Re:U.S. government accuses Russia of hacking campaign to inf...
by grandalf on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @10:42AM
(#12684808)
Don't forget that HRC and Obama both felt strongly (based on their faith) that marriage was between a man and a woman until popular opinion was quite a bit more progressive and there was no longer any political cost to being supportive of LGBTQ rights.
While politicians like to pretend that they are a source of progressive energy, any member of a major party will typically lag by at least several years on any important issue... until it's "safe" or "mainstream" enough not to threaten the status quo too much.
I simply do not believe that HRC and Obama suddenly realized that LGBTQ rights mattered, they are self-serving self-promoters who calculatingly switched their opinions only when it was advantageous to do so. Such horrible, unprincipled people do not deserve our support!
As I said, in some ways that is true and some ways it's not, but now we're going in circles.
The budget and economy, foreign policy (including wars), health care, and more were much different when Bill Clinton left office, when Bush left office, and now near the end of Obama's terms.
The courts have been and will be much different depending on who is elected. Congress acts very differently depending on which party controls it.
EDIT: LGBTQ rights are a big change of the status quo, as is a black President and changes in national health care. And before that, pre-emptive war, torture, Guantanamo, and mass surveillance were big changes. Congressional gridlock is ironically a big change, as is only 8 Supreme Court justices.
It would have been interesting to learn something about in what cases it's true about the status quo and in what cases it's not.