• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Macho Madness

Member
It's disrespectful to her LGBT supporters, those who died as a result of the Reagans' silence, and furthers the narrative that she's not serious about gay rights. Those are the most damning things about it.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
David Cross responded to this on twitter. He's a pretty cool guy and very political.

I even saw him on Sam Seder's show one time.

Macho Madness said:
It's disrespectful to her LGBT supporters, those who died as a result of the Reagans' silence, and furthers the narrative that she's not serious about gay rights. Those are the most damning things about it.
Click to expand...

It's just a confusing statement. It sounds like she was trying to say the Reagans were pro-LGBT rights in some way. Of course she's wrong, but I don't think it comes off as she's not serious about gay rights. It is pretty disrespectful though to be so off about this issue. I don't think it calls her support of gay people into question though.
 
R

Risette

A Good Citizen
Macho Madness said:
It's disrespectful to her LGBT supporters and furthers the narrative that she's not serious about gay rights. Those are the most damning things about it.
Click to expand...
This, pretty much. Her shaky history on LGBT rights makes her support for them questionable and stuff like this is a huge red flag that she's totally out of touch with the LGBT community and doesn't take them seriously.
 
M

Mercury Fred

Banned
As a Hillary supporter all I can say is fuck you to her for this. It's a disgusting slap in the face to some of her most loyal base. She needs to retract and apologize now.
 
Z

Ziltoidia 9

Member
I'm not even a big Hillary supporter (I supporter her just enough as I see her better than Trump/cruz) and I really don't have an urge to go at her about the statement. I think she was just trying to be nice, which she is always trying to be, honestly. Its apart of where she gets the "untrustworthy" trait from. Her constant smile and demeanor makes her seem unauthentic. But as long as her policies are correct, I guess it doesn't matter.

Lets not forget, Obama compared himself to Reagan some. I think its just to have support from the so called "Reagan democrats".

Bush was the president, specifically in Africa, that did great things and still does great things to combat HIV/aids.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Correct me if I'm wrong (and probably am), but didn't they started taking a serious look at AIDs during the Reagan administration and identifying it's diagnosis instead of simply hiding it under the rug as "the gay disease", as it has been called for decades prior?
 
M

Mercury Fred

Banned
Ziltoidia 9 said:
I'm not even a big Hillary supporter (I supporter her just enough as I see her better than Trump/cruz) and I really don't have an urge to go at her about the statement. I think she was just trying to be nice, which she is always trying to be, honestly. Its apart of where she gets the "untrustworthy" trait from. Her constant smile and demeanor makes her seem unauthentic. But as long as her policies are correct, I guess it doesn't matter.

Lets not forget, Obama compared himself to Reagan some. I think its just a signal to the so called "Reagan democrats"

Bush was the president, specifically in Africa, that did great things and still does great things to combat HIV/aids.
Click to expand...
Trying to be nice on top of the corpses of an entire generation of gay men. Fuck her.
 
B

benicillin

Banned
Ziltoidia 9 said:
I'm not even a big Hillary supporter (I supporter her just enough as I see her better than Trump/cruz) and I really don't have an urge to go at her about the statement. I think she was just trying to be nice, which she is always trying to be, honestly. Its apart of where she gets the "untrustworthy" trait from. Her constant smile and demeanor makes her seem unauthentic. But as long as her policies are correct, I guess it doesn't matter.

Lets not forget, Obama compared himself to Reagan some. I think its just a signal to the so called "Reagan democrats"

Bush was the president, specifically in Africa, that did great things and still does great things to combat HIV/aids.
Click to expand...

No, people should go after her about this. It's not just being nice, it's grossly rewriting history. She should retract and apologize immediately but somehow I doubt she will because the funeral is today and she probably wouldn't want to say anything bad about them until a few days from now.
 
B

BoboBrazil

Member
27-donald-trump.w750.h560.2x.jpg
 
A

Allard

Member
I know the reason it was said, it doesn't make it any less stupid. I do expect her to clarify and apologize as I really don't think she meant how she will be perceived for saying it the way she did. But it doesn't change that this hurts her a bit in my eyes. The worst part is it was meant to be stated in reverence but the statement can either be used as an insult to the Reagan's at Nancy's wake, or an insult to those who died and were persecuted under them, and there are no good 'points' you can derive from it either, as others said if this is all she could have said as a quality to be remembered, she shouldn't have said anything. A huge unforced misstep (as I really don't think for a second she is homophobic or thinks little of LGBT rights and history) but in the end her campaign is going to have to live with what will be perceived as a direct insult to one of her voting bases and everyone should hold her accountable going forward for the statement.
 
K

Kyosaiga

Banned
RustyNails said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and probably am), but didn't they started taking a serious look at AIDs during the Reagan administration and identifying it's diagnosis instead of simply hiding it under the rug as "the gay disease", as it has been called for decades prior?
Click to expand...
lol no.

It was out of sight out of mind.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
RustyNails said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and probably am), but didn't they started taking a serious look at AIDs during the Reagan administration and identifying it's diagnosis instead of simply hiding it under the rug as "the gay disease", as it has been called for decades prior?
Click to expand...

Decades? I thought AIDS was a new disease in the early 80's.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
This was clearly (like most of her statements) a pre-planned remark, how did this NOT get caught by her staff? More importantly, it's revisionist history and she should know better.
 
R

Risette

A Good Citizen
Mercury Fred said:
Trying to be nice on top of the corpses of an entire generation of gay men. Fuck her.
Click to expand...
And trans people too. The AIDS epidemic was the biggest crisis of the LGBT community and Hillary not knowing or deliberately ignoring the history that led to it is unacceptable.
 
H

Hindl

Member
Awful. I'm sure that's not what HRC meant, but that's inexcusable. Really nothing else to say. She's gonna get raked over the coals and deservedly so. She needs to apologize but I'm not sure that'll even help that much. Damage is already done, can't believe she said that
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I mean, I guess the Reagans could have found a way to do even less than they did...

Ugh, so stupid. If you need to praise Nancy Reagan, go with the advocacy for Alzheimer's research.
 
T

tmarg

Member
Ziltoidia 9 said:
I'm not even a big Hillary supporter (I supporter her just enough as I see her better than Trump/cruz) and I really don't have an urge to go at her about the statement. I think she was just trying to be nice, which she is always trying to be, honestly. Its apart of where she gets the "untrustworthy" trait from. Her constant smile and demeanor makes her seem unauthentic. But as long as her policies are correct, I guess it doesn't matter.

Lets not forget, Obama compared himself to Reagan some. I think its just to have support from the so called "Reagan democrats".

Bush was the president, specifically in Africa, that did great things and still does great things to combat HIV/aids.
Click to expand...

You can find something nice to say without praising her for one of her biggest failures.

It's kind of shocking that she would even think to go there. I'm not sure anything will come of this though. I doubt she'll apologize or anything, the optics of recanting your praise for the recently deceased is probably worse than any fallout she'll experience by just moving on. It would be nice if she did anyway, though.

Edit: Never mind then, good on her for correcting it, at least.
 
K

kmag

Member
RustyNails said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and probably am), but didn't they started taking a serious look at AIDs during the Reagan administration and identifying it's diagnosis instead of simply hiding it under the rug as "the gay disease", as it has been called for decades prior?
Click to expand...

Didn't Reagan ban the Surgeon General* from saying anything about it until really late, like 1987-1988 late.

It wasn't until straight folk started dying in numbers the issue got any real traction.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Dan said:
I mean, I guess the Reagans could have found a way to do even less than they did...

Ugh, so stupid. If you need to praise Nancy Reagan, go with the advocacy for Alzheimer's research.
Click to expand...

At least she mentioned that, that's what I originally thought she meant to say.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Goddammit Hillary, not you too - what a foolish thing to say.

I understand she was trying to say something nice about the dead, but it was a very ignorant and offensive thing to choose that particular issue to comment on. I don't think it was an intentional slight on her part, but it is telling ignorance on her part.

Looks like the retraction is here - it was an actual, but very foolish and offensive mistake to make. She should know better than that.
 
C

Cat

Member
She shouldn't have said what did; it was wrong to do so. I don't think her apology will be considered enough though I don't know what she could or should really do or say, either.

People are right to be upset or angry.

Hillary, why???!?!?!
 
B

Basileus777

Member
B-Dubs said:
I think that's the idea. She wants to hurt him among Reagan Democrats, who helped him in Michigan and will likely help going forward, and getting him to hit Nancy Reagan in the same week she died...it's shrewd and cold as shit but it will probably do what it's meant to. She'll take the hit, hurt Bernie and probably tie a bunch of Reagan and Blue Dog Dems to the party in the process--which will also hurt Trump in the general.

Still a dumb fuck thing to say on principal alone.
Click to expand...
This is crazy, Hillary doesn't benefit from this in any way. People voting for Bernie aren't going to change their minds because Hillary decided to throw herself into the fire by praising the Reagans for suppressing knowledge of the 80s AIDS epidemic. She fucked up.
 
Z

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Mercury Fred said:
Trying to be nice on top of the corpses of an entire generation of gay men. Fuck her.
Click to expand...

benicillin said:
No, people should go after her about this. It's not just being nice, it's grossly rewriting history. She should retract and apologize immediately but somehow I doubt she will because the funeral is today and she probably wouldn't want to say anything bad about them until a few days from now.
Click to expand...

tmarg said:
You can find something nice to say without praising her for one of her biggest failures.

It's kind of shocking that she would even think to go there. I'm not sure anything will come of this though. I doubt she'll apologize or anything, the optics of recanting your praise for the recently deceased is probably worse than any fallout she'll experience by just moving on. It would be nice if she did anyway, though.
Click to expand...

Maybe I just don't know the whole history of the AIDs crisis in the 80s to get the full brunt of the gaffe. I mostly know that people freaked out, developed an even more hatred to gay people and acted insanely irrational.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Mercury Fred said:
Glad there was a retraction.

Time for a brand new plank in her campaign dedicated to lgbt health issues.

My god what a fuck up.
Click to expand...

She already has done that.

Secure affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS. While the United States has made great progress in the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS, our job is not done. As Secretary of State, Clinton began an ambitious campaign to usher in an AIDS-free generation, and as President, she will continue to drive towards that goal. Clinton will:

Call on Republican governors to extend Medicaid coverage to provide life-saving health care to people living with HIV. Before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an individual was eligible for Medicaid only if he or she was low-income and determined to be of “categorical need”. Many childless low-income adults with HIV failed to qualify as categorically needy because asymptomatic HIV did not render a person “disabled” for purposes of Medicaid. This created a pernicious catch-22: HIV-positive individuals needed access to care before their health deteriorated but were not deemed Medicaid-eligible until their disease progressed to full blown AIDS. As Senator, Clinton co-sponsored the Early Treatment for HIV Act to fix this loophole. With the passage of the ACA, however, Medicaid was reformed to no longer tie eligibility to a finding of “categorical need”; income status alone now triggers eligibility. An analysis of the ACA’s impact on persons living with HIV estimated that of 70,000 persons with HIV who were uninsured before the law, roughly 47,000 would be newly eligible for Medicaid. However, with the Supreme Court’s ACA decision, these new eligibility criteria only apply in states that accept Medicaid expansion. As a result, childless low-income Americans in non-expansion states remain ineligible for Medicaid if they contract asymptomatic HIV. Clinton believes that every state should extend Medicaid coverage to provide life-saving health care to people living with HIV.

Cap out-of pocket expenses for people with HIV/AIDS. It is an abomination that a pharmaceutical company can raise the price of life-saving medicine for HIV and AIDS patients by more than 5,000 percent. Clinton has announced a plan to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable and to achieve lower drug costs for Americans, including for medications that help treat HIV and reduce the risk of contracting AIDS. Clinton will ensure that Americans can get the care their doctors prescribe by requiring health insurance plans to cap covered out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $250. She also will allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices and will stop direct-to-consumer advertising subsidies for drug companies—reinvesting those funds in research.

Expand the utilization of HIV prevention medications, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). While we work to diagnose and treat all Americans with HIV and AIDS, we also must work to prevent exposure. Decades of research are beginning to offer a promising path to prevention. In 2010, a major two year study showed that PrEP was effective at preventing HIV infection 90 percent of the time when used as directed. As a result, both the CDC and the World Health Organization have recommended widespread use of PrEP among certain at-risk groups. In March, the CDC announced $125 million over three years in grants to state and local health departments to increase knowledge about and uptake of PrEP among transgender individuals and black men who have sex with men (MSM). Clinton will increase the CDC investment to ensure populations at greatest risk of infection have access to the drug, and encourage states to follow suit.
Click to expand...

Been part of her plank from the beginning.
 
M

Macho Madness

Member
Ziltoidia 9 said:
Maybe I just don't know the whole history of the AIDs crisis in the 80s to get the full brunt of the gaffe. I mostly know that people freaked out, developed an even more hatred to gay people and acted insanely irrational.
Click to expand...

Thousands of people were dying every year and the Reagans did nothing to help. Absolutely nothing.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
B-Dubs said:
You don't think Bernie hitting the woman the week she dies is going to hurt him among the Reagan Democrats?

Either she legit fucked up, which is believable, or this was planned to deal some damage in the rust belt.
Click to expand...

No I don't. And he doesn't even need to be the one to say it, plenty of others will be hammering Hillary for it. There's no way this was some evil plan of Hillary's.
 
B

benicillin

Banned
B-Dubs said:
I think that's the idea. She wants to hurt him among Reagan Democrats, who helped him in Michigan and will likely help going forward, and getting him to hit Nancy Reagan in the same week she died...it's shrewd and cold as shit but it will probably do what it's meant to. She'll take the hit, hurt Bernie and probably tie a bunch of Reagan and Blue Dog Dems to the party in the process--which will also hurt Trump in the general.

Still a dumb fuck thing to say on principal alone. And there's the retraction to blunt the damage to her.
Click to expand...

If you're actually implying that you think she did this on purpose to trap Bernie Sanders of all people then how in the world would anyone want to vote for her, that goes beyond politics into the realm of some evil caricature.
 
K

Kyosaiga

Banned
B-Dubs said:
You don't think Bernie hitting the woman the week she dies is going to hurt him among the Reagan Democrats?

Either she legit fucked up, which is believable, or this was planned to deal some damage in the rust belt.

It really depends on how calculating you think her team is. I'm just pointing out, there could have been a plan.
Click to expand...
In an enough numbers for it to make a difference at the polls? I don't see it personally
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
benicillin said:
If you're actually implying that you think she did this on purpose to trap Bernie Sanders of all people then how in the world would anyone want to vote for her, that goes beyond politics into the realm of some evil caricature.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. Fuck me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom