Is HRC Bisexual / Lesbian? Some Questions.

Why?

 

I should have included "that have endorsed her", If there are any.

 

If she did come out, you'd see the clip of her talking about how she supports traditional marriage played non-stop.

She was fairly unfriendly to the gays until the mid 2000's, and only really an ally recently. Was that a cover? Maybe.

 

So, I'll ask again:

1. Is HRC's sexuality newsworthy, and
2. Does the American voting public deserve a right to know, and an answer to that question?

 

1. If properly supported (I'm not convinced that is), I guess by today's standards ya
2. I don't see someone's personal life as being in the realm of "right to know," as it has no bearing on anything. That being said, it would behoove her to answer the question if asked.

 

1. I wouldn't say newsworthy. it is "tabloid-worthy". It's not relevant to her ability to lead a country, but it is relevant to those who care about the personal lives of celebrities. I wouldn't consider it as "news" of any kind of serious importance, aside from the historical significance of a LGBT presidential candidate from one of the two major parties.
2. They deserve to know as much as she is willing to tell them, in my opinion. Someone's sexuality is as private or public as they wish to make it. I have no doubts that it is relevant information to some people, but I don't think they have a "right" to know her(or anyone's) sexuality any more than she has the right to privacy in her personal life.

just my two cents

 

I can't comment because I'm a lesbian.

 

I'll answer again:

 

You're giving them a pass.

It matters to me because I am certain that a great many voters would believe that to be a significant thing to consider in casting their vote for / against her.

My "PC Infants" speaks to the nincompoops in this thread who want to purport the patently stupid belief that we, here, are in any way reflective of the current American voting populace. We aren't and by a lot, and anyone with two brain cells, and isn't kidding themselves, knows it.

And while these same people who say it "doesn't matter" to them, have an underlying premise of false hope that it shoudn't matter to others (a LOT of others)...but they know that it will matter, and a lot, to a great many. And so, as a means of sidestepping those facts entirely, they adopt this charade of belief that it "doesn't matter" or that everyone should see it as being similarly immaterial in the fair judging of her merits as a candidate, alone - and that somehow and magically makes it out of bounds to ask, or even report.

The capital "T" Truth is that they KNOW it would matter to a GREAT many voters, but because they WISH it wouldn't be so HEAVILY and likely NEGATIVELY weighed against her, they'd choose to leave it unreported and unmentioned, instead, not because that's RIGHT or even GOOD, but because they don't want to admit and see proven true what they know to be the case - that we remain to live in a largely reactionary society of bigots and morons who would not be ok with a GLBT POTUS.

And in that, they shirk from my point - and the very issue itself - the which has nothing to do with HRC's sexuality, but that we live in a society of idiots who think it matters. That's THE problem. And in failing to admit that, and in not confronting that truth head on - WE ACTUALLY GIVE THE DIPSHIT BIGOTS a safe harbor to continue in it, unabated and unchallenged. It's exactly like the person who doesn't want to go to the doctor for fear that they may actually find something wrong - they're more content to be intellectually and emotionally comforted now, than working to detect, diagnose and treat a disease - even knowing that such a delay effectively foregoes any chance to stop it now, and that it will ravage and kill them later.

And there's a definite flavor of sanctimonious bullshit in there, too, where they anoint themselves as best knowing what Americans should know or be informed about before voting, which is not only offensive on its face, but quite curiously, they seem to only advocate the "ignorance is best" approach when it is information which they happen to find unimportant, or would likely disagree with anyone reaching a different opinion, and opposite of their own.

Oh, shit I'm for? Yeah, let's never fail to scream that from the rooftops at every available opportunity.

Other shit I don't like / support / wish to see anyone oppose? Best left that unsaid and on the hush-hush.

It's chicken shit cowardly, allows the problem to go unchecked and unopposed, refuses to confront and offers an intellectual safe harbor to those with an underlying ignorant and bigoted belief, and all of which only further perpetuates the the very same and biggest ****ing problem in all of it - dumb people who believe dumb things based on dumb shit.

 

1. In today's society it is.
2. We live in an information society. Plenty of folks want to know everything about public figures, and even feel entitled to the information. That said, they have no right to know the details of someone's sexuality when it is fully irrelevant to the pursued role. Sure, a great many would want to know, but deserve no answer. I do agree with IP that she would fare better by answering the questions if asked.

 

1.They seem credible.
2.I don't think that it should matter at all personally.
3.I think it really wouldn't change things greatly. I only see it hurting her with minority voters that might stay home because of it.
4. I think it'd be slightly ill but just because it'd keep certain parts of her base home. I think of her past history on gay rights would keep them from being that excited about it.
5. She's running a close race with Sanders and the money wants Hillary to win
6. She's running for the highest public office in our country so she'd fair game to be asked the question. It's her right to respond however she wants to the question. If she confirmed it, it would just be another arrow used against her for people that already don't like her, and they'd be some jokes about that being why bubba was ****ing those other women. I don't think the gay community would overly accept her because of her past on these issues.

 

People would care, but they also give a shit about the bachelor, honey boo boo, Kardashians, and host of other stupid stuff.

 

Could someone clue me in as to why these reports seem credible?

 

Decades of this being whispered among those who are suspicious of a powerful female. Bill's infidelity certainly hasn't helped.

 

I'll reiterate it should not matter in terms of performing the duties of POTUS, providing there are no depravity issues such as pedophilia. However, as noted by others, the American public does want to know, and I believe a significant percentage will let it affect their vote. An excellent example of this mentality is several videos on YouTube where people were asked what is the Capitol of the USA, Who is the capitol named after, What country is Mount Rushmore in? The majority did not know, but when asked who was on a particular reality show and who they were sleeping with, the answers were instantly rendered correctly.

 

YOU TOO!!! Be still my heart.

 

That's not screaming "credible" to me. I would think some hard evidence would need to exist.

 

You asked why they "seem" credible. Trump is being compared to Hitler left and right. You don't think this is a direct result of him being called a racist over and over?

Some point to her relationship with Huma Abedin being too close. That's the most recent "proof" I've seen. The talk over time encourages speculation.

 

I like to munch carpet

 

You gotta lick it before you stick it.