Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well, most of us don't blast a politician for flip-flopping, we blast a politician for being a flip-flopper. If a politician has no convictions that weren't fed to him by opinion polls and focus groups, then he'll make a very weak leader.
If someone or a group of someones is hammering on someone just for changing their opinion, then either they don't think the new opinion is sincerely held, they're bitching because the pol in question is changing away from the One True Faith, or they're against that politician anyway and trying to paint this particular sea change as a sign of general inconstancy.
Oddly enough, Supreme Court Justices are often more respected for flip-flops. Wonder why that is?
Romney changed his position from week to week and audience to audience. It was pretty ridiculous.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.More to the point, Romney was blatant about it, like he didn't even care that he had different positions each week.
Krugman has an interesting blog post
today where he notes how the right likes to attack any successful person who dares to suggest that he owes something to society.
To be fair Obama did that in 2008 before he beat the vastly more consistent Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
And Kerry did the exact same thing in 2004.
But Romney was worse than both of them about it. At least Kerry and Obama still kept to one side of the aisle so you could figure out whether to or not stand against them.
Romney went from Centre-left (1994 Senate) to Centre (2002) to Centre-Left (Most dealings as Governor),to Center,to Hard Right (2008),to friggin' Regressive (2012) and then attempted some odd position for the debates.
This is why I'm curious to see what he's gonna say for Commencement at Graduation
edited 23rd Mar '13 5:20:32 PM by terlwyth
All politicians adapt to their audience; it's part of the job description. They also evolve over time just like anyone else. I'm not sure I'd want a President who is so inflexible that he never changes his opinions about anything, ever.
edited 23rd Mar '13 5:23:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A man who adopts multiple positions in a week and even multiple positions at the same time is not flexible. He is not capable of adapting to a better position because he's not capable of holding positions at all. They are not positions to such an official; they are merely the magic words he uses to try and conjure an election victory into being.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Senate passes first budget in four years
Joe Biden: The Republican Party is leaderless
Senator Lee (R-UT): Obama 'a day late and a dollar short' on budget plan
Speaker Boehner: House won't stop efforts to scrap 'ObamaCare'
People know Andrew Cuomo. But Cuomo has his own problems (especially with Unions).
edited 23rd Mar '13 7:04:03 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
I don't think Politics are shifting to the right. At least not in most places.
And I still say there is an 80% Percent change Rubio winning the Republican nomination.
Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty
edited 23rd Mar '13 7:32:28 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The average in politics has shifted right, but the mean has shifted left among the general populace. They just don't like being branded as liberals because the wackjobs on the far right are loony and loud and scary. People love leftist policies right up until the words Democrat, liberal, or Obama are associated with them. It's kind of stupid.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickAnd that's why you usually don't hear much from losing Presidential candidates again,unless they're Senators (Ex:Barry Goldwater, John Kerry)
Hmmm I wonder if politics have actually shifted far enough to make Goldwater look like a leftist now? Was Goldwater farther right or farther left than Reagan,cause Reagan would probably be a Dem again.
Re: Romney:
I think there are some politicians who just aren't adapted to the modern era. They seem to think that, if they're speaking to a certain audience, they don't have to worry about anyone outside that audience hearing them. In the days of limited print space and only an hour's worth of news coverage in the evenings, that may have worked. But when you've got the Internet and 24-hour news networks documenting every public appearance politicians make, that sort of pandering tends to get noticed more.
edited 24th Mar '13 1:24:56 AM by RavenWilder
This is kind of a general problem with the repiublican party in general, actually. One of the mjor reasons cited to why Obama's get out the vote efforts were so effective is the republicans seem endlessly clueless about the interwebs.
Granted, Democrats in congress seem just as clueless given they still prefer calling computer experts "the nerds" as though being tech savvy was a bad thing,
The lack of 'net savvy among politicians is a factor of age as much as anything else. In a generation we will have very few politicians who don't understand it, and we'll even have many who have grown up as video gamers.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
The average age of members of Congress is around 60
. Certainly there are some 60 year olds (and older) who are tech-savvy enough, and certainly there are some members of Congress who know what they're talking about in regards to tech issues... but they're a minority in both cases, generally speaking.
It's still less respectful than, say, "telecommunications technology experts". It implies that they're dismissive of those people — and, by extension, that field. Maybe that's reading a bit too much into it, but politicians of all people should know the importance that labels have.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
This.
As John Stewart put it after showing multiple clips of people in congress reacting to the backlash to SOPA with confusion and statements of "maybe we should ask the nerds"
"Dont you mean...experts?"
which is a p;roblem in itself that Congress apparently ran with SOPA without even thinking "lets ask computer experts first"
edited 24th Mar '13 10:49:50 AM by Midgetsnowman

@Wildcard: Essentially, Romney was visibly saying one thing during the primary and another during the general election, thus allowing Obama to paint him as the Etch-A-Sketch candidate.
It wasn't just changing his position, it was deliberately tailoring his viewpoint to the audience.
edited 23rd Mar '13 3:38:27 PM by Ramidel