This blog is a place for us to give our Analysis and Opinions on important topics related to civics, government and politics.
Analysis is a clinical interpretation of items, issues, ideas, or events and an explanation of their impact on the future (i.e. something you think is going to happen).
Opinion is composed of your reactions, feelings, and beliefs on items, issues, ideas or events (i.e. something you would like to happen). Even though they are your opinions, they should be based in fact.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Analysis:If everyone changes their mind, especially political candidates, why do we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" and who isn't?
Click on the link below to take you to a recent story about the 2012 campaign and flip flopping:
I think that most politicians will accuse at least one other person of being a "flip flopper" at least one time during their campaign. I think this insult is popular because it makes a candidate seem unreliable. However, this is kind of a stupid argument; according to this logic, every political candidate flip flops, and no one is reliable.
I think we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we want our political candidates to stand up for what we believe in. If a political candidate changes his mind a lot many people do not believe he will stand up for what they believe in. Many people think a candidate that "flip flops" will go with what ever policy is more popular if he or she is elected to office and will not stand up for what he or she truly believes is right. We also look at "flip flopping" like that political candidate is just saying what a group of people wants to hear to get votes in the election.
I think that every candidate running for office is somewhat of a flip-flopper, but it kind of makes sense for them to be. They say different things depending on where they are campaigning because they know that different groups of people and different areas of the country want to hear different things. I’m not saying that I agree with them doing it, but I don’t think that one politician should accuse another of doing it because they all do it to some extent. They are all just trying to get votes.
I believe that time is spent on deciding on who is a "flip-flopper" and who isn't because political candidates just want people to think that they never do and their opponent always does, to get votes. So the only reason people actually vote for them is because they don't look into the person they are voting for, and they choose the person who puts up the most "flip-flopping" proof from the other candidate. So it comes down to, whoever makes the other guy look worse to the misinformed wins the votes.
We spend so much time debating who is a flip flopper and who isn't because politicians make us believe that their opponents are flip floppers even if they really are not. By tricking people into believing things that aren't true they will most likely gain more votes in an easy way.
I feel that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we are afraid that if that person is elected, they will be constantly changing their mind. In reality this is what every human being does, and most of the time people want a candidate who makes decisions based on the good of the people. Also politicians just want to point out the flaws of the other candidates, so the people will think that they are incapable of running the country.
The reason we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" is because it is a way for politicians to make their opponents seem indecisive and unreliable. But since political candidates need to appeal to the people, they sometimes change their stance on a topic depending on public opinion instead of what they think is actually best for the country.
I believe that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we are afraid of the unknown. This is a negative thing for the people because they never know what they are going to be in favor of and if what they say they are really going to do. Not knowing what they are going to do is also a bad thing for the people because they want everything to be in black and white so its easy for they to decide who they want to represent them.
People want to point the fingers and make someone else look bad, being a flip flopper,just to make themselfs look good, even though they may be a flip flopper themselves. They want to be on top and be the best by putting everyone else down and making them look bad everyway they can.
With as many candidates that are currently in the race to be nominated as the candidate to run against Barack Obama, conservative voters are looking for consistency. Lately there has been some inconsistency in what the candidates say they stand for. Even though it's very early in the campaign trail, I feel voters would like to narrow in on a candidate that they would like to see in the Whitehouse. I think it's important that a candidate means what he/she says and says what he/she means. To listen to them "flip flop" a bit on the issues even at this early stage can be somewhat frustrating for the voters. If this continues to happen or if it continues to happen to one candidate more than the others, it could seriously lead to a lack of credibility for the candidates or candidate. A good example of that would be when senator John Kerry was campaigning in 2003/04.
Voters want to see consistancy in politicians. They want to know who and what they are voting for and what the candidate stands for. Unfortunately, political campaigns are competitions and candidates will do almost anything to win. They change their views and opinions based on the popular opinion of the voters. If a candidate says that they are against all abortions and gets a negative reaction from the voters, that politician may change their opinion and say that they believe abortions are ok before the heartbeat is detected. However, now this causes the voters to be confused. Is this politician pro-life or pro-choice? It depends on the popular opinion. This is not true with all candidates, but this is why we spend so much time debating this issue. The voters want to have a clear-cut idea of who they're voting for and what he or she stands for.
We spend so much time debating who is and isn't a flip flopper becase it either makes the candidate we are voting for lok good or bad. You can almost always find some reason to call a candidate this so it is an unreliable source to make your vote.
We spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" and who isn't because we put so much trust into a candidate to do what we believe is right that we don't want their opinion to suddenly change to what we don't believe in. We don't want them to go with what is the popular idea necessarily but what the right thing to do is in their mind. Most likely if we vote for a candidate their idea of the right thing to do is very similar with our idea of the right thing to do. We don't want someone who will keep changing their ideas just to stay in office when the outcome will not benefit us. Of course, everyone changes their mind but we don't want a drastic change in thought in a critical vote.
I think that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" and who isn't to justify our candidate choices. Calling someone a "flip flopper" is just a way to insult a candidate and create a reason why we are against that candidate. Although everyone changes their minds, we tend to make excuses for those we support and point out the changes in those we oppose.
We're spending so much time on debating what they're saying, because we want to somebody who we can trust. Somebody who as a clear structured plan like Madison. If you're a "flip flopper" than the people don't know why they are voting you. But most of the politicans are doing the direct opposite, because they don't want to loose voters for the election. So they're just keeping flip flopping around and you have to discuss and anylize every single statement of a politcan about what does he really mean.
Everybody is a "flip flopper" however, as a political candidate it is important to maintain as "solid" as one can on the core issues because otherwise the other candidates will be the first ones to jump on anything that seems iffy or uncertain. As a politican you do not want to hear the words undecisive or unrealiable next to your name.
We spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we want someone who is consistant with their ideas and viewpoints on government and its problems. If that person where to become president we wouldn't want to be jostled back and forth along the political spectrum just so that person can try and appease the people. That person needs to stick to his ideals and beliefs throughout the entire campaign to prove his integrity and determination to bring this country out of the economic depression we have gotten ourselves into.
I believe we spend so much time debating which presidential candidates are “flip floppers” because we, as a country, are scared that if the “flip flopper” candidate wins the presidential election that they will be constantly changing their mind. Every president, has in some sense, changed their mind on key issues that they explicitly stated in their campaign that they would stay firm on if elected, but that is something human and that everyone of us would do. But in another sense, some political candidates will do almost anything to win- even if that means changing their own, moral views to reflect that of the popular opinion. I believe that what all voters want is some sort of consistency, and a nominee that is not swayed by the public.
I think to much time is spent on worrying about whether or not a candidate will "flip flop" or not and less on the issues of time. Candidates look at each others past to find things they have done against their party to justify why not to vote for them, but the past is the past and should be left alone, we need to look to see what they will do in the future. "Flip flopping" is a way to avoid what people should really care about
In my opinion the main reason we see a political candidate as a "flip floppers" is that when campaigning many candidates say what they think will get them the most votes even though they know its highly improbable that they will be able to achieve said policies. So when they actually get elected they are unable to do what the promised and it looks a if they have "flip flopped" on the issue
In my opinion every candidate that runs for office is a flip flopper. The people then have to determine how bad of a flip flopper that candidate is. If the candidate can back up his beliefs, then the people know what he/she believes in. But if they are just flip flopping to get peoples votes, then thats when we start debating about the "Flip-flopper."
In political campaigns, everyone is a flip flopper. Everyone is just trying to gain the popularity of the people and win the most votes. To do this, the candidates will change their minds on a topic to make it more appealing to the people. People debate about it to determine if this person will actually follow through on their beliefs, or if they are just bullshiting the entire country.
People like focusing on flip flopping because it takes away ethos from the canidate. I think that we dont realize why some candidates flip flop based on ratifications of bills. Granted personal gain may be included, we dont know all the facts. We argue flip flopping so much because each party tries and make the other canidate look untrustworthy and the little advantages they can get anywhere is what wins elections
I think we debate who is a flip flopper or not because it gives us a way to disprove someone. It's a way to make sure no one candidate is completely reliable. We say they all "flip flop" when in reality it is all of our opinions (the public) that "flip flops" and the candidates therefore have to in order to appeal to the vast majority. If our views were to stay the same, so would theirs.
Since the average politician is a middle aged, white, puritan man, the "flipping" of sides on issues is one of the only aspects differentiating them. "flip flopping" is going to continue to happen for many years to come, due to the fact that one makes a conjecture on a political issue with only a limited amount of information. However once newer information is revealed about this subject the politician will change or ask to disregard his statement due to being that he had simply never obtained enough info in the beginning to make this conjecture. Many may then refute this saying that the politician should not have made such a conjecture to begin with, yet everyday proponents of the political parties push candidates to pick "sides" upon issues long before a conjecture can be made, then showing the juxtaposing event taking place.
I think that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we want to know which candidate deserve us to vote for. We want them to represent us, but trick us to win the president seat.
We shouldn't be debating who the flip flopper is. As candidates running for the people they should be straight to the point on the way they approach issues. If the candidate is a flip flopper then how are they going to make decisions when it comes to being elected. Why would we elect someone who is indecisive?
In my opinion, I believe that the people who spend their time keeping a tab on politicians who "flip-flop" are naive. Additionally, I think that some people focus more on this during the political debates and elections then the actual campaign itself because the voters do not fully understand government and politics. Also, in my opinion, I think that a lot of people enjoy the "drama" that comes of politics. In some cases, that may be the only thing that the person cares about. Arguing whether or not a politican is a "flip-flopper" may cause some serious drama not only between the politicans themselves, but the media as well. For example, sooner or later the media will start to "make fun" of certain politicans if they continue to be two-faced (SNL). Overall, I believe that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip-flopper" and who isn't merely for pleasure and enjoyment in government and politics.
The press and media look for how candidates compose themselves on camera or in interviews. If the candidates are consistent with there policies and if they dont say one thing during an interview and then another during a debate. Even though the candidates change there minds throughout the campaign they need to be careful what they say on tv so they dont say the opposite next time. If they want to change there opinion or policy they need to make sure they point out what they previously said and then state there new opinion.
I believe that we spend so much time debating who a "flip flopper" is because politicians who regularly change their views on issues may do so only to gain votes. On the other hand, it is expected for anybody to change their mind if they acquire information that changes their opinion. While it is acceptable to change an opinion for a logical reason, it is not acceptable to appear to change an opinion only to influence others. In the case of Romney, where it appears that he is acting like a "weather vane" only to obtain votes, this "flip flopping" would have been detrimental to his campaign.
30 comments:
I think that most politicians will accuse at least one other person of being a "flip flopper" at least one time during their campaign. I think this insult is popular because it makes a candidate seem unreliable. However, this is kind of a stupid argument; according to this logic, every political candidate flip flops, and no one is reliable.
I think we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we want our political candidates to stand up for what we believe in. If a political candidate changes his mind a lot many people do not believe he will stand up for what they believe in. Many people think a candidate that "flip flops" will go with what ever policy is more popular if he or she is elected to office and will not stand up for what he or she truly believes is right. We also look at "flip flopping" like that political candidate is just saying what a group of people wants to hear to get votes in the election.
I think that every candidate running for office is somewhat of a flip-flopper, but it kind of makes sense for them to be. They say different things depending on where they are campaigning because they know that different groups of people and different areas of the country want to hear different things. I’m not saying that I agree with them doing it, but I don’t think that one politician should accuse another of doing it because they all do it to some extent. They are all just trying to get votes.
I believe that time is spent on deciding on who is a "flip-flopper" and who isn't because political candidates just want people to think that they never do and their opponent always does, to get votes. So the only reason people actually vote for them is because they don't look into the person they are voting for, and they choose the person who puts up the most "flip-flopping" proof from the other candidate. So it comes down to, whoever makes the other guy look worse to the misinformed wins the votes.
We spend so much time debating who is a flip flopper and who isn't because politicians make us believe that their opponents are flip floppers even if they really are not. By tricking people into believing things that aren't true they will most likely gain more votes in an easy way.
I feel that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we are afraid that if that person is elected, they will be constantly changing their mind. In reality this is what every human being does, and most of the time people want a candidate who makes decisions based on the good of the people. Also politicians just want to point out the flaws of the other candidates, so the people will think that they are incapable of running the country.
The reason we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" is because it is a way for politicians to make their opponents seem indecisive and unreliable. But since political candidates need to appeal to the people, they sometimes change their stance on a topic depending on public opinion instead of what they think is actually best for the country.
I believe that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we are afraid of the unknown. This is a negative thing for the people because they never know what they are going to be in favor of and if what they say they are really going to do. Not knowing what they are going to do is also a bad thing for the people because they want everything to be in black and white so its easy for they to decide who they want to represent them.
People want to point the fingers and make someone else look bad, being a flip flopper,just to make themselfs look good, even though they may be a flip flopper themselves. They want to be on top and be the best by putting everyone else down and making them look bad everyway they can.
With as many candidates that are currently in the race to be nominated as the candidate to run against Barack Obama, conservative voters are looking for consistency. Lately there has been some inconsistency in what the candidates say they stand for. Even though it's very early in the campaign trail, I feel voters would like to narrow in on a candidate that they would like to see in the Whitehouse. I think it's important that a candidate means what he/she says and says what he/she means. To listen to them "flip flop" a bit on the issues even at this early stage can be somewhat frustrating for the voters. If this continues to happen or if it continues to happen to one candidate more than the others, it could seriously lead to a lack of credibility for the candidates or candidate. A good example of that would be when senator John Kerry was campaigning in 2003/04.
Voters want to see consistancy in politicians. They want to know who and what they are voting for and what the candidate stands for. Unfortunately, political campaigns are competitions and candidates will do almost anything to win. They change their views and opinions based on the popular opinion of the voters. If a candidate says that they are against all abortions and gets a negative reaction from the voters, that politician may change their opinion and say that they believe abortions are ok before the heartbeat is detected. However, now this causes the voters to be confused. Is this politician pro-life or pro-choice? It depends on the popular opinion. This is not true with all candidates, but this is why we spend so much time debating this issue. The voters want to have a clear-cut idea of who they're voting for and what he or she stands for.
We spend so much time debating who is and isn't a flip flopper becase it either makes the candidate we are voting for lok good or bad. You can almost always find some reason to call a candidate this so it is an unreliable source to make your vote.
We spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" and who isn't because we put so much trust into a candidate to do what we believe is right that we don't want their opinion to suddenly change to what we don't believe in. We don't want them to go with what is the popular idea necessarily but what the right thing to do is in their mind. Most likely if we vote for a candidate their idea of the right thing to do is very similar with our idea of the right thing to do. We don't want someone who will keep changing their ideas just to stay in office when the outcome will not benefit us. Of course, everyone changes their mind but we don't want a drastic change in thought in a critical vote.
I think that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" and who isn't to justify our candidate choices. Calling someone a "flip flopper" is just a way to insult a candidate and create a reason why we are against that candidate. Although everyone changes their minds, we tend to make excuses for those we support and point out the changes in those we oppose.
We're spending so much time on debating what they're saying, because we want to somebody who we can trust. Somebody who as a clear structured plan like Madison. If you're a "flip flopper" than the people don't know why they are voting you. But most of the politicans are doing the direct opposite, because they don't want to loose voters for the election. So they're just keeping flip flopping around and you have to discuss and anylize every single statement of a politcan about what does he really mean.
Everybody is a "flip flopper" however, as a political candidate it is important to maintain as "solid" as one can on the core issues because otherwise the other candidates will be the first ones to jump on anything that seems iffy or uncertain. As a politican you do not want to hear the words undecisive or unrealiable next to your name.
We spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we want someone who is consistant with their ideas and viewpoints on government and its problems. If that person where to become president we wouldn't want to be jostled back and forth along the political spectrum just so that person can try and appease the people. That person needs to stick to his ideals and beliefs throughout the entire campaign to prove his integrity and determination to bring this country out of the economic depression we have gotten ourselves into.
I believe we spend so much time debating which presidential candidates are “flip floppers” because we, as a country, are scared that if the “flip flopper” candidate wins the presidential election that they will be constantly changing their mind. Every president, has in some sense, changed their mind on key issues that they explicitly stated in their campaign that they would stay firm on if elected, but that is something human and that everyone of us would do. But in another sense, some political candidates will do almost anything to win- even if that means changing their own, moral views to reflect that of the popular opinion. I believe that what all voters want is some sort of consistency, and a nominee that is not swayed by the public.
I think to much time is spent on worrying about whether or not a candidate will "flip flop" or not and less on the issues of time. Candidates look at each others past to find things they have done against their party to justify why not to vote for them, but the past is the past and should be left alone, we need to look to see what they will do in the future. "Flip flopping" is a way to avoid what people should really care about
In my opinion the main reason we see a political candidate as a "flip floppers" is that when campaigning many candidates say what they think will get them the most votes even though they know its highly improbable that they will be able to achieve said policies. So when they actually get elected they are unable to do what the promised and it looks a if they have "flip flopped" on the issue
In my opinion every candidate that runs for office is a flip flopper. The people then have to determine how bad of a flip flopper that candidate is. If the candidate can back up his beliefs, then the people know what he/she believes in. But if they are just flip flopping to get peoples votes, then thats when we start debating about the "Flip-flopper."
In political campaigns, everyone is a flip flopper. Everyone is just trying to gain the popularity of the people and win the most votes. To do this, the candidates will change their minds on a topic to make it more appealing to the people. People debate about it to determine if this person will actually follow through on their beliefs, or if they are just bullshiting the entire country.
People like focusing on flip flopping because it takes away ethos from the canidate. I think that we dont realize why some candidates flip flop based on ratifications of bills. Granted personal gain may be included, we dont know all the facts. We argue flip flopping so much because each party tries and make the other canidate look untrustworthy and the little advantages they can get anywhere is what wins elections
I think we debate who is a flip flopper or not because it gives us a way to disprove someone. It's a way to make sure no one candidate is completely reliable. We say they all "flip flop" when in reality it is all of our opinions (the public) that "flip flops" and the candidates therefore have to in order to appeal to the vast majority. If our views were to stay the same, so would theirs.
Since the average politician is a middle aged, white, puritan man, the "flipping" of sides on issues is one of the only aspects differentiating them. "flip flopping" is going to continue to happen for many years to come, due to the fact that one makes a conjecture on a political issue with only a limited amount of information. However once newer information is revealed about this subject the politician will change or ask to disregard his statement due to being that he had simply never obtained enough info in the beginning to make this conjecture. Many may then refute this saying that the politician should not have made such a conjecture to begin with, yet everyday proponents of the political parties push candidates to pick "sides" upon issues long before a conjecture can be made, then showing the juxtaposing event taking place.
I think that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip flopper" because we want to know which candidate deserve us to vote for. We want them to represent us, but trick us to win the president seat.
We shouldn't be debating who the flip flopper is. As candidates running for the people they should be straight to the point on the way they approach issues. If the candidate is a flip flopper then how are they going to make decisions when it comes to being elected. Why would we elect someone who is indecisive?
In my opinion, I believe that the people who spend their time keeping a tab on politicians who "flip-flop" are naive. Additionally, I think that some people focus more on this during the political debates and elections then the actual campaign itself because the voters do not fully understand government and politics. Also, in my opinion, I think that a lot of people enjoy the "drama" that comes of politics. In some cases, that may be the only thing that the person cares about. Arguing whether or not a politican is a "flip-flopper" may cause some serious drama not only between the politicans themselves, but the media as well. For example, sooner or later the media will start to "make fun" of certain politicans if they continue to be two-faced (SNL). Overall, I believe that we spend so much time debating who is a "flip-flopper" and who isn't merely for pleasure and enjoyment in government and politics.
The press and media look for how candidates compose themselves on camera or in interviews. If the candidates are consistent with there policies and if they dont say one thing during an interview and then another during a debate. Even though the candidates change there minds throughout the campaign they need to be careful what they say on tv so they dont say the opposite next time. If they want to change there opinion or policy they need to make sure they point out what they previously said and then state there new opinion.
I believe that we spend so much time debating who a "flip flopper" is because politicians who regularly change their views on issues may do so only to gain votes. On the other hand, it is expected for anybody to change their mind if they acquire information that changes their opinion. While it is acceptable to change an opinion for a logical reason, it is not acceptable to appear to change an opinion only to influence others. In the case of Romney, where it appears that he is acting like a "weather vane" only to obtain votes, this "flip flopping" would have been detrimental to his campaign.
Post a Comment