Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.
Or someone who has views which have evolved with time.
Interesting that her views have evolved in time with what was politically advantageous to her at the time. Like it has for a lot of other subjects (such as workers rights, Iraq War etc.)
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"
- John Maynard Keynes
Apparently I side with Bernie Sanders. I have no idea who this person is.
What information changed for Hillary then? Homosexuality didn't magically go from being wrong to being right. The only thing that changed is public opinion. If you change something which is essentially a moral/conscience issue purely because public opinion has shifted, you are basically saying you have no moral compass, you just do whatever is popular whether it is morally right or wrong. The fact is Hillary has only very recently switched her allegiance to pro-LGBTQ after the tipping point of the gay marriage fight, despite having never helped campaign for gay marriage previously and in fact probably helped set back the issue in the previous decade due to her vocal opposition to it. I have seen several LGBTQs in the USA express utter contempt for Hillary for exploiting an issue for political gain since they have not forgotten that she was once the enemy.
Are most/all politicians guilty of this on this or other issues? Yes, of course, but Hillary's supporters are trying to paint it as someone who has now become enlightened, rather than the more obvious truth that she is a naked opportunist (which her husband has had experience with in the Oval Office...)
Isn't that what politics, in essence, is though? You're elected to represent the rights and serve the wishes of your electorate - irrespective of what you may, personally, believe? I've no doubt she's as opportunisitic as every other politician who ever lived - but I fail to understand what is so 'wrong' about changing your 'political' stance on an issue because public opinion has changed.
I'd rather swear allegiance to my Monarch than a flag though.
Mine was the same. And I was slightly surprised that I sided with Hillary on most issues. I used to like her when she was the First Lady but my impression about her has changed a lot in recent years, especially during her tenure as Secretary of State.
You'll have a general idea about who you would be most likely to vote for in the 2016 US presidential election.
I sided with Bernie Sanders, whoever he is.......?
I had never heard of him either until I saw his presidential run announcement. The 'Compare Answers' function in the result page is quite informative. Before doing the quiz I was actually going to find some articles on Jeb Bush to see what kind of candidate he was. But after seeing his name way down on my result page of that quiz, I decided not to waste my time. If it really was going to be Hillary v Bush in the end, I at least know whom I would like to see win the election. But then again, I've always preferred the Democrats over the GOP. You would probably wonder why this is relevant since I'm Chinese. Well, like ShootersHillGuru said in the first reply to this topic, the president of the US is probably the most powerful person in this world so we all have to care, especially when China and America have entered into a very tricky relationship in the past couple years.
By the way, I read a survey report on Washington Post a few weeks ago which I found very interesting. From a Chinese point of view, it is probably another reason that I'd rather see a Democrat in office than a Republican whose party is traditionally more hawkish. (But of course in reality, things are not just that simple.)
You'll have a general idea about who you would be most likely to vote for in the 2016 US presidential election.
I sided with Bernie Sanders at 82% and Hillary at 78% as my top two. Scott Walker was 39% which is important because he is the definition of a wanker (to put it nicely)
Covered End/Leroy Ambrose: you both missed the point of why people are annoyed with Hillary on her about-face on this issue. Yes, it is a good thing that politicians evolve their opinions in line with public opinion, and yes it is good that elected politicians reflect the wishes of their demographics in their policies.
However this is what I and many others believe - Hillary has probably been pro gay marriage for a lot longer than a few years. I imagine when she vocalised her opposition to gay marriage all those years ago, she did through gritted teeth since back then being pro-gay marriage was much riskier for your career than it is today. There was a minority of people fighting for civil rights and instead of siding with them when it actually mattered, she sided with the tyranny of the majority in order to save her own career. It was only once the pro-gay movement's momentum looked unstoppable that she publicly switched her support to them. As far as I know she and her campaign have not really addressed the fact that her opposition to gay marriage was at best unhelpful to the cause, yet now she is trying to paint herself as having been a long-time gay rights advocate for campaign reasons. This also gives the appearance of a potential President who refuses to stand up for the rights of minorities and the downtrodden if it politically inconvenient. You only have to look at the history of our own country to see that some of the most important social justice progresses were enacted by brave politicians standing in the face of the powerful or vast political opposition.
Covered End/Leroy Ambrose: you both missed the point of why people are annoyed with Hillary on her about-face on this issue. Yes, it is a good thing that politicians evolve their opinions in line with public opinion, and yes it is good that elected politicians reflect the wishes of their demographics in their policies.
However this is what I and many others believe - Hillary has probably been pro gay marriage for a lot longer than a few years. I imagine when she vocalised her opposition to gay marriage all those years ago, she did through gritted teeth since back then being pro-gay marriage was much riskier for your career than it is today. There was a minority of people fighting for civil rights and instead of siding with them when it actually mattered, she sided with the tyranny of the majority in order to save her own career. It was only once the pro-gay movement's momentum looked unstoppable that she publicly switched her support to them. As far as I know she and her campaign have not really addressed the fact that her opposition to gay marriage was at best unhelpful to the cause, yet now she is trying to paint herself as having been a long-time gay rights advocate for campaign reasons. This also gives the appearance of a potential President who refuses to stand up for the rights of minorities and the downtrodden if it politically inconvenient. You only have to look at the history of our own country to see that some of the most important social justice progresses were enacted by brave politicians standing in the face of the powerful or vast political opposition.
You are right, she has probably been pro gay marriage for a few years now. Like a lot of people in the US and here her views have evolved in line with the times. But, as Leroy stated she is no more opportunistic than any other politician. This, like Benghazi, is a complete non issue in the next election but Fox News and the Koch brothers will spend literally millions of dollars trying to promote fake issues like these into the campaign narrative.
Comments
Thirty years ago I would have been anti gay marriage and now I'm pro.
By the way, I read a survey report on Washington Post a few weeks ago which I found very interesting. From a Chinese point of view, it is probably another reason that I'd rather see a Democrat in office than a Republican whose party is traditionally more hawkish. (But of course in reality, things are not just that simple.)
However this is what I and many others believe - Hillary has probably been pro gay marriage for a lot longer than a few years. I imagine when she vocalised her opposition to gay marriage all those years ago, she did through gritted teeth since back then being pro-gay marriage was much riskier for your career than it is today. There was a minority of people fighting for civil rights and instead of siding with them when it actually mattered, she sided with the tyranny of the majority in order to save her own career. It was only once the pro-gay movement's momentum looked unstoppable that she publicly switched her support to them. As far as I know she and her campaign have not really addressed the fact that her opposition to gay marriage was at best unhelpful to the cause, yet now she is trying to paint herself as having been a long-time gay rights advocate for campaign reasons. This also gives the appearance of a potential President who refuses to stand up for the rights of minorities and the downtrodden if it politically inconvenient. You only have to look at the history of our own country to see that some of the most important social justice progresses were enacted by brave politicians standing in the face of the powerful or vast political opposition.