Domestically, it couldn't be more evident which party is on the side of LGBT rights and which is on the side that views LGBT individuals as an anathema. However, we shouldn't blithely dismiss critiques on the effects Barack Obama's foreign policy has had on individuals in the Middle East (of which LGBT individuals are particularly susceptible) and that while there is no evidence of Hillary Clinton engaging in quid pro quo through the Clinton Foundation, that it isn't a stretch to think that some of the donations her foundation has received would cause her to be more likely to support ties that most would wish weren't necessary to maintain.
I think we can make a strong argument, though, that given that in our current environment, the American public will not support long term nation building projects, that the foreign policy goals of Obama and Clinton might require some callous calculations, but they're generally pragmatic, thoughtful and nuanced.
Conservatives feel threatened, which is increasing their human propensity towards tribalism and causing them to hold many crazed ideas. Clinton needs to direct more attention towards offering baby boomers, whose way of life has mostly changed from technological and societal advancements, a vision that allows them to feel like they are reclaiming their dignity, without causing immense damage to the welfare of society.
