I'm not interested in who said something "first."

[ibegurpard]

Obviously I have a bias and certain people don't have much credibility in my opinion. But if someone espouses an idea with which I agree I'm going to agree with them whether they were the first or hundredth person to say so. That argument is pointless.

[99th_Monkey]

1. So you're saying you see no difference? really?

No difference between:
1) people who have the vision to buck the tide, esp when the tide is wrong, and lead
to pioneer into new territory as best they can in order to have personal integrity with the
situation, and
2) people who follow that leader, apparently because it is expedient and popular?

[ibegurpard]

2. No I'm not saying that

It's not a contest for who arrived at the correct position first. If you want to have a conversation about who has any credibility AT ALL on a paricular issue that's a whole different story.

[99th_Monkey]

9. I see your point, but only to a point

It certainly sounds like you're saying my #1 & #2 are the same, that it shouldn't
make any difference who has an idea first or who is the hundredth person to have
that same idea, later on down the road. Did I get that right so far?

[ibegurpard]

11. Not saying it doesn't make a difference

But we have to make room for people to take the correct position even if they aren't the first ones there. You can go after someone for being disingenuous about it if their history or record doesn't reflect their stance but there's no need to attack someone for agreeing with you just because they weren't the first one to do so. Surely you can see the same dynamic being applied to the people YOU support and that particular line of attack is bullshit no matter who's engaged in it.

[99th_Monkey]

19. OK.

How about this one:
I fully expect Bernie -- as we near the elections -- to modulate his position on
gun control, from his past position (representing Vermont hunters) to better
reflect the clear national need for more serious gun controls, to curb gun violence in
more urban areas primarily.

When Bernie does this, will that change in his issue-position qualify for your "no need to attack" ?

[JaneyVee]

3. And this belongs in GD:P why?

[ibegurpard]

5. Because of the competing threads

About who said what first which I'm sure you find just as irritating as me. Does it make a difference to you when Hillary takes a stance if another candidate came out of the gate with it first? Of course it doesn't. Climb off your cross.

[JaneyVee]

6. You want me to climb off my cross??

I have no idea wtf this thread is even in response to, nor do I care. Was just wondering why its in the wrong forum.

[ibegurpard]

8. alert on it then

Or ignore it if you have nothing to say.

[BainsBane]

4. What leftist position did Hillary take now?

That has people so upset?

[ibegurpard]

7. my issue isn't whether she was first

It's with whether she has any credibility at all. Which she obviously does on at least some issues important to me. What's becoming tiresome is "my candidate said it first" nonsense...which no group of people here can claim the high ground on.

[BainsBane]

10. Yeah, I understood that

I thought perhaps there was a particular issue.

To me, that reaction you describe shows how it's more about personality than issues.

[ibegurpard]

12. Well i had just seen

A "Hillary wants to end the Cuban embargo" thread. And then I saw one that said Bernie said the same thing in 2014. Good for both of them. Is there anything that might cause one to doubt the sincerity of other one of them on that particular issue? Then let's hear it. Otherwise who gives a fuck who said it first?

[BainsBane]

13. The reason the thing has been in place so long is Florida

I admire the fact that Hillary said it at FIU. She didn't go to California or NY, somewhere where it was safe to talk about it. She went right to Miami.

Yeah, the who said it first thing gets old. If the idea is to see progress, isn't it all good?

[ibegurpard]

15. Yes it is

And I don't believe Hillary will bring us progress on a number of things important to me but I'm sure as shit not going to attack her for agreeing with me when there's no reason to doubt her credibility on a particular issue.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. Not sure what this is about, but I will note that if some other candidate comes up with a good idea

I want my preferred candidate to espouse that idea as well. Because I'm interested in ideas more than people.

[ibegurpard]

16. precisely

And the trigger for me (although) I've seen it on more issues than this was the competing threads about who called for ending the Cuban embargo first. Do we have any reason to doubt the sincerity of either one of them on it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Well, I can see the difference between calling for it before it ended, and calling for it afterward.

But hell, I've called for it for years, and nobody bothered to give me a hat tip for calling for it before them.

[ibegurpard]

18. I think many of us

Have agreed for years this a policy that should have been gone a long time ago. As long as there's no reason to doubt someone's genuineness on an issue there's no reason we can't all cheer when someone we don't like is getting it right on at least SOME things.