Hillary Honors LGBT@SCOTUS with Rainbow Facebook

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2015 1:34 AM GMT
    https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton
    hillary%20rainbow%20facebook_zpsoqfath68

    >

    >
    >

    Hillary-Clinton-rainbow-avatar-Twitter.j

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2015 3:47 PM GMT
    Pander, much?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Apr 29, 2015 11:58 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidPander, much?icon_rolleyes.gif


    Of course, because Cruz, et al are so LGBT friendly.

    Just admit you're a plant from the Republican'ts.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Apr 30, 2015 12:15 AM GMT
    waccamatt said
    MGINSD saidPander, much?icon_rolleyes.gif


    Of course, because Cruz, et al are so LGBT friendly.

    Just admit you're a plant from the Republican'ts.
    Well you are a blind sycophant to the hapless Hillary ho.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2015 4:01 AM GMT
    waccamatt said
    MGINSD saidPander, much?icon_rolleyes.gif


    Of course, because Cruz, et al are so LGBT friendly.

    Just admit you're a plant from the Republican'ts.


    Is it even pandering when supporting your own team?

    By that logic I suppose cheerleading is pandering?

    Look, it's the Dallas Cowboy Panderers (they were really rooting for the other team)

    dallas-cowboys-cheerleaders-o.gif

    How about the courtroom antics of advocates seemingly on the side of their clients? There was a whole show about that, very popular, L.A. Panderers it was called

    giphy.gif

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_(politics)[/url]
    Pandering is essentially a reaction of panic in elected officials who must either tailor their views to public opinion or risk losing their existing or potential seat


    People in pantsuits don't panic.

    THERE+IS+NOTHING+IN+THIS+WORLD+THAT+A+PA

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    May 07, 2015 12:43 AM GMT
    Hillary and the Democrats support equality for gay Americans.
    Republicans bitterly oppose civil rights for gay Americans.
    Is there really anything else to say?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2015 3:11 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    KissTheSky saidHillary and the Democrats support equality for gay Americans.
    Republicans bitterly oppose civil rights for gay Americans.
    Is there really anything else to say?


    Yeah, Hillary takes millions from foreign governments that persecute and kill gays.

    Is there really anything else to say?


    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/20/reince-priebus/hillary-clinton-took-money-kings-four-countries-go/
    By Tom Kertscher on Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 6:00 a.m.

    Clinton Foundation
    ...the foundation emailed us a statement saying: "Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals, organizations and governments from all over the world because the foundation's programs improve the lives of millions of people around the globe."

    The charity, originally named the William J. Clinton Foundation, was launched in 2001 by former President Bill Clinton. Its aim is to partner with government and non-government organizations to tackle issues such as AIDS and poverty. The foundation has received millions of dollars from foreign governments...

    ...When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009...the foundation agreed to disclose its donors at the request of the White House. When she left the Cabinet post...the foundation became the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, with Hillary Clinton taking an active role in fundraising.

    Clinton resigned from the foundation’s board just before announcing her candidacy. And a few days later, the foundation announced it would modify its policies while she is a candidate for president, limiting which governments can give directly to the foundation.

    An important note: Candidates for office are prohibited by law from accepting campaign contributions from foreign governments, but foundations have no such restriction...

    Here’s what we know about the four countries cited by Priebus:

    Saudi Arabia

    ...According to a February 2015 news article by the Washington Post, Saudi Arabia was among some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed secretary of state, did not give while she was in office and then resumed giving.

    Saudi Arabia has long been regarded by the United States as a friend and a "strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts," according to the State Department...

    Oman

    The Sultanate of Oman gave the foundation between $1 million and $5 million through 2014, including contributions given in 2014, according to the foundation database.

    The U.S. and Oman have been parties to a military cooperation agreement since 1980. Oman "plays an important role in helping the United States realize its regional stability goals" in the Middle East, the State Department says.

    Morocco

    Four days before Clinton announced her run, Politico reported that the foundation was accepting at least $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned company to hold a high-profile conference in May 2015 in Marrakech with the king of Morocco...

    ...The U.S. regards Morocco as a "strong partner in counterterrorism efforts," according to the State Department.

    Yemen

    Neither the Post nor the Politico articles, which were cited to us by Priebus’ office, reported any donations to the foundation from Yemen. And a spokesman for the foundation told us the country has never been a donor.

    Our rating

    Priebus said Clinton took "money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen."

    The monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Oman have contributed to the Clinton Foundation, but Yemen, which does not have a king, has not.

    And although Priebus’ claim was made during a discussion of the foundation as well as contributions to political candidates, his phrasing could have left the impression that Clinton herself, rather than the foundation, received the money.

    For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True
    .