• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Moderate Mitt

Jonsa said:
Call me naive, but I never realized that the system is designed to foster lying. Integrity I guess is not a valued commodity in politics. consistency of purpose and vision is not required.

I find it incredible that there is not political price to pay since you explain its an actually strategy. Its pretty pathetic, however "smart" it might be tactically.
Click to expand...


Political Parties selecting their candidate require that the Party can get behind that person. That's where the majority of support is. You absolutely have to court them in order to get selected among your peers. After that, you have more freedom, more flexibility in your prospective platform once you are trying to convince the country that you are taking over and governing all of them. You are also stuck in a situation if you cannot break past the only appealing to your base. If your party represents only 49% or less of the voters, you need to get those people who aren't quite on your side yet. In order to do that, you aren't going to be convincing them to join you by giving the exact same platform you just gave the Party faithful. You have to modify the plan, adopt the other Party's propositions.

You can call it a lack of integrity. I consider it a necessary component, actually consisting in virtues of its own.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Political Parties selecting their candidate require that the Party can get behind that person. That's where the majority of support is. You absolutely have to court them in order to get selected among your peers. After that, you have more freedom, more flexibility in your prospective platform once you are trying to convince the country that you are taking over and governing all of them. You are also stuck in a situation if you cannot break past the only appealing to your base. If your party represents only 49% or less of the voters, you need to get those people who aren't quite on your side yet. In order to do that, you aren't going to be convincing them to join you by giving the exact same platform you just gave the Party faithful. You have to modify the plan, adopt the other Party's propositions.

You can call it a lack of integrity. I consider it a necessary component, actually consisting in virtues of its own.
Click to expand...

can't see a single virtue in it. So does the voter believe the last words out of a candidates mouth? I noticed that a lot of republicans demonize obama for saying in the campaign he'd cut the debt in half - why get upset when what you are telling me it is standard operating procedure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom