I agree that ones views about what are core and non-core values are subjective.
My views on Gay rights and issues have evolved massively over the the last 15 years. Prior to the start of this century Gay rights did not resonate with me at all. The gay community was almost invisible to me. I always thought there were so many more important issues in the world. When the movement for same sex marriage started I could not really understand what the fuss was about and did not really pay much attention to the debate. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? The Gay community is now much more visible as more and more Gay people have asserted their right to live openly Gay lifestyles. Now that I see this community the prejudice they suffer seems just as unacceptable as the prejudice that black people suffered 50 years ago.
I think Clinton's views on Gay rights have followed a similar trajectory to my own. But, she is a person of deep religious faith, whereas I am an atheist, so whereas I just could not see the issue with why Gay people should not be allowed to legally marry, I understand how her religious beliefs made it difficult for her support this change initially However, just like her VP pick has always fully supported abortion rights even though his religious beliefs meant he was opposed to abortion on a personal level, I think Clinton now genuinely supports the rights of Gay people to marry despite her own religious beliefs. When I read about or hear people raise this issue of her previous stance on Gay rights it reminds me of Islamic scholars publicly judging who is and isn't properly following pure Islamic text and it comes across as petty.
I don't know enough about the detail of her views and achievements regarding Healthcare and Education. I know enough to know that she has consistently worked to extend both to the disadvantaged not only in the US but the world. Nothing you have stated above can be taken as an argument that she has not. She has always, just like Obama, had to make big compromises in order to make small steps forward. With hindsight you could argue some of the details and some of the compromises have actually had a negative impact on the goal of universal Healthcare and Education. But, there is certainly no viable argument that she is not genuine in her belief in universal Healthcare and Education.
She is a Hawk and she voted for the Iraq war. I supported the Iraq war. A lot of people supported the the Iraq war and I would still argue that there was a perfectly valid case for it. I would also argue, with the benefit of hindsight, the west should have gone to war with Syria 2 years ago. The world would be a much safer place now if we had.
I have dipped in and out of her book Hard Choices in which she covers her time as Secretary of State and she devotes a chapter to the Arab Spring. I can't remember all the details now ( I could google it or re-read the chapter but that wouldn't serve the point I am making) but the big takeaway is how much more complex the situation was than what we read in the newspapers and saw on CNN and BBC at the time. She was involved in non-stop meetings with political representatives, religious groups, opposition leaders, government officials. Even with the benefit of hindsight I don't see how you can claim she neglected the Tunisian uprising or the Arab Spring. You can disagree with all or some of her views and actions on it but you can't accuse her of ignoring it.
I think my views align 100% with yours on Israel. But it is a simple fact of political life that no Presidential candidate could ever be successful without publicly offering their full support to the state of Israel.
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin won't make a military move into Ukraine -- even though Putin already has done just that, seizing the country's Crimean peninsula.
"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want," Trump said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanoploulos responded, in a reference to Crimea, which Putin took from Ukraine in early 2014.
Trump said: "OK -- well, he's there in a certain way. But I'm not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he's going away. He takes Crimea."
The winner of this election probably has to be Hilary Clinton. Hopefully it will be.
It's a case that Trump is even more untrustworthy than she is.
Trump would be a big step into the unknown and he's already upset a lot of people with insensitive comments and insensitive actions. Careless, id say. The media really really prey on that stuff though.
The only angle I think he speaks sense is, that it sounds like he wants to really combat terrorism in all its forms.
That's the only part for me that holds a candle for him.
Hilary would do herself a favour but saying she agrees with trump on at least one thing, instead of all out "this man is satan" because then it sounds desperate and unbalanced thinking.
Comments
Has he said anything more on the subject since?
I agree that ones views about what are core and non-core values are subjective.
My views on Gay rights and issues have evolved massively over the the last 15 years. Prior to the start of this century Gay rights did not resonate with me at all. The gay community was almost invisible to me. I always thought there were so many more important issues in the world. When the movement for same sex marriage started I could not really understand what the fuss was about and did not really pay much attention to the debate. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? The Gay community is now much more visible as more and more Gay people have asserted their right to live openly Gay lifestyles. Now that I see this community the prejudice they suffer seems just as unacceptable as the prejudice that black people suffered 50 years ago.
I think Clinton's views on Gay rights have followed a similar trajectory to my own. But, she is a person of deep religious faith, whereas I am an atheist, so whereas I just could not see the issue with why Gay people should not be allowed to legally marry, I understand how her religious beliefs made it difficult for her support this change initially However, just like her VP pick has always fully supported abortion rights even though his religious beliefs meant he was opposed to abortion on a personal level, I think Clinton now genuinely supports the rights of Gay people to marry despite her own religious beliefs. When I read about or hear people raise this issue of her previous stance on Gay rights it reminds me of Islamic scholars publicly judging who is and isn't properly following pure Islamic text and it comes across as petty.
I don't know enough about the detail of her views and achievements regarding Healthcare and Education. I know enough to know that she has consistently worked to extend both to the disadvantaged not only in the US but the world. Nothing you have stated above can be taken as an argument that she has not. She has always, just like Obama, had to make big compromises in order to make small steps forward. With hindsight you could argue some of the details and some of the compromises have actually had a negative impact on the goal of universal Healthcare and Education. But, there is certainly no viable argument that she is not genuine in her belief in universal Healthcare and Education.
She is a Hawk and she voted for the Iraq war. I supported the Iraq war. A lot of people supported the the Iraq war and I would still argue that there was a perfectly valid case for it. I would also argue, with the benefit of hindsight, the west should have gone to war with Syria 2 years ago. The world would be a much safer place now if we had.
I have dipped in and out of her book Hard Choices in which she covers her time as Secretary of State and she devotes a chapter to the Arab Spring. I can't remember all the details now ( I could google it or re-read the chapter but that wouldn't serve the point I am making) but the big takeaway is how much more complex the situation was than what we read in the newspapers and saw on CNN and BBC at the time. She was involved in non-stop meetings with political representatives, religious groups, opposition leaders, government officials. Even with the benefit of hindsight I don't see how you can claim she neglected the Tunisian uprising or the Arab Spring. You can disagree with all or some of her views and actions on it but you can't accuse her of ignoring it.
I think my views align 100% with yours on Israel. But it is a simple fact of political life that no Presidential candidate could ever be successful without publicly offering their full support to the state of Israel.
"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want," Trump said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanoploulos responded, in a reference to Crimea, which Putin took from Ukraine in early 2014.
Trump said: "OK -- well, he's there in a certain way. But I'm not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he's going away. He takes Crimea."
It's a case that Trump is even more untrustworthy than she is.
Trump would be a big step into the unknown and he's already upset a lot of people with insensitive comments and insensitive actions. Careless, id say. The media really really prey on that stuff though.
The only angle I think he speaks sense is, that it sounds like he wants to really combat terrorism in all its forms.
That's the only part for me that holds a candle for him.
Hilary would do herself a favour but saying she agrees with trump on at least one thing, instead of all out "this man is satan" because then it sounds desperate and unbalanced thinking.
As a friend said, how did the finalists from a country of over 300 million, end up being so shifty?
Hilary had the upper hand, but you feel that few minds will be changed and that voting battle lines are already set.
Still rankles that so much coverage is in UK media 4 months ahead of the vote.
(I'm kidding Dazzler, thing you're a good guy and hope you get "well" soon)