beating the Republican”.
Both. The real question becomes who will do it most effectively, which is not at all the same as asking who will do it most passionately. That said, I’m still a Bernie fan.
I dig ya. I think that Sanders is gaining because a) Democratic voters want someone they can trust, and b) the polls seem to show Sanders as just as electable as Clinton.
I do think that Sanders is the weaker candidate. He’s vulnerable on his tax and spending plans and he doesn’t go negative. That might not work too well against what will be a very skilled and very negative Republican attack on him. Clinton’s better at that kind of thing.
All that being said, I’d rather face Clinton in the general. Just because it will be fun if for no other reason. Losing because you nominated an unelectable candidate has so been done already, by both parties. But having a candidate just die politically during a campaign and Democrats going “oh shit maybe that wasn’t a good idea” is a special kind of fun.
I am so looking forward to election day 
Promise me that you won’t abandon the board for months if you lose?
No, mainly because a Clinton win wouldn’t be that disappointing. I think she’ll be leagues better than Obama has been. Nothing can match the disappointment and chagrin I felt seeing Romney go down.
Plus I’ve learned to believe the polls so I shouldn’t be surprised by the result this time around. If Clinton is leading in October by 2 or more, she almost certainly wins.
Few things evidence the poverty of the GOP so much as the fact that folks could actually find themselves suffering from Romney remorse. 
Well, you should have knocked!
I knew the apple didn’t fall far from the tree when Chelsea was asked about her mother’s disproven assertions about being under sniper fire after having landed in Bosnia, since she was there too. She answered by saying “Well sir, I think that my mother’s on record as having talked about this and I support what she said. I mean, I was there as well and I’m so honored that I was there.”
So she “supported” her mother’s disproven lies despite the fact everybody knew better, and then threw in a little distractionary bon mot about how “honored” she was to have been drug along on the trip by her mother, as though that had anything at all to do with the question she was asked.
I can hardly think of a more Clinton-esque answer she could have given.