TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 'Flip Flopping' vs 'Listening'

'Flip Flopping' vs 'Listening'

There's a lot of talk about flip flopping in the American presidential election. On every issue where the candidates even change their rhetoric slightly, they get accused of "flip flopping".

At the same time the candidates, and the media, are accusing each other of not "listening" to the people and being elitists.

1. What point is there to listen if you are not "allowed" to flip flop?
2. Why is it a bad thing to flip flop? I can come up with a million issues where flip flopping is better than stubbornness.

I don't get it. Explain, please

Because flip flopping is so blatantly political sometimes... When someone has a firm position for many years, then suddenly switches it when public opinion goes the other way, it is obvious they are only doing it to get elected...They change positions for political expediency..not because they have truly changed their minds.

Mccain was firmly against the Bush tax cuts for many years, but now that he has the nomination, he is swearing to defend them. Obama is doing the same thing for oil drilling.. He's been firmly against it for several years, but now 75% of the country supports it *flip!* so does he.. They are both selling their souls in this election. They are willing to go against their own principles to gain power. That's why it's bad...It speaks ill of their character.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Because flip flopping is so blatantly political sometimes... When someone has a firm position for many years, then suddenly switches it when public opinion goes the other way, it is obvious they are only doing it to get elected...They change positions for political expediency..not because they have truly changed their minds. McCain was firmly against the Bush tax cuts for many years, but now that he has the nomination, he is swearing to defend them. Obama is doing the same thing for oil drilling.. He's been firmly against it for several years, but now 75% of the country supports it *flip!* so does he.. They are both selling their souls in this election. They are willing to go against their own principles to gain power. That's why it's bad...It speaks ill of their character.

Well, if 75% of the country think that you are wrong on a rather minor issue, I don't think it's selling out if you change your position. And in the off-shore drilling it made perfect political sense too, since it would be a in "a major package" (so it's rather a compromise than a flip-flop). Then you take many people's concern into consideration (even though it's a stupid concern since off-shore drilling won't help, and it will still require the states to allow it). Or with Obamas campaign funding promise, it made perfect sense because he wasn't contradicting the reasons he gave from the beginning, it was just that reality changed.

Same with Kerry, it wasn't really flip-flopping, it was really just a change in rhetorics and times.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Because flip flopping is so blatantly political sometimes... When someone has a firm position for many years, then suddenly switches it when public opinion goes the other way, it is obvious they are only doing it to get elected...They change positions for political expediency..not because they have truly changed their minds. Mccain was firmly against the Bush tax cuts for many years, but now that he has the nomination, he is swearing to defend them. Obama is doing the same thing for oil drilling.. He's been firmly against it for several years, but now 75% of the country supports it *flip!* so does he.. They are both selling their souls in this election. They are willing to go against their own principles to gain power. That's why it's bad...It speaks ill of their character.

since the entire purpose of democracy is to elect officals to government on behalf of the population i see absolutely nothing wrong with a president who changes his position to agree with the will of the people. a president that is firm in his believes may also very well be ignoring the overwhelming majority of the population. See GW Bush. We elect politicians because we think they will represent our interests, when a president doesn't adapt he then represents his own interests. not very democratic in my opinion.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.