DescentBB

i see a lot of usage of the terms "waffle" and "flipflop" in discussions.

now, i'm under the understanding that a Waffle/FlipFlop is where you put forward one opinion at one juncture, and then later on in a future juncture you show that you have changed your mind, and you therefore put forward a different opinion to your initial one.

it seems simple, it's just 'changing your mind' right?
it's when someone receives new information, and they use this new information to reassess their views/opinions and values, evolving and possibly changing some of them.

what is wrong with this?

i don't see why this changing of the mind is considered a bad thing. is it because changing your mind shows a lack of omnipetence, forcing you to show that you 'didn't actually know everything and have it all figured out' afterall?

why would it be considered better to NOT change your mind in view of changing information or circumstances?

Waffling is when you take both sides of an issue concurrently and play up whichever side is politically beneficial at that moment, a la John Kerry. Quite different from simply changing your mind, especially when you say things like "Knowing what we know now, I still would have voted for the Iraq war" after basing your campaign on why it was wrong to do so, and having voted against the companion bill that funded said war.

I like changing my mind. It means i've learn't somthing.

I waffle when i'm drunk.

I like toooo make waffullllssss.....

with syrup! NO! Whipped cream! NO WAIT!!! STRAWBERRIES!!!!

I made a waffle with my waffle preferences.

Kerry and Bush are both wafflers, get over it.

Avder wrote:Kerry and Bush are both wafflers, get over it.

if that was directed at me. then i should RE-explain that the term WAFFLE is not a word common to my country's language. i'm trying to more fully understand what it means, by hearing you guys decribe it.

It means to go back and forth on an issue, like "flip flop". Something politicians have done for ages. This year one side is much better than the other at calling names (just watch the republican voters parrot the phrases they heard on tv and radio).

this year, although mind-changing is quite common and mr. bush has done it many times, by perpetuation of the republican political machine which is one of the best propagandists ever, mr. kerry is considered to be a "flip flopper" while mr. bush is not. Voters will believe anything with repetition.

but there's nothing wrong with going back and forward on an issue in light of back and forward questions, contexts, & changing information and situations.

as long as people understand WHY.
there has to be a reason beyond "cos it will get more total votes if i tell you this today, and that tomorrow".

I agree. I keep hearing the "Kerry voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it" crap all the time by little republican parrots. If you actually read what he said, it was a well-thought out rational position that isn't nearly what it was painted to be. And I'm not even voting for the guy! But if you read what he said, you'd realize Bush is playing the campaign propaganda game.

Problem is, we live in a soundbyte culture here. Americans don't read. Their political readings amount to reading the words coming out of TV advertisements and flipping past a cable news network. Don't forget that the republicans have their own news channel, which is the highest rated cable news network.

Roid you are sorely confused about american voters if you think they actually research WHY or try to understand anything.

well, we too have an election going on here in australia.

but in TV political discussion people say and discuss reasons for policy changes and desisions.
even when there isn't an election comming up, the PM and all political figures will regularly get on TV and engage in politial interviews and questiontime.

they are ALWAYS nonscripted.

We don't do that in america. The challenger and the incumbant debate via a propoganda exchange in the press. The arguments are largely fought by political commentators and by strategists that can think up the best MEMEs (self replicating ideas).

The 2 big candidates (and occasionally when an irritating 3rd candidate appears square off then in debates that largely have scripted questions. Sometimes an average Joe gets to ask a question, but it is quite rare. Bush Sr. is famous for almost getting into an argument with one voter over her question. Slick willy was much better on his feet and gave a better sounding response.

This year, the bush camp only wants 2 debates instead of Kerry calling for three. This is likely because Bush is an idiot and if he's stuck on live tv he's apt to say something to stupid.

[off topic] I am still waiting for the 100% tax cut candidate Bush promised me [/off topic]

Changing ones mind or "waffling" can be viewed as good or bad. It depends largely on the situation.

If, as Roid has said, it is done because some new data comes to light and after analysis, causes a person to change their stance on the relevant topic, that is a good thing. It shows that that person is open to new information and has a tendency towards data driven decisions.

If on the other hand, it is like DC says and it's just a matter of choosing the side that is convenient at the moment that is a bad thing. It would suggest a lack of character.

A third option, related though not exactly on topic is NEVER changing ones mind, even in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting a position contrary to the one taken. This would suggest that individual is making decisions based on emotion not on data.

Dedman wrote:A third option, related though not exactly on topic is NEVER changing ones mind, even in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting a position contrary to the one taken. This would suggest that individual is making decisions based on emotion not on data.

it could also suggest a strange alterior motive, such as a belief that you are on a mission from God (who never changes his mind, right?).

thus the omnipotent mention earlier.

The QueenBitch of sarcasm Ann Coulter wrote a funny piece on Kerry's flip flops. I think it's fair to say Bush doesn't do it as blatently or as often as Kerry.

linkage

Anyone who believes Ann Coulter probably also listens to Rush Limbaugh. Bush has some serious flip flops, if you'd like me to enumerate them. Just keep beleiving that republican political machine

Well the flops she mentions are pretty well known. She's not breaking any news there, I've heard them reported numerous places and then heard them spun 'left' and 'right' by both sides with no one denying he said it.

I know Bush has flopped on a few things too but Kerry's in a league of his own.

I can't quite figure out if Birds is advocating for Kerry, or if he hates Bush so much that it just appears that way.

B-

it's more that I dislike disinformation. The republican machine has pounded on the "flip flop" issue, yet I know bush has flip flopped on many things himself.

"I know Bush has flopped on a few things too but Kerry's in a league of his own."

Eh, it's really in the eye of the beholder. There are a lot of mild Kerry flops but Bush supporters won't even admit to some of his flops, like the "We can't win the war on terror." Oh that's not what he meant, right? Try using the same balance for Kerry.

Are you suggesting that Kerry would be a better pick than Bush, or are you just looking for a fair appraisal?
It seems like you're somewhat of a closet-Kerry supporter or at least a closet-liberal, in that you're frequently making reference to the " republican machine", but I don't ever hear you making the same type of comments about Kerry or the libs.

Care to clarify?

This board is filled with republicans who spout republican MEMEs (self replicating ideas) constantly. I am not voting for Kerry. I think he is a spineless wimp who couldn't take a stand agains the Iraq war.

When I refer to the republican machine I mean Rove et al who are a master at the political race. They are much better at creating watercooler and tv topics that benefit their candidate.

Check my "Democrats: worst campaign ever" thread.

I really want to see bush gone, but kerry will be bush lite. I think kerry is a shade better, but not much. He voted for the war.

So Bird, Terry McAuliffe is a honorable man just trying to do a tough job? James "Corpse" Carvell is a neophyte politically?

I can't quite figure out if Birds is advocating for Kerry, or if he hates Bush so much that it just appears that way.

I can't quite figure out if the Right is really advocating for Bush, or they are just glad that they have found a guy that the left dislikes so much!

Birdseye, I would have thought you would mention his spending..or nation building..

Not that lame attempt over the way he said "you can't win *it*" when he has always been consistant on his belief that we will succeed in the war on terror. Obviously he didn't mean he had suddenly decided we won't succeed, in his own un-articulate fashion he was try to once again point out that the victory would be measured differently and that victory wouldn't be like other victories we have had.

In the context of everything he's ever said on the subject regarding the war on terror being a 'different kind of war that will go on long after his 8 years are up', and in the context of his statements at that time, one would have to really be desperate to say he was actually changing his projections for the outcome in the war on terror.

Here we go again.

shiny object.

I just think the Republican voters give Bush too much credit. He can mess up pretty much anything but that's allright as long as "his intentions are good".

I remember seeing Bush, Blair and Aznar answering press questions standing next to each other. Aznar was even better at speaking English than Bush was. The only thing I don't understand, is that both Aznar and Blair are much more competent than Bush, however, they both took much more political punishment for their support to the Iraqi war than Bush ever has.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Bush is a puppet, and a dumb one at that. That's where the "Republican politic machine" Birds mentioned comes into view. It's not Bush, it's a gigantic and powerful organisation that has a lot of influence in many channels, and it's primary and singlemost interest is self-preservation, rather than the well-fare of the United States of America. The latter is just secondary.

Will Robinson wrote:Obviously he didn't mean he had suddenly decided we won't succeed, in his own un-articulate fashion he was try to once again point out that the victory would be measured differently and that victory wouldn't be like other victories we have had.

What gets me is how the Demo party misses so many opportunities. This would have been a great time to hear a sound bite from Kerry to the effect of "I guess it's finally dawned on the President that international issues are more complicated than black and white", but nada... I don't know what it is with their political machine, but it just doesn't seem to go for the throat like the GOPs. Or maybe I'm just watching Fox too much.

Dedman wrote:Here we go again.

shiny object.

We're just too nuanced for you

I remember seeing Bush, Blair and Aznar answering press questions standing next to each other. Aznar was even better at speaking English than Bush was. The only thing I don't understand, is that both Aznar and Blair are much more competent than Bush, ...

Good God! I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent guy, but you should see me give a speech! I'm just plain awful in front of a crowd. Sorry folks, but there are many very intelligent people who freak out in front of a camera or in the presence of a roomful of hostile media members. This "BUSH IS TEH ST00PID!!" mindset into which the left has fallen is well on its way to destroying their chances of getting him out of office. It would seem that the DNC decision-makers have gone so far round the bend that they've lost touch with reality. A man cannot be an evil genius AND a bumbling lummox at the same time, no? Well, I've seen him called both. The man sees things differently than you, that doesn't make him stupid and you really need to get past it.

That said, if Bush is the measuring stick for dumb (a weak, "soundbyte" of an opinion given that none of you have ever worked with him or spoken with him), then what has Kerry done thus far to convince you that he's any more intelligent? His campaign is approaching Dukakasian levels. I'll take the strong idiot over the weak idiot.

Will Robinson wrote:We're just too nuanced for you

lol

Pebkac wrote:A man cannot be an evil genius AND a bumbling lummox at the same time, no?

No, but he CAN be a evil bumbling lummox. Can he not?

I used to wish Bush could speak as well as Blair but then I thought about the last american president who was slick at the mic...

Imagine if Bush was as aggressive as he is in foriegn policy *but* could also lie as smoothly as Clinton...

Bad combination!

No, but he CAN be a evil bumbling lummox.

Heh. I suppose so. I just don't think that's the case.

Most of what I'd want to say was already said in this post by Drakona.

In short: what matters isn't that someone changed their mind, or even how often. What matters is why. If you change your mind due to new information, that's good and healthy -- but if you change your mind just to look politically good, you're a flip-flopping waffler.

I would add: sometimes a person flip-flops on the issues themselves. Sometimes they just flip-flop on the way they present them. I'm pretty sure Kerry is guilty of the second, which is why the "flip-flop" accusations stick to him so easily.

Birdseye wrote:There are a lot of mild Kerry flops but Bush supporters won't even admit to some of his flops, like the "We can't win the war on terror." Oh that's not what he meant, right? ;) Try using the same balance for Kerry.

It really wasn't a flip-flop, as I demonstrated before. If you read the original quote, it's clear.

The same is true for a lot of Kerry's flip-flops -- if you read the original quote, it's clear.

Now, my own reason for thinking Kerry is a flip-flopper is that I've watched his speeches. He may not really be flip-flopping in terms of what policies he intends to hold, but he's sure doing a good job of painting his ideas in completely opposite lights depending on who he's talking to. Like I said in this post:

It simply isn't clear what John Kerry cares about; it seems to change from speech to speech depending on the audience. I don't see any reason to think he'll actually make the war on terror a priority. I don't see any reason to think he really cares about national security. I don't see any reason to think he'd stick by a decision the UN didn't approve of. He can tell us that he wants to create universal health care, and he can tell us what Bush hasn't done -- but it seems more like a vote-grab than an issue he actually cares about.

In other words... he might have a consistant position. But he keeps changing his presentation from side to side.

I think that's how I'd answer roid -- "waffling" can mean changing your mind over and over again, but a lot of times it refers to changing the way you present yourself over and over again so that you LOOK like you agree with whoever you're talking to.

"If you read the original quote, it's clear. "

Ya, and if you read the original reasons for Kerry's I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it, it's clear that wasn't a flip flop, and that's kerry's most quoted "flip flop"

See my point about balance? I know you said that in your post, but that was all I was trying to say. Many of these supposed flip flops claimed in the media are just propoganda by either side.

yep, that's what I just said -- if you read the original quote (in either case), a lot of times it's clear. I also said over in the DNC - worst campaign ever thread something along the lines of "Kerry really didn't explain the 87 billion thing very well. His reasoning makes sense, but you need to have Vander around to tell you what it was."

But, for me, the thing is: if you try to get Bush's message by listening to his speeches, you will. If you try to get Kerry's, you can't figure out if he agrees or disagrees with you, because he paints things differently depending on the audience. He's trying really hard to get a broad base of voters by being vague enough to make everyone think they agree with him, and IMO that backfired because it made it so easy to stick him with the "waffle" label.

For those that listen, Kerry doesn't **seem** solid on anything. For those that don't listen, he stands for everything.

To be fair to Kerry, his base has a wider range than Bush' (the DU/Moveon/Moore apostles on one end and the Zell Miller traditional Dems on the other). I don't think Kerry--or any of us for that matter--know where the majority of his base stands on certain issues and I believe his changing stances are a method to discover which will provide a bigger bounce in the polls. Once he discerns which positions gives him the biggest bang for his buck, he sticks with it. Liberal candidates, imo, will always have a more difficult time unifying a base across a variety of issues due to the diversity of liberal groups. Conservatives seem more consistent across issues in that they're more likely to unite under the largest national issues, such as terrorism and taxes, and won't divide themselves over smaller special interest issues, such as gay marriage.

I agree that a lot of his positions are certainly more vague than bush's. Can anyone really tell us exactly what he'd do with the Iraq situation?

Nope. I've been waiting for him to tell us, but he's really waffling in his speeches.

Roid, is it becoming more clear?

becoming more clear?

yes and no.
if it's nothing but propeganda from the other side, then why do you guys spend so much time talking about it? i hear the word 'waffle' here so much.

if it's just propeganda. you should be doing your best to ignore it and not parrot it. correct?

Because it's not all propaganda from the other side. Certainly a lot of the flip-flop lists are propaganda -- but my criticism of Kerry is that he waffles on his own.

With Kerry, having listened to his speeches, I'm convinced he's waffling on purpose. That's not evil RNC propaganda -- that's his own decision to try to appeal to the broadest spectrum of people, by sounding anti-war sometimes and pro-war other times. He really is waffling, at least in his speeches.

Like Birds said -- can ANYONE tell us what exactly Kerry would do about Iraq? I doubt even his strongest supporters have a clear picture. I've listened to his own words a lot -- not Republicans quoting or misquoting him, not little sound bites, but entire speeches from his own mouth -- and I honestly don't know what he intends to do in Iraq. He's spun his opinion so many different ways for so many different audiences that I'm completely unsure what he actually intends to do. That's waffling -- and that's not enemy propaganda, that's the opinion of someone who wishes he could tell what Kerry really thought so he could either step up anti-Kerry efforts or be comfortable with the idea of Kerry as president. I want to know where Kerry stands, but Kerry just wants me to think he stands wherever I do instead of telling me the truth.

if you want to distinguish the "flip flop" from the propeganda parroted "flip-flop": it'd be best to use different terminology.

otherwise ppl whom have made an effort to tune out the propeganda will just tune you out too as soon as you say "flip-flop" or "waffle".