Political hypocrisy (1 Viewer)

Lindsey graham

Im sure both sides of the aisle can find these types of cut ups. I’d like to see them, preferably from current politicians (or “operatives” if you will, Dershowitz comes to mind.) I would imagine there’s a lot of material to find from both sides of the aisle. 

Might be easier to list the ones who aren’t.

ETA - and that really goes for all of us - hypocrisy seems to be a human trait that most of us have on some level

Mitch mcconnell- don’t care for the dramatic music overlay here... @jon_mx kind of similar to a false narrative I’d say. 

A handful of people speaking, Clinton trial, Schumer and others- nothing crazy here really, but some debate on witnesses. Funny seeing Fred Thompson there, it’s like they just stuck in the guy from law and order in there to comment (yes I know he served.) One thing I hadn’t really thought of as far as the differences in the Clinton trial and calling witnesses was the difference in situations. Protecting Lewinsky was a consideration worth noting imo. 
 

Snorkelson said:

Mitch mcconnell- don’t care for the dramatic music overlay here... @jon_mx kind of similar to a false narrative I’d say. 

A handful of people speaking, Clinton trial, Schumer and others- nothing crazy here really, but some debate on witnesses. Funny seeing Fred Thompson there, it’s like they just stuck in the guy from law and order in there to comment (yes I know he served.) One thing I hadn’t really thought of as far as the differences in the Clinton trial and calling witnesses was the difference in situations. Protecting Lewinsky was a consideration worth noting imo. 
 

Click to expand...

That is not a false narrative, that is hypocrisy.  The Clinton vs. Trump impeachments don't reveal hypocrisy from one side, it reveals the hypocrisy from both sides. 

jon_mx said:

That is not a false narrative, that is hypocrisy.  The Clinton vs. Trump impeachments don't reveal hypocrisy from one side, it reveals the hypocrisy from both sides. 

Click to expand...

I was referring to the musical overlay in the McConnell video- dramatic music added to his words, shapes a narrative.

AAABatteries said:

Might be easier to list the ones who aren’t.

ETA - and that really goes for all of us - hypocrisy seems to be a human trait that most of us have on some level

Click to expand...

This is the beginning and end of this thread honestly.  I've thought about starting a thread here on this topic, but feel it's futile.  The reality is, I expect this out of our politicians.  It's a product of continually comparing them to each other instead of comparing them to a standard of expectation.  It's the impact of "lesser of two evils" that has been going on from the beginning.  We all have bias, I'd agree with that.  We might even all have hypocrisy to some extent, but I believe that is much easier to self regulate.  It's definitely stronger in some than others and we see it clearly in the constant "do as I say, not as I do" people who twist words of those walking the walk they are preaching.  It's tough to gauge in this place, but it seems like if you're being called a "conservative" by the "liberals" and a "liberal" by the "conservatives" you're probably on the right track of being less hypocritical than either of those "groups".   

AAABatteries said:

Might be easier to list the ones who aren’t.

ETA - and that really goes for all of us - hypocrisy seems to be a human trait that most of us have on some level

Click to expand...

Might be?? 

To me this is such an uninteresting subject. I begin with the assumption that most politicians, and most people, use double standards all the time. I don’t care. My only concern is: are they right or wrong this time around? 

timschochet said:

Might be?? 

To me this is such an uninteresting subject. I begin with the assumption that most politicians, and most people, use double standards all the time. I don’t care. My only concern is: are they right or wrong this time around? 

Click to expand...

It’s something I’d like to see firsthand and hoped maybe I’d get some links so I don’t have to search it all out myself. What exactly is the depth of this shallowness, and shouldn’t we expect better than your basic assumption? 

I’ll add that I was just out of high school during the Clinton impeachment and wasn’t paying attention to that stuff, so I figured the elder fbgs may have a better idea of this. 

As long as money is speech, this is what you're going to get.

Clinton was railroaded,, Snorky. Couldnta happened to a nicer guy, know'm'saying, but the Heritage Foundation (Newt Gingrich) decided the path to the kind of Republican supremacy they wanted was best to be achieved by jacking the guy up for some garden-variety Governor corruption in Arkansas. Thing is, you keep an investigative team on a horndog like him long enough, other things are gonna turn up and they did. The President thought he could lie his way out (which set the tone for truth-telling in DC), got caught, media needed something as big as OJ to keep viewership up and have sumn to talk about 24/7, so boom. He got off because several moderate Republican Senators voted "not guilty", thereby causing the Heritage Foundation to make sure to get rid of moderate Republicans like Warner, Specter, Jeffords (Alabama's Shelby - a conservative - the only Senator left who crossed party lines). Wouldnta missed Clinton if he'd gotten the boot - he had already done his worst (gave away the wi-fisphere, valued @ $700 billion 25 yrs ago, to private interests, escalated wars to cover his tracks on Monicagate) and did almost no governing while his scandals played out - except for the fact that this guilty man was railroaded for political purpose, setting a tone that has yet to leave DC.

To the Dems paltry credit - i am 100% certain that if Trump was a Democrat, he would've been impeached on the Mueller stuff - they waited until the President was "caught" actively interfering in an upcoming election to go after him. To the Dems detriment, they've prosecuted limply - i haven't followed it closely, but shouldnt the "show" trial have already happened in the House if they knew there wasnt going to be one in the Senate?! - with nowhere near the commitment nor savvy Republicans employ in pretend governing.

But the greatest Democratic detriment is that they have over 400,000 people running for the Democratic presidential nomination and NOT ONE of them is even commenting on the most embarrassing sham in American history. Why isn't even one of these droids saying that this President violates RICO statutes virtually every day in office and lobbying Americans who agree to storm their elected representatives with outrage until this episode where our kids get to watch a trial not be a trial, a Supreme Court justice not get to determine procedure, Senators in the greatest deliberative body ever swearing an oath they've already declared they will violate, comes to a proper end? One would think that even Marianne Williamson would have become a factor in the race if they had.

I can't call Lindsey Graham what he actually is in this forum, but it's a lot worse than hypocrite. But he's got plenty of company on both sides.

Snorkelson said:

It’s something I’d like to see firsthand and hoped maybe I’d get some links so I don’t have to search it all out myself. What exactly is the depth of this shallowness, and shouldn’t we expect better than your basic assumption? 

Click to expand...

The depth of the shallowness is quite limited.

The Commish said:

This is the beginning and end of this thread honestly.  I've thought about starting a thread here on this topic, but feel it's futile.  The reality is, I expect this out of our politicians.  It's a product of continually comparing them to each other instead of comparing them to a standard of expectation.  It's the impact of "lesser of two evils" that has been going on from the beginning.  We all have bias, I'd agree with that.  We might even all have hypocrisy to some extent, but I believe that is much easier to self regulate.  It's definitely stronger in some than others and we see it clearly in the constant "do as I say, not as I do" people who twist words of those walking the walk they are preaching.  It's tough to gauge in this place, but it seems like if you're being called a "conservative" by the "liberals" and a "liberal" by the "conservatives" you're probably on the right track of being less hypocritical than either of those "groups".   

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, my intent in posting what I did was to maybe help level set the conversation at the beginning as I know @Snorkelson started this in good faith and was looking for examples from both sides.  It seemed obvious to me it would turn quickly.  I think it could be a valuable conversation.  Give an example - explain why you think it's hypocrisy and how we can push to be better.  Ultimately, I'm too cynical about the 2-party system to spend a lot of time engaging on the topic though.  I don't see a quick way out of the us vs. them mentality we currently have.  I honestly think a couple of generations of people will have to die off before you have any hope of things getting better in that regard and I'm not entirely convinced even that will help.  But I don't see any other solutions on the horizon.

Snorkelson said:

I’ll add that I was just out of high school during the Clinton impeachment and wasn’t paying attention to that stuff, so I figured the elder fbgs may have a better idea of this. 

Click to expand...

If you've seen ANY of the coverage of this impeachment trial you have seen the likes of Pelosi, Nadler and company taking position X and the likes of McConnell, Graham and company taking the position of Y.  We have clips of both groups taking the OPPOSITE stance (literally) during Clinton's impeachment.  It really is baffling to me that this is out there and people are in full on support mode and lapping up the nonsense these guys are throwing down.  It's embarrassing.  

AAABatteries said:

Just to be clear, my intent in posting what I did was to maybe help level set the conversation at the beginning as I know @Snorkelson started this in good faith and was looking for examples from both sides.  It seemed obvious to me it would turn quickly.  I think it could be a valuable conversation.  Give an example - explain why you think it's hypocrisy and how we can push to be better.  Ultimately, I'm too cynical about the 2-party system to spend a lot of time engaging on the topic though.  I don't see a quick way out of the us vs. them mentality we currently have.  I honestly think a couple of generations of people will have to die off before you have any hope of things getting better in that regard and I'm not entirely convinced even that will help.  But I don't see any other solutions on the horizon.

Click to expand...

I get it....and honestly, I'm pretty similar in my cynicism of the two party system.  It's failing us.  There's a group that will suggest "this is just a phase".  That's tough for me to buy because I believe our elections really do have consequences.  Each election we become more comfortable with getting away from the rule of law.  We get more comfortable with the "yeah, but...." line of arguments where lesser of two evils is happily accepted.  You don't see a quick way out of this because there isn't one.  "Us vs Them" is exactly the way the politicians want it.  As long as we are focused on each other, we aren't focused on them.  

timschochet said:

Might be?? 

To me this is such an uninteresting subject. I begin with the assumption that most politicians, and most people, use double standards all the time. I don’t care. My only concern is: are they right or wrong this time around? 

Click to expand...

But most of the comments are usually opinions  about specific situations its hard to really say they are right or wrong. They are just inconsistent with their opinions.

To me the more interesting question is why we fetishize intellectual consistency so much. Is it really the worst thing in the world to be more indulgent of your own side? One thing I’ll credit Trump with: he can’t be accused of hypocrisy because he makes no pretensions to consistency, beyond “What I do is great, what my opponents do sucks.”

The answer to my question, BTW, is that none of us actually care about consistency. Charging your opponents with hypocrisy is a way to play Gotcha without having to engage the substance of their arguments. Should Trump be impeached? Should we go to war with Iran? That stuff is too hard to figure out. But if I can nail you on flip flopping compared to what you said about a tangentially related topic 10 years ago, that’s an easy win.

It's also a convenient hook for the media. If they delve too much into substance, they will be accused of bias. But finding inconsistencies is a way for them to appear tough on politicians. Hell, Tim Russert made an entire career out of that schtick.