Just what exactly is a flip-flopper?
- Thread starter bhsup
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Oh, yeah, that'll be why. Figures. 
I agree that the theoretical definition of a flip-flopper should be someone who changes his views just to get in favor with people. But I would say this definition is not very practical, because in the absence of mind-reading devices (or blatant admission by the flip-flopper itself) you can't determine for what reason the accused has changed is position.
For example, if I ran against VRWCAgent in the election for leadership of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy I might not believe that he changed his mind after long deliberation but is after the Log Cabin Republicans' vote.
So there should be some more practical criteria for a deserved accusation of flip-flopping.
For example, if I ran against VRWCAgent in the election for leadership of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy I might not believe that he changed his mind after long deliberation but is after the Log Cabin Republicans' vote.
So there should be some more practical criteria for a deserved accusation of flip-flopping.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
So ..... someone is coming out the closet about being a ..... secret democrate
When are you going to tell your parents ?
mangxema
I
Also there is the problem that, if he is an elected official, he is supposed to be representative of his constituents, which would involve 'getting in favor with people'.
Yeah, but we would have other data to use to try and determine VR's motives. Is the Log Cabin vote particularly influential? Does he have a history of changing to more politically useful policies on a dime? What was his decision process? Did the log cabins give him a bunch of money, etc etc.
We should expect our politicians to change their minds based on data. If you have a guy who habitually does this because it would be more politically expedient, like Mitt, then I think you could have a problem.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
To me it is a flip flop if you cant provide a logical reason for your position change. Like if your position on gay marriage were to change because suddenly you met a loving gay couple and it altered your view, I wouldnt view that as a flip flop. if it changes because you went from running for office in a blue state to a national primary Im not as sympathetic and moreso consider it a flip flop
@ OP: I've seen you state your reasons for changing your mind before... a year ago? Two years ago? Sorry, I don't recall just when. But I seem to recall a reasonably civil discussion ensued. So no, I would not consider you a "flip-flopper" simply because you thought the issue over in a deliberate and considered way, looking at more sides than just your normal stance, and concluded that your normal stance had been somewhat in error.
That is quite different from somebody who panders to whatever audience is currently in front of him/her, as politicians used to do in the days before instantaneous communications - like when they made "whistle stops" on a train. Stop in one town, make a speech, promise the people whatever they want to hear... stop in another town, make another speech, make more promises - except what was said and promised may be the opposite to what was said and promised in the first town. Politicians who do such things cannot be trusted, and it's baffling to me how they think they can get away with such shenanigans today.
A Canadian example would be an MP who crosses the floor. As a Liberal, he/she may espouse one stance on an issue, and after crossing the floor to the Conservatives or the NDP (hey, it could happen!), he/she may espouse the opposite stance on that same issue. But we don't tend to call that "flip-flopping." Personally, I consider it "opportunistic" and "hypocritical."
That is quite different from somebody who panders to whatever audience is currently in front of him/her, as politicians used to do in the days before instantaneous communications - like when they made "whistle stops" on a train. Stop in one town, make a speech, promise the people whatever they want to hear... stop in another town, make another speech, make more promises - except what was said and promised may be the opposite to what was said and promised in the first town. Politicians who do such things cannot be trusted, and it's baffling to me how they think they can get away with such shenanigans today.
A Canadian example would be an MP who crosses the floor. As a Liberal, he/she may espouse one stance on an issue, and after crossing the floor to the Conservatives or the NDP (hey, it could happen!), he/she may espouse the opposite stance on that same issue. But we don't tend to call that "flip-flopping." Personally, I consider it "opportunistic" and "hypocritical."
I think Mr Newt defines flip-flopping pretty well.
On 7 March 2011 he said that he would establish a "no-fly zone this evening" over Libya. A few weeks after Obama did just that he then said that he would not have intervened and criticised Obama for doing so.
Perhaps his only consistency was being anti-Obama, but that makes him a gross liar.
On 7 March 2011 he said that he would establish a "no-fly zone this evening" over Libya. A few weeks after Obama did just that he then said that he would not have intervened and criticised Obama for doing so.
Perhaps his only consistency was being anti-Obama, but that makes him a gross liar.
Newt's a special case. He can hold 2 contrary views in one sentence and it would never even occur to him that he was anything other than holding one view and only one view on the subject from the time he got out of diapers. Like currently he's whining about negative attack ads against him in the Republican primaries and complaining about the lack of civility, even though he is one of the primary causes of the lack of civility in politics and is also using negative attack ads.
He seems to me the prime specimen of a conniving flip-flopping politician. Not to mention that he has a minor God complex.
No, no, he has a Definer of Civilization Complex. That's totally different.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
There is no clear definition of what a "flip flopper" is because it's a loaded talking point that politicians use.
So you don't have to worry VRWC, you're not a politician. If you were you'd have bigger things to worry about.
So you don't have to worry VRWC, you're not a politician. If you were you'd have bigger things to worry about.
All the (proven) adultery and divorce happened before he became a Catholic. The Church cares what happens within the Church, but can be hypocritical of those things that occur outside the Church. They may just declare that his earlier marriages didn't happen. Beyond that I haven't looked at what actions on the moral front Newt has been taking in recent years. His earlier immorality kind of overshadows all.
I wonder about that. I don't know that Newt can see the contradiction at all. Newt is the center of Newt's universe. And all the universe is defined by Newt. Can he even see that he's being inconsistent, or is he one of those people who believe their own press releases?
People change some views all the time. We aren't constant. Criticism should only come up when a) you are constantly changing or b) you rapidly change many fundamental viewpoints when a group of others change (the arguement is that Romney fits in this category).
Both are real issues in an election because they create questions as to an individuals reliability to hold his current views through a period in office and the latter has questions of whether there is intent to follow those ideas at all.
Note there is a difference between this, pandering, and outright lying however there are fine lines and some overlap can develop.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Sorry Newt, Sid Meier is the only Definer of Civilization!
But alas he was born in Canada. Thunderfall for president!(Actual answer to the thread: I agree with the consensus.)
Sorry Newt, Sid Meier is the only Definer of Civilization!
Exactly! That's why it's a complex! He can't possibly compete with the true definers of civilization, he just thinks he can!
