Why can't candidates be far more precise when stating their intentions? — TiredThinker

I guess that be to immoral to start with....

Communism and socialism are both considered to be on the left but I think it depends on the country and candidate because there's varying transparency. I guess you're talking about the US but considering we're in the era of Trump, I think the answer is pretty clear that it is not in Trump's best interests to talk specific policy because he's clueless about that kind of stuff.

That seems to lead the left to thinking the right wants communism — TiredThinker

What?

Fascism ≠ Communism.

(Although the USSR and PRC and other countries ruled by authoritarian "Communist" parties self-avowedly practiced state capitalism as their "interim" form of government, and state capitalism is synonymous with the original sense of the word "fascism").

immoral how? It isn't honesty?

If they gave specific plans anyone would be able to actually decide on a factual basis, following ones one interest - or one could not if matters were complicated. Wrt morals thats a lose-lose situation.

Let's start by recognizing that anyone calling the US a democracy - it's a federal republic - is already in such confusion they'll never get anything else right. And mutatis mutandis for "communist," "socialist," "fascist" countries. The labels themselves becoming just invective with a supple backbone.

As to the details of intentions, what and how much do you want? And what and how much is appropriate at the time of utterance?

I recognize that the US is a republic. But as far as any labels including conservative or liberal which can be given a negative connotation are concerned. Candidates never detail things until if and after they are elected. Only after can we even begin to measure where on a spectrum they are, and have accountability for promises made. If they say nearly nothing than they might as well be a robot.

1. Stating details is equivalent to going out on a limb. They country is divided into more than two general interst groups. If you state something specific, most likely it will only humour one specific group, but anagonize all other groups. This is detrimental in a democracy, where the sheer number of votes decides election outcomes.
2. Accountability is a big factor, too. It is not a politically astute move to take on accountability when all others don't.
3. Impossibility. Political leaders these days spend their entire time balancing the disbursement of precious resources, that is, resources that everyone wants, but not everyone gets. This is no trivial feat. Situations may change right after the election, and the promise of factual execution may become totally impossible.
4. Lack of time and opportunity for preparation. Candidates are too busy to garner votes, they can't and must not be bogged down with making plans for the future in detail.