Hypocrites

[Arkady]

Obama wanted to launch a strike on Syria in retaliation for a gas attack. However, he could not get Congressional approval. At the time, 140 House members said such approval was needed, 119 of whom were Republicans. Now, Trump has done just what Obama asked to do, only without asking, and almost no Republicans are faulting him for overstepping his proper authority.

In fact, many top Republicans who actively opposed Obama's push for a strike in 2013 have gone so far as to praise Trump for doing the same thing under substantially identical circumstances. That includes chief hypocrite Mitch McConnell, as well as Marco Rubio, Orrin Hatch, Jason Chaffetz, and Ted Poe.

In some cases, these Republicans went so far as to suggest a strike like this wouldn't just be unwise, but that it would be downright illegal without Congressional approval, but they turned on a dime when the "magic R" was placed next to the president's name. And we're not just talking about the quiet hypocrisy of actively opposing an opponent's policy while keeping one's opposition quiet when it's an ally. We're talking about the noisy hypocrisy of angry opposition giving way to active cheerleading.

I know that there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle, but do we really see such dramatic examples among Democrats? For example, were there Democrats who cheered a policy by Obama who have taken to denouncing it when Trump does essentially the same thing? Were there Democrats who tweeted giddily when Obama did something who now take the official position that it would be illegal for Trump to do it under effectively unchanged circumstances?

I know sometimes Dems bit their tongues in the Obama years for behaviors where they'd let loose if it were a Republican -- but they seem to lack the shamelessness needed for full-throated hypocrisy of the Republican variety.

 

[marvin martian]

For example, were there Democrats who cheered a policy by Obama who have taken to denouncing it when Trump does essentially the same thing?

Yes, you.

98,000 jobs created under Trump = "so-so"
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/so-so-job-report.101301/

38,000 jobs created under Obama = "good news!"
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/good-news-on-the-jobs-front.92100/

I think you've answered your own question.

 

[Arkady]

Obama wanted to launch a strike on Syria in retaliation for a gas attack. However, he could not get Congressional approval. At the time, 140 House members said such approval was needed, 119 of whom were Republicans. Now, Trump has done just what Obama asked to do, only without asking, and almost no Republicans are faulting him for overstepping his proper authority.

In fact, many top Republicans who actively opposed Obama's push for a strike in 2013 have gone so far as to praise Trump for doing the same thing under substantially identical circumstances. That includes chief hypocrite Mitch McConnell, as well as Marco Rubio, Orrin Hatch, Jason Chaffetz, and Ted Poe.

In some cases, these Republicans went so far as to suggest a strike like this wouldn't just be unwise, but that it would be downright illegal without Congressional approval, but they turned on a dime when the "magic R" was placed next to the president's name. And we're not just talking about the quiet hypocrisy of actively opposing an opponent's policy while keeping one's opposition quiet when it's an ally. We're talking about the noisy hypocrisy of angry opposition giving way to active cheerleading.

I know that there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle, but do we really see such dramatic examples among Democrats? For example, were there Democrats who cheered a policy by Obama who have taken to denouncing it when Trump does essentially the same thing? Were there Democrats who tweeted giddily when Obama did something who now take the official position that it would be illegal for Trump to do it under effectively unchanged circumstances?

I know sometimes Dems bit their tongues in the Obama years for behaviors where they'd let loose if it were a Republican -- but they seem to lack the shamelessness needed for full-throated hypocrisy of the Republican variety.

Just as another example of the extent of hypocrisy on the right, consider the president's travel budget or his golfing. Many on the right, including plenty of posters here, treated those things as huge issues in the Obama years. Trump is golfing at a rate 44% above Obama's (a round every 6.1 days, versus every 8.8 for Obama), and Trump has ALREADY spent double Obama's annual travel budget, yet none of the right-wingers seem to care any more.

Similarly, many criticized Obama for being too quick to use executive orders. Yet, at last count, Trump is issuing such orders at a rate over three times as high as Obama, and there are just cricket noises on the right.

Again, I'm not denying hypocrites exist on the left, but I can't think of an equivalent for that kind of dramatic, shameless hypocrisy. Was there some behavior of Bush's that lefties criticized relentlessly and yet went completely silent on when Obama did it to a measurably much greater extent?

I remember Democrats criticizing Bush for taking a huge amount of vacation time, but they never got a test for hypocrisy when it came to that, since from the start of his presidency Obama was taking a lot less vacation. But maybe you can think of a better example.

I know that, as a quasi-religious article of faith among people who culturally identify as being centrist or above the fray, "both sides do it." But setting the Bothsiderist liturgy aside for a moment, is this really a symmetrical situation?

 

[Arkady]

Yes, you.

98,000 jobs created under Trump = "so-so"
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/so-so-job-report.101301/

38,000 jobs created under Obama = "good news!"
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/good-news-on-the-jobs-front.92100/

I think you've answered your own question.

Your reply was a non sequitur. As you can see, I asked if there were Democrats who cheered a policy by Obama who have taken to denouncing it when Trump does essentially the same thing. Pointing out that I had two different levels of enthusiasm for two different jobs reports (which, as I explained in detail last week, was based on things other than the headline numbers), isn't responsive to that question. Instead, what you'd need to do is find a policy I cheered from Obama that I bashed when from Trump. For example, picture if I cheered loan guaranties for green energy companies when it was Obama, but now called essentially the same thing a terrible idea or even illegal because Trump is for it. That's what I mean about a dramatically hypocritical reversal regarding policies.

 

[EatTheRich]

Again, I'm not denying hypocrites exist on the left, but I can't think of an equivalent for that kind of dramatic, shameless hypocrisy. Was there some behavior of Bush's that lefties criticized relentlessly and yet went completely silent on when Obama did it to a measurably much greater extent?

Yes, mass surveillance. Not all lefties, of course.

 

[Arkady]

Yes, mass surveillance. Not all lefties, of course.

I'm not aware of ANY lefties who reversed on that. Yes, many engaged in the "quiet hypocrisy" of changing from vocal opposition to silence (or much less vocal opposition). But did we have something like we've seen with the Republicans? Did we have prominent critics of Bush's mass surveillance tweeting out congratulations to Obama for expanding such surveillance? Did we have people saying it was illegal when Bush did it, and then praising it as a sign of manly resolve when Obama did?

I honestly can't think of any examples. From lefties it's more of the typical "Save your ammo," "pull your punches," or "turn a blind eye," hypocrisy you traditionally expect among allies, but not the wholesale reversal of policy positions to match the whims of the dear leader, as is becoming more common on the right.

 

[Arkady]

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. So, then, did you have any responses that were on topic?

Even if I were to accept that this is an example of hypocrisy on my part (rather than a sensible distinction driven by the non-headline numbers you pointedly ignored yet again, but that my posts had spoken to), my point in this post isn't that hypocrisy is confined to the right. I've stipulated repeatedly that it isn't. It's a specific type of hypocrisy I'm only seeing on one side -- a shameless 180-degree reversal in one's opinions about particular kinds of political conduct, depending on the party affiliation of the person whose conduct is in question -- e.g., saying a bombing without Congressional authority would be illegal, when it's a Democrat, but that it's praiseworthy, when it's a Republican. If you have examples of such from me, by all means share.

 

[marvin martian]

Yes, exactly. So, then, did you have any responses that were on topic?

Even if I were to accept that this is an example of hypocrisy on my part (rather than a sensible distinction driven by the non-headline numbers you pointedly ignored yet again, but that my posts had spoken to), my point in this post isn't that hypocrisy is confined to the right. I've stipulated repeatedly that it isn't. It's a specific type of hypocrisy I'm only seeing on one side -- a shameless 180-degree reversal in one's opinions about particular kinds of political conduct, depending on the party affiliation of the person whose conduct is in question -- e.g., saying a bombing without Congressional authority would be illegal, when it's a Democrat, but that it's praiseworthy, when it's a Republican. If you have examples of such from me, by all means share.

My response was right on topic, you just didn't like having your hypocrisy pointed out to you. Next time, I suggest you man up and own it, or just keep quiet.

 

[Arkady]

My response was right on topic

No, it really wasn't, as any of the smarter posters here should be able to confirm for you. However, to be fair, I can certainly understand how it would seem to be "right on topic" to someone with poor reading comprehension skills. I'd imagine that all someone on your level would come away with is the fact that the subject was political hypocrisy and the argument was that it didn't exist on the left (being right on the first count and wrong on the second). Thus, such a person would imagine he was making a relevant point if he tried to argue (based on a similarly half-understood exchange) that the author himself was a hypocrite, by way of having reacted inconsistently to a pair of jobs reports.

Unfortunately, that whole attempt at engaging with the post would be missing the point, since there was never an argument that political hypocrisy doesn't exist on the left. In fact, both the first and third post in this thread expressly stipulated the opposite:

I know that there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle...
Again, I'm not denying hypocrites exist on the left.....​

So, even putting aside the fact that the argument you made doesn't work, due to your failure to understand the posts you were referencing to build your argument, the very fact you'd think that particular argument applied here shows you also didn't understand this thread. It shows you were trying to contradict the top post with a point that was expressly contained in the post you're trying to contradict.

If you go back and try to read more carefully, it's possible you'll be able to understand what was being argued, and then you can provide a response that's actually on topic, rather than your usual free-association personal insults. Good luck.