After Syria Gas Attack, World Awaits What Kind of Leader Trump Will Be

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I don't know. That's exactly my point. We're not there - we know nothing.

So I guess every time Trump and the spineless lackies that follow him in congress suddenly change their mind now that it is politically convenient to support something should be just shrugged off as "Oh well we don't have the details"?

 

Bottomline the people who back him have changed their position so many times they are all contortionists. Watching them explain it makes them squirm. They all know that they have only changed positions for political reasons.

 

My second question I find more interesting. No matter what "classified" information Trump learned, I wonder why he changed his constitutional opinion on whether a President requires congressional approval. Seems like he was quite hard line on that when it suited him, and now he seems to have forgotten.

 

It is easy to let massive civilian deaths slide when you aren't the one in charge. It is easy to say "Focus on USA first!" and be so hard line about it. Not quite as easy when you are the "Leader of the Free World" and people look to you when massive civilian deaths occur from an atrocity that has been ongoing for years now. He is spineless. He was glad to be contrary and fight against it when he wasn't in office. As soon as he has the responsibility he now has some small inkling of what it actually means to be a leader. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

34 minutes ago, bcking said:

Obama supported intervention and was told by Trump and others he needed congressional approval. He then proceeded to not get it from who? Oh ya, those who are now standing behind Trump.

 

Who is slow on the uptake again? Do we need to go through all the Republican congressmen (and Trump) and what they all said 2-3 years ago about Syria?

 

Yes chemical weapons are horrible. What Assad was doing to civilians before this was also horrible. Maybe chemical attacks are worse, but either way people were dying. Families were dying. Children were dying.

 

It was politically convenient at the time to disagree with the President about intervention. Now it is convenient to support something that, if it is even the right thing, is at least 2 years late. 

 

I can't help but laugh at Trump and his supporters and the utter ignorance.

If you like your doctor you can keep him. National debt is unpatriotic, we need to limit executive orders. I can't help but laugh also.

 

That's all 

 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

If you like your doctor you can keep him. National debt is unpatriotic, we need to limit executive orders. I can't help but laugh also.

 

That's all 

 

You can make threads about those issues if you want.

 

Stay on the topic. The topic right now is Syria if you haven't noticed. Mentioning other topics is just deflecting. If you can't contribute to this topic, don't post.

Edited April 9, 2017 by bcking

[eieio 1,594]

44 minutes ago, bcking said:

Trump in 2013:

 

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."

 

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!"

 

"We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime."

 

At that time, Obama wanted to get involved. Civilians were dying. Children were dying. Yes for some reason they didn't move Trump or Republicans in any significant way then.

 

That is the definition of slow. It was a chemical attack, yes that is horrific. However children, mothers, innocent lives were being ended long before this. That's like saying it's okay to shoot someone in the head in cold blood, but poison them? That crosses a line. Murder is murder. He suddenly "decided" to grow a conscious? I don't think so.

You replied to that post 2 times.

 

Is there more you want to say?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, eieio said:

You replied to that post 2 times.

 

Is there more you want to say?

Is there anything you have to say? Since you seem to be avoiding the topic.

[eieio 1,594]

Just now, bcking said:

Is there anything you have to say? Since you seem to be avoiding the topic.

Yes. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, eieio said:

Yes. 

I'm "anxiously" waiting

[eieio 1,594]

It will have to wait a little bit. Another UFC fight is starting.

[OriZ 3,157]

36 minutes ago, bcking said:

So I guess every time Trump and the spineless lackies that follow him in congress suddenly change their mind now that it is politically convenient to support something should be just shrugged off as "Oh well we don't have the details"?

 

Bottomline the people who back him have changed their position so many times they are all contortionists. Watching them explain it makes them squirm. They all know that they have only changed positions for political reasons.

 

My second question I find more interesting. No matter what "classified" information Trump learned, I wonder why he changed his constitutional opinion on whether a President requires congressional approval. Seems like he was quite hard line on that when it suited him, and now he seems to have forgotten.

 

It is easy to let massive civilian deaths slide when you aren't the one in charge. It is easy to say "Focus on USA first!" and be so hard line about it. Not quite as easy when you are the "Leader of the Free World" and people look to you when massive civilian deaths occur from an atrocity that has been ongoing for years now. He is spineless. He was glad to be contrary and fight against it when he wasn't in office. As soon as he has the responsibility he now has some small inkling of what it actually means to be a leader. 

I was simply saying that is something to take into consideration, I didn't say it was an excuse for everything. I started my sentence with he does flip flop on many things. But again, what you can see from here you can't see from there. As far as the constitution goes, I guess it depends on who's interpreting what part of it. In my view, he did have the right to do it without a vote. It wasn't quite an act of war. Many presidents have done it before, and it would have taken too long to get it done any other way. Why did he flip flop on that too? Again, he could have just realized/learned that he does have the right to do it, or maybe he was just playing politics. Wouldn't be the first we both know that. 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I was simply saying that is something to take into consideration, I didn't say it was an excuse for everything. I started my sentence with he does flip flop on many things. But again, what you can see from here you can't see from there. As far as the constitution goes, I guess it depends on who's interpreting what part of it. In my view, he did have the right to do it without a vote. It wasn't quite an act of war. Many presidents have done it before, and it would have taken too long to get it done any other way. Why did he flip flop on that too? Again, he could have just realized/learned that he does have the right to do it, or maybe he was just playing politics. Wouldn't be the first we both know that. 

I can't excuse something by feigning "ignorance". Sorry.

 

He stated quite clearly 3 years ago that the President of the USA should have congressional approval to strike Syria. He has changed his mind. He will likely never own up to the fact that he has contradicted himself, but it is a very very clear contradiction. Instead he prefers to call out Obama by name about how he didn't do anything, when he was one of the vocal antagonizers against Obama doing anything. He asks as if only he has the guts to "take action", when in reality he was yelling even louder 3 years ago for the President not to do so. He is a hypocrite on this account. He actually quite literally meets the text book definition, unless he acknowledges that his opinion has changed (which he will never admit to).

Edited April 9, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

If you can't tell, I don't really care that we attacked Syria. I don't know if it was the right thing to do or not, because I agree with you we lack all the information. What I care about is our "President" acting like he has come to some amazing sudden conclusion that what Assad is doing is horrible and we can't stand aside. We have been standing aside for years now. He was an ADVOCATE for standing aside. He has clearly flipped, and will likely never acknowledge that. Instead in his same breath he blames his predecessor for doing something that at the time he supported. He might as well tweet "Why did President Obama listen to some idiot named Trump 3 years ago! Lame!"

 

EDIT:

 

I'm honestly waiting for Trump to at some point say "Nobody knew Syria was such a complicated situation"

Edited April 9, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

If you can't tell, I don't really care that we attacked Syria. I don't know if it was the right thing to do or not, because I agree with you we lack all the information. What I care about is our "President" acting like he has come to some amazing sudden conclusion that what Assad is doing is horrible and we can't stand aside. We have been standing aside for years now. He was an ADVOCATE for standing aside. He has clearly flipped, and will likely never acknowledge that. Instead in his same breath he blames his predecessor for doing something that at the time he supported. He might as well tweet "Why did President Obama listen to some idiot named Trump 3 years ago! Lame!"

lol I'll even do ya one better. I wouldn't be surprised to see him flip flop on this yet again. I'm not advocating for Trump, I'm just saying we all need to remember that sometimes their conclusions or decisions might change based on information they become exposed to that they weren't prior. I don't know if this is the case here nor did I say it was in my original post. I'm actually pretty ticked off about him flip flopping on something near and dear to me - I don't bring it up alot so to not sound like a broken record, but rest assured it has cost him alot of points with me.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

lol I'll even do ya one better. I wouldn't be surprised to see him flip flop on this yet again. I'm not advocating for Trump, I'm just saying we all need to remember that sometimes their conclusions or decisions might change based on information they become exposed to that they weren't prior. I don't know if this is the case here nor did I say it was in my original post. I'm actually pretty ticked off about him flip flopping on something near and dear to me - I don't bring it up alot so to not sound like a broken record, but rest assured it has cost him alot of points with me.

I am completely supportive of a President changing his mind about an issue because he has new information. However the way he has spoken about this attack DOES NOT reflect that at all.

 

He hasn't said that his decision to attack now is based on information he didn't have in the past. Instead he continues to reference "weakness" of the Obama administration, ignoring the fact that he supported that very weakness at the time. That, to me at least, is a pretty clear indication that his decision isn't based on "new intelligence" but just based on the political opportunity to be seen as a "hero" who "stands up" to an oppressor, when 3 years ago it was much easier and more popular for him to focus on "America first".

[OriZ 3,157]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

I am completely supportive of a President changing his mind about an issue because he has new information. However the way he has spoken about this attack DOES NOT reflect that at all.

 

He hasn't said that his decision to attack now is based on information he didn't have in the past. Instead he continues to reference "weakness" of the Obama administration, ignoring the fact that he supported that very weakness at the time. That, to me at least, is a pretty clear indication that his decision isn't based on "new intelligence" but just based on the political opportunity to be seen as a "hero" who "stands up" to an oppressor, when 3 years ago it was much easier and more popular for him to focus on "America first".

 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000005028789/trump-my-attitude-toward-syria-and-assad-has-changed.html

 

This is when I knew he was going to do something, just didn't know what exactly yet. To me while he didn't give specifics on what changed his mind, it does sound like he admits he changed his mind. And like I said I wouldn't be surprised if he changed it again, but I don't think it's fair to claim he has not admitted to changing his mind when we have it on video.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Trump is pond scum. The missile attack seems appropriate to me, but there is no denying Donald Trump is going against everything he previously said Obama should not do, that he himself wouldn't do, and did so without allowing Congress to approve it as he also insisted Obama had to do.

 

I certainly am not reconsidering voting for Trump if he runs in 2020, and not donating a penny to his campaign for it.