How the republicans changed their tune

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 49
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
If Trump won reelection than Russia would not have invaded Ukraine and Israel would jot have been attacked. They know Trumps response can be extreme so these other countries would tread lightly.
Missed this part.

The idea here is that Russia is somehow afraid of Trump, which is absurd. Not only because Trump spent his entire term fawning over Putin at every opportunity and then coward to him on the world stage siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies, but also because Trump made it a center piece of his campaign that he had no interest in defending anyone else. That’s what America first is all about.

So there is absolutely no reason to believe Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine with Trump in office, but anyone who understands world affairs considers it to be the best explanation that the reason Putin waited till after the 2020 election is because he was hoping Trump would get reelected and pull the US out of NATO first, which would have made the environment to pull this off far more favorable.

It seems like you are saying if something is good a Democrat in office made it that way but if they are in office and it was bad then they inherited it. Is this the logic?
Ugh. No.

The logic is that we grade presidents not merely on what happens while they are in office, but on what they did to impact the circumstances they inherited. It just so happens to be the case that every Republican president in this century who took over for a Democrat came into office with a great economy and left behind a mess, while every Democrat came into a mess and left a strong economy.

Can you explain the displacement. What it is and how it effects the economy.

That was acceptable. The Democrats were not allowing people to go to work.
That’s a much larger conversation. We were talking about Trump v Biden. If the best you got is it was ok for Trump but not Biden then we’re done.

Also as far as debt is concerned what does owing somebody money have to do with inflation?
If the money is borrowed it doesn’t, but if there are not enough borrowers that’s a different story. Not sure how they specifically impacted each admin specifically, but if Trump ran larger deficits (he did) then at minimum Biden and Trump would be equal in this regard.

#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The idea here is that Russia is somehow afraid of Trump,
that's not the issue

trump probably would have agreed to keep nato out of ukraine

that's what putin said he wanted for a peace deal


#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't want Putin to be afraid anyway. Fear of NATO imperialism is why Putin invaded in 2022.
That's why we are on the edge of ww3 now, because nobody wants to relax. Escalate is the only word Biden knows.

And Biden cultists will ejaculate to the idea of nuclear holocaust, apparently.
#34
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
This is the link you sent Mr

Changes in production and transportation costs, materials availability, and consumers’ buying power can exacerbate inflation in supply chains. Supply chain inflation can then perpetuate itself as these rising costs reduce businesses’ purchasing power.

It doesn't have the word displacement in it

Also does higher taxes increase production costs or decrease it? I am not good at economics please give me yes or no
#35
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not all things that can be lumped into a rough category are the same. In this case, supporting Israel and supporting Ukraine is not the same. These are two different conflicts with different circumstances surrounding them. Your inability to see this is what causes you to see inconsistency where there is none.

Pro-interventionist leftists supporting Ukraine and not Israel is because Russia is an autocratic expansionist state and Israel is blowing up civilians. Leftists ideology is against autocratic expansionist regimes and against blowing up civilians, making Ukraine the "good guys" and Israel the "bad guys" from a leftist standpoint. It is possible to disagree with this stance but it is a perfectly consistent stance.

Pro-interventionist liberals and conservatives supporting both Ukraine and Israel is because supporting Ukraine hurts Russia and supporting Israel hurts Iran. Liberal and conservative ideology favors actions which harm geopolitical rivals of the United States such as Russia and Iran simply because they are geopolitical rivals, making Ukraine and Israel the "good guys" from a liberal and conservative standpoint. It is possible to disagree with this stance but it is a perfectly consistent stance.

Pro-interventionist American right-wingers supporting neither Ukraine nor Israel is because Russia is an autocratic expansionist state and Israel has Jews in it and pretends to be pro-Jewish. American right-winger ideology is in favor of autocratic expansionist regimes as long as they are nominally white and they are against Jews, making Ukraine and Israel the "bad guys" from an American right-winger standpoint. It is possible to disagree with this stance but it is a perfectly consistent stance.

Note that I specify American right-wingers because right-wing ideology leans strongly into nationalism and so right-wingers from one country cannot usually be lumped in with right-wingers of other countries for the purposes of geopolitical analysis despite usually agreeing on the majority of non-geopolitical topics.

The last broad category here would be anti-interventionist folks, which obviously can come from a wide range of ideological backgrounds including leftists, liberals, conservatives, right-wingers, and others. You seem to fall into this category so I assume you are most familiar with this mindset. The consistency in this case is that anti-interventionists consistently do not care who the good guy or bad guy is up to a certain point, though how bad a bad guy has to be before they do start to care varies from one person to the other within this category. It is possible to disagree with this stance but it is a perfectly consistent stance.

The truth is that while the appearance of hypocrisy is common in politics actual hypocrisy is rather rare. Most of the time when a person seems to have hypocritical stances of some kind it is because either you are misunderstanding their reasons behind a certain stance or they are lying about their reasons.
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
It doesn't have the word displacement in it
Didn’t have time to write a response to that so it was the first link I found.

The disruption came in many forms. One example would be the factories world wide that shut down due to the spread of the disease. We didn’t know how to contain it at that time so that had little choice. This was a very common occurrence in China where much of our supplies come from. In the US we saw major meat processing plants close which fueled a significant increase in the cost of chicken and beef.

There’s also the issue with computer chips. Because everyone was conducting their business at home, demand for computers and tablets skyrocketed. The supply was not there, so what happens next is obvious. To meet that demand the companies who make those computer chips then had to shift their efforts towards computers, leaving a shortage on cars since most modern cars use those same chips. The end result is the price of new cars skyrocketing.

Also, as soon as we started to come out of Covid many businesses did not make it through the pandemic and had to close down, placing the burden to meet that demand on the businesses that remained. Again, basic supply and demand.

Trump couldn’t have fixed this. This was going to happen no matter who was in the White House.
Topic's author
#37
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Pro-interventionist leftists supporting Ukraine and not Israel is because Russia is an autocratic expansionist state and Israel is blowing up civilians.
You can say Gaza is expansionist as well.  Ukraine is probably blowing up plenty of civilians as well.

American right-winger ideology is in favor of autocratic expansionist regimes as long as they are nominally white and they are against Jews
So they support anti semites?


The truth is that while the appearance of hypocrisy is common in politics
My argument is it's not hypocrisy as much as it is following the party and not coming to a consistent conclusion.

Do you think there is a large group that wants funding for Israel and not Ukraine?  How would they be consistent?
#38
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I don't agree with all.of that, but I  learned a bit. Thank you
#39
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ukraine is probably blowing up plenty of civilians as well.
Intentionally and by the thousands? Where?

So they support anti semites?
Generally speaking the American right are happy to ally with anti-semites, yes.

Do you think there is a large group that wants funding for Israel and not Ukraine?  How would they be consistent?
This is the stance of many European right wing parties. I did mention that the nationalism aspect means the right wing diverges strongly from one right wing group to another when it comes to geopolitics even where they agree on everything else. Netanyahu is strongly right wing so the only thing that keeps many American right wingers from supporting them is the Jew thing. Any right wingers that didn't have a problem with Jews, such as your boy Ben Shapiro, would obviously not have that problem.

Take the Azov militia in Ukraine as another example. They are strongly right wing and nationalistic but because they live in Ukraine they are nationalistic for Ukraine and therefore have no choice but to be against the Russian invasion even if Russia's domestic policies are closer to what they would like than the current Ukrainian government's domestic policies.
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
it is because either you are misunderstanding their reasons behind a certain stance or they are lying about their reasons.

THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY

LYING ABOUT THEIR REASONS
#41
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
When TheUnderdog uses the word hypocrisy here he is referring to the idea of taking positions that are ideologically inconsistent, he is not talking about mere inconsistencies in rhetoric. That is the idea I was responding to.
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
When TheUnderdog uses the word hypocrisy here he is referring to the idea of taking positions that are ideologically inconsistent, he is not talking about mere inconsistencies in rhetoric. That is the idea I was responding to.
there is no ideology that is built from the ground up on explicit AXIOMS

every ideology is riddled with internal contradictions (and that's even if you get two or more adherents to agree on definitions)
Topic's author
#43
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
When TheUnderdog uses the word hypocrisy here he is referring to the idea of taking positions that are ideologically inconsistent
The OP does not have the word, “hypocrisy” in it.  I do not believe hypocrisy and inconsistency are synonymous.

An inconsistency would be, “pro life and pro death penalty” or, “pro choice and pro vaccine mandate”.  Maybe you think it’s justified, maybe you don’t.

The only way someone can be hypocritical on abortion is, “pro life and paid for an abortion” or, “pro vaccine mandate and unvaccinated”, or, “pro ICE and undocumented”.  

Hypocrisy is much more strict of a definition than an inconsistency.  Hypocrisy is a proper subset of an inconsistency.
Topic's author
#44
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY

LYING ABOUT THEIR REASONS
See post 43.
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hypocrisy is much more strict of a definition than an inconsistency.  Hypocrisy is a proper subset of an inconsistency.
invading iraq to spread democracy
Topic's author
#46
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If we invaded Iraq and killed a bunch of innocent people to prevent war, I would call that hypocritical.

But "democracy" is often nothing more than a word politicians use to get people to kill each other.
#47
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The OP does not have the word, “hypocrisy” in it.  I do not believe hypocrisy and inconsistency are synonymous.
I agree. This was the source of confusion for 3rutal, who is apparently a lingual prescriptivist.
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree. This was the source of confusion for 3rutal, who is apparently a lingual prescriptivist.
in other words

we all agree that inconsistency is not hypocrisy
Topic's author
#49
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
we all agree that inconsistency is not hypocrisy
I personally agree but am unsure of other people.