Tag Team an argument from both Sides
Have been noticing a funny pattern in the arguments of Hillary supporters when confronting threads on past positions Hillary has taken.
One third deny that Hillary was ever for the policy or position. One third agree that she had that policy but claim that it is either not serious or that she has evolved. The last third argue that the policy or position is the correct policy or position.
This pattern I noticed in recent threads on Fracking and Libya (the elimination of Qaddafi, not the stupid made up Benghazi stuff).
If you look at these threads, you will see Hillary supporters coming from all three of these positions each of which should make the other positions untenable. In other words, if you believe Libya is a good thing, if Hillary did not argue for it, it would be her having the wrong policy.
I think this ability to support Hillary from any angle fits her political tactics and strategies. It allows her to say she is progressive one day and a moderate the next and some of her supporters to argue that her centrist policies are the correct ones and others to argue that she holds completely different policies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
