Thread by @Cajsa

Sometimes the lack of historical perspective in the media is appalling. When the questioner harped on DADT as though it criminalized homosexuality rather than a small protection that did not exist before, I wonder how they get their jobs.

Gays were not allowed to serve in the military, full stop. If they were discovered, they were court-martialled, sent to prison, and got a dishonorable discharge. It was a crime to join the military if you were gay. Clinton pledged to end that.

One of Clinton's first acts as president was an EO telling the military to recommend what changes needed to happen to open the military to gays. The military ran to Congress and whined and Sam Nunn and others began holding hearings to bash gays and prohibit gay military service

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise to forestall a legislative ban. It did open the way for gays to serve, though not openly. And of course, the military, feeling even that was too much violated the spirit of the law and stepped up investigations

But when some 20-something questions people who were around then about supporting DADT and acts as though that was a bad thing, she is a blooming idiot. It was not what Clinton wanted...but it was an acknowledgment that gays serve. It ended the ban on gays in the service,

But did not allow them to be fully themselves. It was still much better than imprisonment and dishonorable discharge which was the law before then.

I won't even mention the harsh questioning of Kamala who ordered clerks to marry gays when they were resisting and officiated a gay wedding herself and the soft questioning of Warren who voted for Reagan & Bush after their indifference to the AIDS crisis was common knowledge

Oops, I did mention it.

I don't hate Warren and if she gets the nomination, I will support her but despite her early strength, I don't think her instincts are good. She can be baited and that's not good. But she's in the top 6 for me, ahead of Biden and Sanders.

She might just get the nomination as she seems to be a lot of people's second or third choice, so they may swing to her.

Kamala is my first, then Julian Castro, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, then maybe Bullock or Warren. Bullock won MT & still isn't scared to call Trump racist

I do think anyone who can't call Trump and his policies racist is disqualified

There are people I would struggle to vote for. Trump of course is a stain on this country and must go. He cannot get another seat on the Supreme Court so I would even vote for Williamson or Gabbard if it came to them or Trump, but it won't. It would really hurt my soul to vote BS

I think the long term damage of a person with the same temperament and hostility to democracy and to disagreement, just of a different ideology, is hard to fathom. Two such awful people with such low character in a row? Democracy would be discredited.

But Trump has pulled consent decrees and removed oversight of racist police departments. He won't stop at concentration camps for legal asylees, he wants concentration camps for the poor now, the homeless. Anyone is better, even another nepotistic grifter

Instead of listening to Robert Mueller, we need to listen to Martin Niemoller