Okay, but you started this conversation with a hypothetical:
"It's going to be interesting to see people change their minds on SuperPACs [...]"
"People" is a generic descriptor. Nobody here can have a conversation with "people." This is a vague, generic grouping that doesn't tell us anything meaningful. You say "people will change their mind [in this hypothetical situation]" and that's not a conversation, that's a statement you're making implying a judgment of them.
It's the difference between this, and starting the conversation with:
"Would anyone here disappointed that Warren changed her stance on Super PACs feel the same if they endorsed the Democrat candidate in the general election?"
This is a much less judgmental question and opens the floor for discussion. I don't say this to be mean or jump all over you. I'm trying to explain why your original post comes off as casting judgment and implicitly calling "people" hypocrites. The view that Warren flip flopped on her stance on Super PACs in the primary, and that is disappointing or worthy of criticism, is not necessarily the same as "we don't want Super PACs at all in the general." Individual supporters can have different views on this. That's a conversation worth having. It's also not a conversation with actual specific posters, not "people."
