4 ms·

> 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

> 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

> 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.