Hypocrisy.

[Arkady]

I recently argued that although political hypocrisy exists on both sides of the aisle, it is not a symmetrical situation. Hypocrisy is far more intense and shameless on the right.

Here's another demonstration of that. Polls were conducted regarding missile strikes in Syria in 2013 (when Obama supported them following a gas attack) and 2017 (when Trump did following a gas attack). In 2013, 38% of Dems supported it. Only 22% of Republicans did. Today, 38% of Democrats support strikes and 67% of Republicans do. Dems stuck to their principles regardless of how the partisan dynamics came down. Republican support for strikes more than tripled the minute the "magic R" was put next to the president's name.

There are a lot of centrists, libertarians, and the like who are comforted by the assertion of equivalence between the political factions. That way they can feel above it all -- too cool for the fray. But it's simply not an honest take on our current political reality.

Yes, there's some hypocrisy on the left, too (even if it didn't show up obviously this issue). Lefties are more likely to give a Democrat the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume the worst about a Republican's intentions. But they mostly function with the ordinary, mild levels of political prejudice that are almost impossible to banish entirely from human nature. What we're seeing from the GOP is something new -- a level of hypocrisy bordering on mindlessness. That's how you get such gigantic swings in opinion on substantive policy questions based mere on how partisan politics arranged on the issue. It's how many of the same drones who were singing Trump's praises for his isolationism a couple weeks ago are now singing them for his interventionism, and how people who savaged Obama for wanting to strike Syria now see it as praiseworthy that Trump did so.

 

[Dino]

I recently argued that although political hypocrisy exists on both sides of the aisle, it is not a symmetrical situation. Hypocrisy is far more intense and shameless on the right.

Here's another demonstration of that. Polls were conducted regarding missile strikes in Syria in 2013 (when Obama supported them following a gas attack) and 2017 (when Trump did following a gas attack). In 2013, 38% of Dems supported it. Only 22% of Republicans did. Today, 38% of Democrats support strikes and 67% of Republicans do. Dems stuck to their principles regardless of how the partisan dynamics came down. Republican support for strikes more than tripled the minute the "magic R" was put next to the president's name.

There are a lot of centrists, libertarians, and the like who are comforted by the assertion of equivalence between the political factions. That way they can feel above it all -- too cool for the fray. But it's simply not an honest take on our current political reality.

Yes, there's some hypocrisy on the left, too (even if it didn't show up obviously this issue). Lefties are more likely to give a Democrat the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume the worst about a Republican's intentions. But they mostly function with the ordinary, mild levels of political prejudice that are almost impossible to banish entirely from human nature. What we're seeing from the GOP is something new -- a level of hypocrisy bordering on mindlessness. That's how you get such gigantic swings in opinion on substantive policy questions based mere on how partisan politics arranged on the issue. It's how many of the same drones who were singing Trump's praises for his isolationism a couple weeks ago are now singing them for his interventionism, and how people who savaged Obama for wanting to strike Syria now see it as praiseworthy that Trump did so.

American opinions don't change over 4 years?
Americans demonstrated a heavy dosage of "war fatigue" during 0bama's administration and they expected different.
Was there such graphic video evidence of chemical weapons usage last time? Nikki Haley's broadcasted address to the UN was compelling.

Perhaps there's a level of trust Trump has earned with Republicans than 0bama ever did? 0bama walked into office with a heavy dosage of well-earned distrust.

You use polls- a snapshot of American opinion- as an acid test for an entire political smear, based on one category.

It's funny how being a liberal Democrat is predicated upon hypocrisy, you absolutely can't be a liberal Dem without it. Like being "pro-science" yet believing in the destruction of an unborn human for various highly unscientific reasons.

Yet you make your "solid" case on the right being hypocrites by using an extremely flawed example.
Not a good case at all.

 

[SW48]

I recently argued that although political hypocrisy exists on both sides of the aisle, it is not a symmetrical situation. Hypocrisy is far more intense and shameless on the right.

Here's another demonstration of that. Polls were conducted regarding missile strikes in Syria in 2013 (when Obama supported them following a gas attack) and 2017 (when Trump did following a gas attack). In 2013, 38% of Dems supported it. Only 22% of Republicans did. Today, 38% of Democrats support strikes and 67% of Republicans do. Dems stuck to their principles regardless of how the partisan dynamics came down. Republican support for strikes more than tripled the minute the "magic R" was put next to the president's name.

There are a lot of centrists, libertarians, and the like who are comforted by the assertion of equivalence between the political factions. That way they can feel above it all -- too cool for the fray. But it's simply not an honest take on our current political reality.

Yes, there's some hypocrisy on the left, too (even if it didn't show up obviously this issue). Lefties are more likely to give a Democrat the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume the worst about a Republican's intentions. But they mostly function with the ordinary, mild levels of political prejudice that are almost impossible to banish entirely from human nature. What we're seeing from the GOP is something new -- a level of hypocrisy bordering on mindlessness. That's how you get such gigantic swings in opinion on substantive policy questions based mere on how partisan politics arranged on the issue. It's how many of the same drones who were singing Trump's praises for his isolationism a couple weeks ago are now singing them for his interventionism, and how people who savaged Obama for wanting to strike Syria now see it as praiseworthy that Trump did so.

Hypocrisy is why I bought this website and it exists equally on both sides.

That being said their is no rational reason for the USA to be dropping bombs in any other country at this time.

 

[JackDallas]

I recently argued that although political hypocrisy exists on both sides of the aisle, it is not a symmetrical situation. Hypocrisy is far more intense and shameless on the right.

Here's another demonstration of that. Polls were conducted regarding missile strikes in Syria in 2013 (when Obama supported them following a gas attack) and 2017 (when Trump did following a gas attack). In 2013, 38% of Dems supported it. Only 22% of Republicans did. Today, 38% of Democrats support strikes and 67% of Republicans do. Dems stuck to their principles regardless of how the partisan dynamics came down. Republican support for strikes more than tripled the minute the "magic R" was put next to the president's name.

There are a lot of centrists, libertarians, and the like who are comforted by the assertion of equivalence between the political factions. That way they can feel above it all -- too cool for the fray. But it's simply not an honest take on our current political reality.

Yes, there's some hypocrisy on the left, too (even if it didn't show up obviously this issue). Lefties are more likely to give a Democrat the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume the worst about a Republican's intentions. But they mostly function with the ordinary, mild levels of political prejudice that are almost impossible to banish entirely from human nature. What we're seeing from the GOP is something new -- a level of hypocrisy bordering on mindlessness. That's how you get such gigantic swings in opinion on substantive policy questions based mere on how partisan politics arranged on the issue. It's how many of the same drones who were singing Trump's praises for his isolationism a couple weeks ago are now singing them for his interventionism, and how people who savaged Obama for wanting to strike Syria now see it as praiseworthy that Trump did so.

Oh, my bad, I saw the subject line, Hypocrisy, and thought you were changing your posting Nic.

 

[Arkady]

American opinions don't change over 4 years?
Americans demonstrated a heavy dosage of "war fatigue" during 0bama's administration and they expected different.
Was there such graphic video evidence of chemical weapons usage last time? Nikki Haley's broadcasted address to the UN was compelling.

Perhaps there's a level of trust Trump has earned with Republicans than 0bama ever did? 0bama walked into office with a heavy dosage of well-earned distrust.

You use polls- a snapshot of American opinion- as an acid test for an entire political smear, based on one category.

It's funny how being a liberal Democrat is predicated upon hypocrisy, you absolutely can't be a liberal Dem without it. Like being "pro-science" yet believing in the destruction of an unborn human for various highly unscientific reasons.

Yet you make your "solid" case on the right being hypocrites by using an extremely flawed example.
Not a good case at all.

Do you honestly expect the results wouldn't have been very nearly as stark if we compared a poll from just a couple weeks ago (when Trump was against attacking Assad) to today (after the strike)? I don't know about you, but I saw no evidence of a gradual consensus growing among Republicans, over four years, in favor of strikes. It seems to have happened basically overnight -- Obama had wanted it, so they were reflexively against it, then Dear Leader did it, so they reflexively decided they supported it. Obviously, Democrats didn't show the same reflexive support for anything Obama wanted.

 

[Arkady]

Hypocrisy is why I bought this website and it exists equally on both sides.

Like I said, I know that blind assertion is comforting to some people, but is it supported by the data? How does it fit with support for strikes more than tripling among Republicans under circumstances that are essentially identical other than the party of the president who wants them? We didn't see that kind of change among Democrats.

I think your "equal on both sides" assertion is an emotional one, not a rational one. You like how it makes you feel to position yourself in a stance of faux neutrality. But setting your feelings aside, the real world evidence just doesn't fit with that view.

 

[SW48]

Like I said, I know that blind assertion is comforting to some people, but is it supported by the data? How does it fit with support for strikes more than tripling among Republicans under circumstances that are essentially identical other than the party of the president who wants them? We didn't see that kind of change among Democrats.

I think your "equal on both sides" assertion is an emotional one, not a rational one. You like how it makes you feel to position yourself in a stance of faux neutrality. But setting your feelings aside, the real world evidence just doesn't fit with that view.

How about a poll before and after an issue like Syria when Obama was president?

All partisans are sheep. It is embarrassing.

 

[SW48]

Like I said, I know that blind assertion is comforting to some people, but is it supported by the data? How does it fit with support for strikes more than tripling among Republicans under circumstances that are essentially identical other than the party of the president who wants them? We didn't see that kind of change among Democrats.

I think your "equal on both sides" assertion is an emotional one, not a rational one. You like how it makes you feel to position yourself in a stance of faux neutrality. But setting your feelings aside, the real world evidence just doesn't fit with that view.

I seen it right here on PJ all the time. We went on the record on Ebola and most said to quarantine. Then when Obama said no quarantine the sheep on the left changed to no quarantine. It is the same on the right. Very sad.

And yes it does make me feel good to think for myself on each subject separate from having to be on a side like a sheep.

 

[Arkady]

How about a poll before and after an issue like Syria when Obama was president?

All partisans are sheep. It is embarrassing.

I didn't see a poll like that. But I see this one and it shows the same number of Democrats supported striking Syria now, when that means being on Trump's side, as in 2013, when it meant being on Obama's side. If they're sheep, they're hiding it behind a very convincing wall of policy principles. The sheep, at least in this case, are the Republicans.

I can point you to dozens of prominent Republicans who opposed a Syria strike under Obama (or even said it would be illegal), who praised Trump for it. Can you find ANY Democrats who went the opposite way -- supporting the strikes under Obama but now saying they're wrong (or illegal)? Even one?

 

[Arkady]

I seen it right here on PJ all the time. We went on the record on Ebola and most said to quarantine. Then when Obama said no quarantine the sheep on the left changed to no quarantine. It is the same on the right. Very sad.

And yes it does make me feel good to think for myself on each subject separate from having to be on a side like a sheep.

I don't recall it that way. I recall the lefties taking the same stance we had during prior outbreaks of hemmoraghic fever -- regarding them as tragic, but largely local issues, and no cause for an international panic. It was ONLY on the right that the reaction was dramatically different from similar prior outbreaks. The right utterly lost their minds, at Fox News's cue. It wasn't a symmetrical thing.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

You crack me up.

How about the Left's screeching about Trump's EO's now...but they applauded Obama's "pen and a phone'?

More hypocrisy on the right?

Gimme a break.

 

[SW48]

I didn't see a poll like that. But I see this one and it shows the same number of Democrats supported striking Syria now, when that means being on Trump's side, as in 2013, when it meant being on Obama's side. If they're sheep, they're hiding it behind a very convincing wall of policy principles. The sheep, at least in this case, are the Republicans.

I can point you to dozens of prominent Republicans who opposed a Syria strike under Obama (or even said it would be illegal), who praised Trump for it. Can you find ANY Democrats who went the opposite way -- supporting the strikes under Obama but now saying they're wrong (or illegal)? Even one?

Correct the GOP are sheep also and the right.

But lets be 100% honest. If you had seen this poll and it showed that Democrats are sheep and GOP is not as much sheep, you would NOT have created this thread. So you are picking and choosing to make one group of sheep look like sheep...

Which is fine, I am just making a point.

 

[SW48]

I don't recall it that way. I recall the lefties taking the same stance we had during prior outbreaks of hemmoraghic fever -- regarding them as tragic, but largely local issues, and no cause for an international panic. It was ONLY on the right that the reaction was dramatically different from similar prior outbreaks. The right utterly lost their minds, at Fox News's cue. It wasn't a symmetrical thing.

Bugsy wanted quarantines. Then Obama came out against them and Bugsy trumpeted "no quarantines" and made fun of people that wanted them. He was the most prominent but there were many others.

 

[JackDallas]

I didn't see a poll like that. But I see this one and it shows the same number of Democrats supported striking Syria now, when that means being on Trump's side, as in 2013, when it meant being on Obama's side. If they're sheep, they're hiding it behind a very convincing wall of policy principles. The sheep, at least in this case, are the Republicans.

I can point you to dozens of prominent Republicans who opposed a Syria strike under Obama (or even said it would be illegal), who praised Trump for it. Can you find ANY Democrats who went the opposite way -- supporting the strikes under Obama but now saying they're wrong (or illegal)? Even one?

The primary reason we Conservatives opposed a strike on Syria, was that we didn't trust Obama to do it and do it right. He would never have launched an attack like the one ordered by President Trump. And he isn't smart enough to have coordinated it with sending a message to North Korea, China, and Russia. Obama would have f**ked it up somehow. I support the strike by Trump because it was measured yet decisively strong.
Bottom line is we now have a leader in the White House; we didn't have any adult leadership during the wasted years of the Obama cluster-f**k.

 

[JackDallas]

I don't recall it that way. I recall the lefties taking the same stance we had during prior outbreaks of hemmoraghic fever -- regarding them as tragic, but largely local issues, and no cause for an international panic. It was ONLY on the right that the reaction was dramatically different from similar prior outbreaks. The right utterly lost their minds, at Fox News's cue. It wasn't a symmetrical thing.

You recall what you want to recall.

 

[Capitalist]

I think your "equal on both sides" assertion is an emotional one, not a rational one.

Projection.

Your "greater on the conservative side" is pure emotion without reason. You felt it. Then projected it.

 

[marvin martian]

I recently argued that although political hypocrisy exists on both sides of the aisle, it is not a symmetrical situation. Hypocrisy is far more intense and shameless on the right.

Here's another demonstration of that. Polls were conducted regarding missile strikes in Syria in 2013 (when Obama supported them following a gas attack) and 2017 (when Trump did following a gas attack). In 2013, 38% of Dems supported it. Only 22% of Republicans did. Today, 38% of Democrats support strikes and 67% of Republicans do. Dems stuck to their principles regardless of how the partisan dynamics came down. Republican support for strikes more than tripled the minute the "magic R" was put next to the president's name.

There are a lot of centrists, libertarians, and the like who are comforted by the assertion of equivalence between the political factions. That way they can feel above it all -- too cool for the fray. But it's simply not an honest take on our current political reality.

Yes, there's some hypocrisy on the left, too (even if it didn't show up obviously this issue). Lefties are more likely to give a Democrat the benefit of the doubt and more likely to assume the worst about a Republican's intentions. But they mostly function with the ordinary, mild levels of political prejudice that are almost impossible to banish entirely from human nature. What we're seeing from the GOP is something new -- a level of hypocrisy bordering on mindlessness. That's how you get such gigantic swings in opinion on substantive policy questions based mere on how partisan politics arranged on the issue. It's how many of the same drones who were singing Trump's praises for his isolationism a couple weeks ago are now singing them for his interventionism, and how people who savaged Obama for wanting to strike Syria now see it as praiseworthy that Trump did so.

I'm reminded of how desperately and vigorously you campaigned for Hillary Clinton last year while claiming to be a Sanders "supporter".

 

[Arkady]

You crack me up.

How about the Left's screeching about Trump's EO's now...but they applauded Obama's "pen and a phone'?

More hypocrisy on the right?

Gimme a break.

Do you have an example of a lefty applauding Obama's "pen and phone" but screeching about Trump using executive orders? Keep in mind, I don't mean a lefty complaining about a particular executive order's contents. I'm talking about a lefty who took the position that executive orders, as a means of doing business, were legitimate when Obama was doing it, but not legitimate now that Trump is doing it.

 

[Arkady]

But lets be 100% honest. If you had seen this poll and it showed that Democrats are sheep and GOP is not as much sheep, you would NOT have created this thread.

Do you know of any poll that would show the Democrats acting more like "sheep" than the Republicans? No? Me neither.

 

[Arkady]

Bugsy wanted quarantines. Then Obama came out against them and Bugsy trumpeted "no quarantines" and made fun of people that wanted them. He was the most prominent but there were many others.

I didn't see that. What I saw were right-wingers who'd never before shown any particular interest in tropical epidemics, suddenly becoming wild-eyed hysterics on the topic, the minute Fox News rolled out Ebola Hysteria as a strategy for bashing Obama. It was pathetic.