Hacker News Reader

You mean he was honest before he was ever elected president and needed votes, and now that he can no longer be elected and in this sense has nothing to lose, came the dishonesty? Is it not imaginable that, being a canny politician, he was dishonest then and is more honest now?

View on HN

Why either extreme? He chose the battles to fight then, and later realized that the battle needed to be fought in federal court after all. As well, supporting marriage equality doesn't have to entail agreeing with it. I have to support the right that bigots have to exercise their hate speech on television, but I do not have to agree with them, nor do I have to defend their position.

I think the real extreme is a guy flip flops on an issue and someone assumes it's all sincere. Much more extreme than arguing which was the time when he wasn't. I guess I'm jealous as I never found a politician or a movement I liked enough to see no fault in them, in fact I've never even got to vote for someone who didn't make me a bit sick, nor heard about a politician in any of the countries far, far away who'd give me such an opportunity as a voter had I been a citizen there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com