5 ms·

> Having the same opinion for 24 years is not a virtue. But being right for 24 years is. She adopted his ideas one by one and then tried to pretend they'd bee

> Having the same opinion for 24 years is not a virtue. But being right for 24 years is. She adopted his ideas one by one and then tried to pretend they'd been hers all along. Unfortunately (for her), Democrats aren't that gullible. It was clear that she was only saying what voters wanted to hear, while Bernie truly believed everything he'd been saying for that past 25+ years. Case in point: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2631 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2631

greenshackle2 10y ago
Correct, but being right is orthogonal to consistency. If you are exposed to new evidence, and it points in a different direction than your prior belief, being right means changing your mind; if there is no new evidence, or the weight of new evidence points in the same direction, being right means keeping the same belief. All I'm saying is, you can't tout keeping the same idea for years as an unqualified good thing, you have to look at the idea and history in detail, and show that it was a good idea all along. (I'm not objecting to the object-level argument that Clinton does whatever is politically expedient, I'm objecting to the line of argument that it's good for a politician to hold an opinion for a long time, without also showing that the idea is good, and that it was good all along.)
- noobiemcfoob 10y ago
  > you can't tout keeping the same idea for years as an unqualified good thing If that's the critique you hear when comparing Sanders to Clinton, you're not listening very well. To restate, Sanders didn't just tout the same idea. He's fought for the same core principles throughout his whole career, even when in the clear minority. Overtime, the rest of our culture came around to those ideas (bringing Clinton with it). His virtue isn't his tenacity. It's his progressive thinking.
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    Maybe. I can accept that I am taking the OP too literally when they say that Berns has been saying > the exact same thing for years. I'm not American, I havn't looked into Berns' history in details.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- Fargren 10y ago
  But consistently having to change your position is not a good sign. It's good to be able to change your mind. But it's hard to trust someone who changes a lot of their positions.
- darawk 10y ago
  I don't think the OP was criticizing her lack of consistency. (S)He was criticizing her lack of being on the right side of the issues the first time (in the way that Bernie has been on many issues). It's easy to switch sides when everyone does, and nobody should criticize someone for doing that. But to many people, greatness is being on the right side of the issue before everyone else, and convincing people of its rightness.
  - edko 10y ago
    I think you need both. You need the uncompromising Bernies, to act as visionaries and point out what the future should be. And, you also need the unprincipled politicians who can compromise, and adapt, and win elections. If Bernie had run in all previous elections, you would have probably gotten presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney. And, who knows, maybe Trump too.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I am not convinced those presidents would have been bad. Can we say that they were all acting in the same way as "unprincipled politicians who can compromise, and adapt, and win elections" or maybe did they believe something earnestly that is just different from what you believe? Would you rather have an ethically malleable liberal than a principled conservative? In most cases I would rather have the principled politician because they will have some kind of goal to benefit some segment of Americans. Can we really say that any ethically malleable politician, of any flavor, will always help some segment of Americans? Then as a counter to all this. Nixon did found the EPA.
      - edko 10y ago
        I agree that maybe those presidents would not have been necessarily bad. Maybe, if Dole would have won, G.W. Bush would have never been elected, and the world would now be a very different (and better) place. I think malleable politicians are malleable because they try to benefit the largest section of the population that they can. Conservatives, lately, have focused on benefiting a very small segment of the population directly, expecting the benefits to trickle down. However, the trickle down has not worked. I know very little about economics, but, I remember, headlines in newspapers eight years ago were mainly about unemployment, and the growth of the National debt. The euro was $1.30 (now it buoys around $1.10). I think the American economy is much better now than it was eight years ago, and a larger section of the population has benefited from that, than when principled conservatives were in the government. (And this is just from an economic point of view, which is a small part of the benefits).
- ahussain 10y ago
  No, but in this case he was right and consistent. She was eventually right and not consistent.
- gthtjtkt 10y ago
  > you can't tout keeping the same idea for years as an unqualified good thing You're missing the point completely. I'm not praising Sanders' stubbornness, I'm praising his foresight and vastly superior judgment. He knew what this country needed to do 20 years before Hillary, and he was willing to vehemently defend his opinions despite the overwhelming opposition. The fact that you're trying to turn this into some kind of debate about consistency vs. facts is frankly baffling. It's clear that he was right all along and she was late to the party on every issue that liberals and progressives care about. And do you really believe she changed her opinion on those issues where she claimed to have "evolved"? I sure don't. We know she still wants TPP to pass, we know she still secretly supports DOMA, we know she had no interest in reigning in Wall Street, we know she (and Chelsea) were halfheartedly pretending to support medical marijuana, etc. etc.. The Hillary Clinton presented to the public was a fictional character designed for one purpose: To win the presidency. It didn't work, and the reason is clear: We're not as ignorant or gullible as they'd hoped: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmARhAWn https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmARhAWn
  - greenshackle2 10y ago
    > You're missing the point completely. You're right, I got sidetracked by this: > has been saying the exact same things for years I keep forgetting not to try debating what is or isn't a good argument, in the abstract, in politics threads.
    - croon 10y ago
      Well, it's because you're arguing what you did was somehow objectively relevant. That's a very binary stance. What he said makes complete sense in the context he presented it in, and is valid. You're arguing how what he said would be bad in an entirely different context, which is irrelevant.

greenshackle2 10y ago

Correct, but being right is orthogonal to consistency. If you are exposed to new evidence, and it points in a different direction than your prior belief, being right means changing your mind; if there is no new evidence, or the weight of new evidence points in the same direction, being right means keeping the same belief. All I'm saying is, you can't tout keeping the same idea for years as an unqualified good thing, you have to look at the idea and history in detail, and show that it was a good idea all along. (I'm not objecting to the object-level argument that Clinton does whatever is politically expedient, I'm objecting to the line of argument that it's good for a politician to hold an opinion for a long time, without also showing that the idea is good, and that it was good all along.)

noobiemcfoob 10y ago
> you can't tout keeping the same idea for years as an unqualified good thing If that's the critique you hear when comparing Sanders to Clinton, you're not listening very well. To restate, Sanders didn't just tout the same idea. He's fought for the same core principles throughout his whole career, even when in the clear minority. Overtime, the rest of our culture came around to those ideas (bringing Clinton with it). His virtue isn't his tenacity. It's his progressive thinking.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  Maybe. I can accept that I am taking the OP too literally when they say that Berns has been saying > the exact same thing for years. I'm not American, I havn't looked into Berns' history in details.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Fargren 10y ago
But consistently having to change your position is not a good sign. It's good to be able to change your mind. But it's hard to trust someone who changes a lot of their positions.
darawk 10y ago
I don't think the OP was criticizing her lack of consistency. (S)He was criticizing her lack of being on the right side of the issues the first time (in the way that Bernie has been on many issues). It's easy to switch sides when everyone does, and nobody should criticize someone for doing that. But to many people, greatness is being on the right side of the issue before everyone else, and convincing people of its rightness.
- edko 10y ago
  I think you need both. You need the uncompromising Bernies, to act as visionaries and point out what the future should be. And, you also need the unprincipled politicians who can compromise, and adapt, and win elections. If Bernie had run in all previous elections, you would have probably gotten presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney. And, who knows, maybe Trump too.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I am not convinced those presidents would have been bad. Can we say that they were all acting in the same way as "unprincipled politicians who can compromise, and adapt, and win elections" or maybe did they believe something earnestly that is just different from what you believe? Would you rather have an ethically malleable liberal than a principled conservative? In most cases I would rather have the principled politician because they will have some kind of goal to benefit some segment of Americans. Can we really say that any ethically malleable politician, of any flavor, will always help some segment of Americans? Then as a counter to all this. Nixon did found the EPA.
    - edko 10y ago
      I agree that maybe those presidents would not have been necessarily bad. Maybe, if Dole would have won, G.W. Bush would have never been elected, and the world would now be a very different (and better) place. I think malleable politicians are malleable because they try to benefit the largest section of the population that they can. Conservatives, lately, have focused on benefiting a very small segment of the population directly, expecting the benefits to trickle down. However, the trickle down has not worked. I know very little about economics, but, I remember, headlines in newspapers eight years ago were mainly about unemployment, and the growth of the National debt. The euro was $1.30 (now it buoys around $1.10). I think the American economy is much better now than it was eight years ago, and a larger section of the population has benefited from that, than when principled conservatives were in the government. (And this is just from an economic point of view, which is a small part of the benefits).
ahussain 10y ago
No, but in this case he was right and consistent. She was eventually right and not consistent.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> you can't tout keeping the same idea for years as an unqualified good thing You're missing the point completely. I'm not praising Sanders' stubbornness, I'm praising his foresight and vastly superior judgment. He knew what this country needed to do 20 years before Hillary, and he was willing to vehemently defend his opinions despite the overwhelming opposition. The fact that you're trying to turn this into some kind of debate about consistency vs. facts is frankly baffling. It's clear that he was right all along and she was late to the party on every issue that liberals and progressives care about. And do you really believe she changed her opinion on those issues where she claimed to have "evolved"? I sure don't. We know she still wants TPP to pass, we know she still secretly supports DOMA, we know she had no interest in reigning in Wall Street, we know she (and Chelsea) were halfheartedly pretending to support medical marijuana, etc. etc.. The Hillary Clinton presented to the public was a fictional character designed for one purpose: To win the presidency. It didn't work, and the reason is clear: We're not as ignorant or gullible as they'd hoped: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmARhAWn https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599#efmARhAWn
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  > You're missing the point completely. You're right, I got sidetracked by this: > has been saying the exact same things for years I keep forgetting not to try debating what is or isn't a good argument, in the abstract, in politics threads.
  - croon 10y ago
    Well, it's because you're arguing what you did was somehow objectively relevant. That's a very binary stance. What he said makes complete sense in the context he presented it in, and is valid. You're arguing how what he said would be bad in an entirely different context, which is irrelevant.