Flip-Flopping

zeroonezero · Post by **zeroonezero** » 2004-07-29 03:58pm

Flip-Flopping seems to be one of the most popular attacks recently, but how good of an attack is it? I can only find two different types of flip-flopping. There is the type where a person changes their position because it isn't popular with the voters anymore, and there is the flip-flop where a person changes there position based on the release of new facts and information. I can understand attacking someone on the flip-flops made of the first type, but amazingly most of the attacks (such as a politition's position on the war) are on the second type listed here. How can someone attack another for changing their views based on new information and facts? That to me is a desirable characteristic in a politition.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-07-29 04:04pm

To tell the truth, either brand of flip-flopping is preferable to one who chooses a cause and plows through, against all reason, to the bitter end.

But I see what you mean. I'd much prefer a candidate that can revise his or her position to one that sticks to something dogmatically, even if they happen to be right. It at least shows the gray matter is working.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-29 04:09pm

if someone changes their position due to new facts being present i'd hardly consider it flip-flopping, as it's simply conceding that they were wrong. though flip-flopping your position due to popular opinion smacks of wanting to appease the public, whether or not they may actually be right.

attacking someone because they changed their opinion due to new facts is, imo, cowardly. if someone can admit to being wrong, i'd much rather have them as a politician than someone that'll go with what's popular on every subject according to the whim of the people rather than what's necessarily right.

zeroonezero · Post by **zeroonezero** » 2004-07-29 04:14pm

Darth_Zod wrote:if someone changes their position due to new facts being present i'd hardly consider it flip-flopping

I wouldn't call that flip-flopping either, but there are many who do. I just can't get over how this has somehow become an attack, and I think it shows how desperate the attack machines of certain individuals have become.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-29 04:16pm

"Flip-flopping" is the dumbest fucking accusation I've ever heard. It's a legitimate accusation to say something is contradicting himself if he simultaneously says two contradictory things, or to say that someone broke his promises (which Bush has done repeatedly) since promises carry special weight, but to say "you said one thing in 1991, and now you've changed your mind due to changing circumstances!" is hardly an indictment of a man's character.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-07-29 05:10pm

It's a typical Republican tactic: assign a label to your opponent and keep using it until it develops a purely negative connotation.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-29 05:13pm

I think part of the problem is when someone changes their stance on an issue without admitting their first stance was wrong. When they just carry on as if nothing has happened, that's when you have a problem.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-07-29 07:59pm

Howedar wrote:I think part of the problem is when someone changes their stance on an issue without admitting their first stance was wrong. When they just carry on as if nothing has happened, that's when you have a problem.

Also, a number of politicans are tarred (with some fairness) as being "human weather vanes" - they shift and turn with the various polls. Good example was Harper - flip flop or not about Iraq? If he'd stated - Yes, I was misled by the publicly available reports - I was wrong about supporting the war. In that case, he changed his mind with new facts - acceptable. The way he actually talked about Iraq was trying to deny he was wrong (point Howedar was making). I respect the first, and not the second situation.

The federal Liberals are the best example - they shift left and right with the prevaling polls (this from a disgruntled Westerner

) and where they'll stop, nobody knows. The main principle seems to be getting re-elected, everything else is secondary (so they flip-flop).

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-29 08:16pm

Supposedly Kerry has The Most Liberal Voting Record In the Senate.

At the same time, he is supposedly a flip-flopper. Now if he votes one way, then votes another, it means he must have voted non-liberal on a number of occasions.

How can he be the Most Liberal Senator and be a flip-flopper? Isn't this the sort of bullshit Kirk used to destroy an evil computer or something?

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-07-29 09:36pm

If you change your mind, I want to know why. If its because you were wrong, I want to hear you say it. If you made the choice and found later that you were wrong, I want to hear YOU say it, and I dont wanna hear how someone else made you do it. Unless you say that your constituents made you do it in politics, there really is no excuse for not admitting to your own mistakes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-30 12:06am

Cairber wrote:If you change your mind, I want to know why. If its because you were wrong, I want to hear you say it. If you made the choice and found later that you were wrong, I want to hear YOU say it, and I dont wanna hear how someone else made you do it. Unless you say that your constituents made you do it in politics, there really is no excuse for not admitting to your own mistakes.

Not every change in position is a mistake. Sometimes a position changes in response to changing circumstances. The previous position does not become a "mistake".

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-30 12:40am

I wonder if Bush will come out and attack Stephen Hawking for "flip-flopping" on his stance on black holes.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-07-30 02:20am

Well BUsh is running a secrewt war against nuance. He doesn't abide nuance in the White House or America. Worse it's all sciency, bigworded nuance. The worst to Bush.