Author’s note: This is the analysis of one round of the 2024 Presidential debate between Biden and Trump. It is linked from a more comprehensive article.
Question: What additional leverage will you use to get Hamas and Israel to end the war?
(Biden argues he was behind the ceasefire proposal that the UN and Israel accepted, that he’s limited weapons shipments to those which will work in populated areas, and that he organized the world response to Iran’s missile attack on Israel.)
TRUMP: As far as Israel and Hamas, Israel’s the one that wants to go – he said the only one who wants to keep going is Hamas. Actually, Israel is the one. And you should them go and let them finish the job.
Non-responsive. He makes no commitments to Israel or discusses any leverage he would use. His response is basically, that’s Israel’s job.
Begs the question.
Actually, the statement about Israel wanting to continue the conflict may be the only thing Trump said that might be close to the truth, although experts concede Hamas is unlikely to concede to a peace deal unless it insures their political survival.
However, he offers the statement “you should let them go and finish the job,” without foundation. And evidence suggests even the Israeli military wants a ceasefire.
It is also an appeal to power, a fallacy that goes by several names, including hard power fallacy.
He doesn’t want to do it. He’s become like a Palestinian. But they don’t like him, because he’s a very bad Palestinian. He’s a weak one.
More non-responsive, irrelevant nonsense.
The slurs on Biden being a bad Palestinian are ad hominems. Even though many of his supporters disagree with him (including me), he’s on record that there’s no equivalencebetween Hamas’ atrocities and Israel’s response.
Pure braggadocio, an amphiboly fallacy—where he buries the claim in a statement with multiple interpretations—and passing the buck. Trump wants to sound tough, but he’s actually saying, “Let Israel do it.”
BASH: President Trump would you support the creation of an independent Palestinian state in order to achieve peace in the region?
TRUMP: I’d have to see.
Absolutely non-responsive. This is an important question with global ramifications, and he has no position?
But before we do that, the problem we have is that we spend all the money. So they kill us on trade. I made great trade deals with the European nations, because if you add them up, they’re about the same size economically. Their economy is about the same size as the United States. And they were – no cars. No – they don’t want anything that we have. But we’re supposed to take their cars, their food, their everything, their agriculture. I changed that.
Major red herring. He also equivocates Israel with Europe, allowing him to pivot away from the question. (Granted, he’s rebutting an earlier comment by Biden, which would be fine if he returned to the question, but he doesn’t.
Another lie. Trump imposed tariffs on China, which he later scaled back, but the US only enforced tariffs on Europe that the World Trade Organization already had imposed.
Equivocation. He’s confusing trade deals with tariffs. He made trade deals with Canada and Mexico, but only enforced WTO sanctions on Europe.
But the big thing I changed is they don’t want to pay. And the only reason that he can play games with NATO is because I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. I said – and he’s right about this, I said, no, I’m not going to support NATO if you don’t pay. They asked me that question: Would you guard us against Russia? – at a very secret meeting of the 28 states at that time, nations at that time. And they (sic) said, no, if you don’t pay, I won’t do that. And you know what happened? Billions and billions of dollars came flowing in the next day and the next months.
Non-responsive to the rebuttal. He simply repeats his earlier claim about hundreds of billions of dollars.
This is a variation of the furtive fallacy, i.e., you don’t know because it’s a secret. We can’t verify Trump’s claim to a top secret meeting, and he knows it.
Again, the claim he made NATO allies put up hundreds of millions of dollars is simply false. The promised budget increases were much smaller and pledged before he took office.
Buried conclusion. He’s claiming that because he got NATO to pay their bills, Biden didn’t. However, this claim itself is a logical fallacy (affirming a disjunct). Both could have paid. In fact, the US share of NATO spending fell under the Biden administration, too.
But now, we’re in the same position. We’re paying everybody’s bills.
Hyperbole and gross exaggeration. The U.S. doesn’t pay NATO’s bills, it shares expenses. (See above)