Reply #24: One? I cited two. The two most important to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

I did not present one 'supposed policy flip-flop' I presented two of them. He was once in favor of equal rights for all, now he is opposed to equal rights for all.
And the point, sir, is that you are claiming that what he campaigned on and did not campaign on define what is possible now. And that does not hold water if we accept other changes in policy. If he said X then and Y now on one issue, he can do so on other issues, and if he can not, the reason is not because he said x on the trail. You declared that his campaign positions are what his positions must remain, ie no campaign for single payer means there can be no discussion of single payer. But his campaign stance on forcing people to buy products, that one can change. And the marriage thing can go 180 over a few short years.
People voted for him and against Hillary over the Mandates, one of the very few actual differences between them. They both made it out to be a big deal. He had detailed explanations of why he was right and she was wrong. Now he's switched, and that means he can switch on anything.
My critique here is not so much of him, but of the argument that his campaign words define is current policies, which they really do not. And if they don't, they just don't. You can not go 180 on some things and still claim that your campaign words define you. Not without being called on it. Cake and eat it too, that is called. We can change our minds, but also we can not change our minds. Cake, and eat.