- This topic has 13 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Or vice versa? Running with the party they think gives them the best chance, but if elected will reveal their opposite party values?
ever heard of a RINO
American party lines have always been muddled. It is interesting that many of the leading Republicans started out as Democrats and only switched as the Democrats moved to the left. To win election one needs to appeal to a broad spectrum, however to win a nomination one needs to appeal to a “base”. The traditional Republican party positions were always pro-capitalist, pro-civil rights, but not necessarily supporting a “muscular” foreign policy (Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush were “hawks”, whereas others such as Hoover and Robert Taft were doves).
Mike Bloomberg?
so rebyidd,
what makes someone “in disguise” besides using the name?
do u mean like lying about their agenda to get elected
like trump after the elctions opening the borders and granting everyone amnesty?
What if a candidate says he’s going to make taxes lower and then after he’s elected he raises taxes?
What if a candidate says he’ll help small businesses and after being elected he helps Big Business?
What if a candidate says he’s going to move the embassy to Yerushalayim and after he’s elected he does no such thing?
What if a candidate is a liar?
What if all politicians are liars?
They still count for a minyan.
Lately it seems the label means less than whether the person is conservative or liberal (progressive). The so-called mainstream Republicans appear to be quite liberal. Donald Trump…who knows what he is. Sounds more like RINO to me
It is interesting that Trump and Carson lead the Republican polls. Clinton and Sanders support Big Government. Trump supports HUGE Government and Carson MASSIVELY INTRUSIVE Government.
not huge< YUGE!!!!!!
Now that I think about it, the opening post raises some interesting issues.
For starters, what is so important about political labels like Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, progressive, right-wing, left-wing, supporter of Israel, strong supporter of Israel, stronger supporter of Israel, and so on? The answer is, in part, that they are short-hand ways of summarizing a candidate’s (or any other person’s) positions on particular issues. They are an easy substitute for thorough, reasoned analysis of an issue and any related policy proposals, legislation, regulation or other executive-branch or judicial-branch action.
What disturbs me about the opening post is the implication that politician could “disguise” him/herself by using a misleading label. But serious voters do not have to worry about that, if they know what a candidate will do in response to an issue. Do you want government subsidies for yeshiva tuition? Do you want your sidewalk repaired? Better police protection for your mosque? Labels provide only the crudest hints of what a politician would do on these issues. It is incumbent upon voters to get direct, clear information on political issues.
I am also disturbed that some news sources think they have provided helpful information by reporting on labels, when they would be more helpful (but not necessarily more profitable) reporting on policy issues and genuine analysis.
So if you are worried about being tricked by a politician’s labels, don’t look at the labels, look at the issues and the policy proposals.
Party labels don’t mean much in New York, or in Louisiana (where the sitting Republican Lt. Governor just endorsed the Democratic candidate for Governor).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.