> put in the policy of “Don’t ask don’t tell”

DADT was a significant improvement over the status quo of "we ask, you tell, and then you get dishonorably discharged". Considering it evidence of homophobia is revisionism. Did it go far enough? No. Was it a good step towards where we wanted to go? Yes.

▲

raw_anon_1111 6 hours ago | parent [-]

And the Defense of Marriage Act?

▲

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> It passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities. Support was bipartisan, though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it. Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary".

Sure doesn't seem like a Clinton issue?

▲

raw_anon_1111 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Again he still signed it. It’s like Susan Collins who always has “serious misgivings” about things that her fellow Republicans do and then votes the party line anyway trying to stay in her party’s good graces while at the same time not pissing off her liberal constituents

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Again he still signed it.

It was gonna be law either way; signing it removed a political weapon from the folks pushing its passage. Arguing this is something Clinton did to gay people is counterfactual.

▲

raw_anon_1111 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s a really poor excuse to sign on to something that you disagree with. I would not sign a petition for making the “Confederacy Day” law if I lived in Mississippi just because it would become law anyway. You have to stand for something.

Would you think it was okay if Tim Scott signed such a law just so his fellow Republicans couldn’t hold it against him in the primary? Well actually I wouldn’t be surprised if he did…

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> That’s a really poor excuse to sign on to something that you disagree with.

It's a pragmatic excuse.

Not signing changes nothing; clear statements that it's bad law; avoid giving the assholes pushing it more likelihood of winning the next election.

▲

raw_anon_1111 5 hours ago | parent [-]

A clear statement of it being a bad law is not signing it. Should he not do anything that would give assholes an excuse to argue with him?

Am I suppose to be okay if he signed a law overturning “Brown vs Board of Education” because it would become law anyway?

Was the fact that he signed off on executing a mentally retarded man because it would show he was “tough on crime” just him being “pragmatic”?

https://jacobin.com/2016/11/bill-clinton-rickey-rector-death...

Getting back on topic, I don’t get to praise Chuck Norris because of his anti-racism stances but then dismiss his stances against non straight people.

	▲	kelnos 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I don’t get to praise Chuck Norris because of his anti-racism stances but then dismiss his stances against non straight people. Sure, but I think it's fair to praise people when they do good things, and criticize them for the bad that they do. That's true fir Chuck Norris, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama... anyone. Totally agree, though, that it's bullshit to think that having positive views on some issues wipes away the bad.