Hillary vs Bernie

[Siege]

I am still solid against gay marriage.
It will be the end of western superiority.

[dps]

It is my belief - and I certainly can't prove it - that both Obama, Hillary, and other politicians were in favor of gay marriage from the start, but it wasn't politically adequate to express such views at the time, so they went with the civil union thingie.

It could be, but I'm not sure.  Gay marriage is one of those issues where you may start out having a strong opinion grounded in inertia and tradition, but then have it dissolve in a debate and then wonder what all the hubbub was about.

Or it could be that they simply didn't and don't give a damn about the issue one way or the other.  Easy to be flexible on issues you don't really care about.

That's not a criticism, BTW.  All of us have some issues that we care about more than others.  I just want a politician to let us know which issues he's willing to compromise on (and to what degree), and which he's not.  And it's not really entirely the politicians fault that they generally do a poor job of that--if someone says that they're willing to compromise on a particular issue, often all that does is get people on both sides of that issue unhappy with them.  Plus, it requires nuance, which is tough to convey when most of our political discourse is conducted in sound bites.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?

Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble

What else?

I believe you are missing Celery's point, which is that Obama's position on gay marriage was another example of political expediency.

[Eddie Teach]

Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?

Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble

What else?

Depends on what issues the voter cares about. For instance, my family will be deeply suspicious of blue state Republicans who become pro-life when they decide to run for President(Romney, Trump).

[garbon]

Ah wait, so can you tell me - what are the issues that you are allowed to flip your positions on (or outright dissemble on) and what are ones where you need to be crystal clear?

Support of free trade? Need to be unambiguous in your position.
Support of LGBT rights? Okay to dissemble

What else?

I believe you are missing Celery's point, which is that Obama's position on gay marriage was another example of political expediency.

Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.

[LaCroix]

Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.

it's more acceptable when a guy does it

[Admiral Yi]

Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.

It's a much better point than your other one, that people are allowed to change their minds.

[garbon]

Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.

it's more acceptable when a guy does it

I don't think it has to be a sexism thing - but I also don't think Hillary is uniquely special in the extent to which she says politically expedient things.

[garbon]

Which is my point that Hillary is hardly unique in this.

It's a much better point than your other one, that people are allowed to change their minds.

Well I think both are true. After all, why should one's opinion on something not change over the course of years?

[Jaron]

If gays really cared about civil rights, they'd defer their own plight for about 20-30 more years until we can get race relations in America figured out.

[Admiral Yi]

Well I think both are true. After all, why should one's opinion on something not change over the course of years?

You're arguing in the alternative.  "Hillary did nothing wrong, and if she did, Obama did the same thing!"

[LaCroix]

I don't think it has to be a sexism thing - but I also don't think Hillary is uniquely special in the extent to which she says politically expedient things.

depends on your definition of sexism.* last weekend, I saw a girl get criticized by a female judge for having a "shrill" voice. she was aggressive, that's it. when guys do it, they're applauded (and disliked by some). when girls do it, they're criticized (and disliked by more than some). a lot of the criticism I see leveled at hillary essentially boils down to "well, she's just, like, a bitch, you know?"

(edit) *stuff like "sexism" makes people get all defensive and really kills conversation, imo

[Admiral Yi]

depends on your definition of sexism.* last weekend, I saw a girl get criticized by a female judge for having a "shrill" voice. she was aggressive, that's it. when guys do it, they're applauded (and disliked by some). when girls do it, they're criticized (and disliked by more than some). a lot of the criticism I see leveled at hillary essentially boils down to "well, she's just, like, a bitch, you know?"

(edit) *stuff like "sexism" makes people get all defensive and really kills conversation, imo

I've never seen a guy getting applauded for having a shrill voice.

Hillary has an unpleasant speaking voice.  So did George Bush Sr.

[LaCroix]

I've never seen a guy getting applauded for having a shrill voice.

Hillary has an unpleasant speaking voice.  So did George Bush Sr.

I wasn't analyzing hillary's speaking voice. wasn't making a comparison, just threw out an anecdote

the girl in the anecdote didn't have a shrill voice. she was aggressive, yet it was called "shrill." in my experience helping underclassmen with their public speaking and hearing other feedback, every time a guy has an aggressive-style approach, it's praised. when girls do it, it's criticized. I started picking up on this after reading a comment about how women are expected to be meek, while men are expected to be louder. it's just one example of many re: how women get the short straw in professional careers.

[PDH]

If gays really cared about civil rights, they'd defer their own plight for about 20-30 more years until we can get race relations in America figured out.

but that would lead to them only getting 70% of the same wage as a straight person.