Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[sweepstakes]

well tbf ninety dollars isn't going to buy you a lot of destruction. that's like a flake of metal off one tube (toob).

lol

[chenGOD]

i don't think affairs and stuff are any of our business up until the point where the person having the affair has publicly attacked others in the past for doing the same. and especially when you're the head of the 'family values' party. i don't see how any god fearing christian could stand behind a man who is so obviously going to hell.

Obviously the affairs are simply a way to get into the meaty business of money laundering.

[chenGOD]

these strikes are motivated by a need for distraction more than anything else. bet.

Of course they are.

This motherfucker is probably authorizing more cause he thinks people will see him as a wartime president or some bullshit like that.

Thinking about innocent Syrians dying because of this fucking incompetent tool is the worst thing out of all this.

If there is a hell, Drumpf is headed straight for the 9th circle.

[auxien]

I've seen next to nothing to suggest that the Syria bombing has anything at all to do with Trump's current drama. If y'all have proof otherwise I'm all for seeing it.

[may be rude]

^

i think people are saying that because of the timing. yeah, it is speculative. however, republican senators are publicly telling trump not to fire mueller or rosenstein, sometimes with ominous overtones. republican congress people are telling mueller to make his report of the investigation public. paul ryan is resigning, along with fleets of other republican congress people, following years of frustration about trump. trump's long time personal lawyer had 3 of his locations raided - the kind of thing that doesn't just happen. that kind of thing is always a precursor to major developments. the fbi is closing in on him for money laundering, obstruction of justice, and collusion with russia. trump, who was in negotiations over talks with mueller, is now saying he will not talk with mueller. that may actually speed along what mueller is doing. comey put out his book, which undoubtedly is meant to prime the public for serious discourse, i.e., surrounding impeachment and removal votes.

 

i totally appreciate your point about the causation not being substantiated. if we set aside whether or not it is conclusively proven, i think we can appreciate that a person in trump's situation would go for an easy strike against a clear bad guy, as an attempt to shore up support among voters and congress people.

 

this should be considered seriously, as these things are unimaginably dangerous. world war 1 began because of a web of alliances and runaway consequences to rapidly escalating military decisions, beginning with something seemingly not very major.

Edited April 14, 2018 by very honest

[chenGOD]

I've seen next to nothing to suggest that the Syria bombing has anything at all to do with Trump's current drama. If y'all have proof otherwise I'm all for seeing it.

Trump has been in office for just over a year. He has had ample opportunity to address Assad through serious policy options, and has failed to take action.

While I’m never going to be able to prove it, the timing of these strikes, in concert with his tweets over said strikes, is highly suspicious.

Trump probably thinks “Wag the Dog” is a documentary.

[goDel]

I really have a hard time believing  the adults around him would support a potential war simply to influence the newscycle a bit. If they actually would have done such a thing, they'd hire lots of Mexicans jumping over the boarder, raping women. Instead of doing the impossible: war in Syria.

Edited April 14, 2018 by goDel

[chenGOD]

What adults around him? He has surrounded himself with toadying yesmen.

[goDel]

What adults around him? He has surrounded himself with toadying yesmen.

Mattis. Arguably Kelly as well.

 

Doubts about Bolton. He looks to me more like the barking dog type. Lots of barking. Less stupid actions. But Mattis and Kelly though. And essentially the entire top at Defense.

 

Again, influence the news cycle? Hire some Mexicans doing crazy stuff. Or have some fake news about Chinese tariffs.

[auxien]

^

i think people are saying that because of the timing. yeah, it is speculative. however, republican senators are publicly telling trump not to fire mueller or rosenstein, sometimes with ominous overtones. republican congress people are telling mueller to make his report of the investigation public. paul ryan is resigning, along with fleets of other republican congress people, following years of frustration about trump. trump's long time personal lawyer had 3 of his locations raided - the kind of thing that doesn't just happen. that kind of thing is always a precursor to major developments. the fbi is closing in on him for money laundering, obstruction of justice, and collusion with russia. trump, who was in negotiations over talks with mueller, is now saying he will not talk with mueller. that may actually speed along what mueller is doing. comey put out his book, which undoubtedly is meant to prime the public for serious discourse, i.e., surrounding impeachment and removal votes.

 

i totally appreciate your point about the causation not being substantiated. if we set aside whether or not it is conclusively proven, i think we can appreciate that a person in trump's situation would go for an easy strike against a clear bad guy, as an attempt to shore up support among voters and congress people.

 

this should be considered seriously, as these things are unimaginably dangerous. world war 1 began because of a web of alliances and runaway consequences to rapidly escalating military decisions, beginning with something seemingly not very major.

Thanks for being reasonable and (very) honest  about your view of it. I'm well aware of what all's going on and why he would want to distract from that, but I don't agree that it's the case, or really should even be considered as a thing...keep your eyes open, of course, I'm not saying that it's not possible ever, just that I've seen literally nothing that would suggest this. Specifically I don't even think that Trump's the kind of asshole who would risk setting off a war, killing civilians, etc., because it might help him on the news cycle for a week...He's a shitty person in a lot of ways, but he's not struck me as that type of shitty (could be wrong here, of course).

 

For one, he's not prone to doing distracting in the news cycles...I don't honestly think he's 'tactical' enough to do that sort of thing. His success is because he hits people in the face with things, be it things they want to hear or shit he totally just made up...but trying to distract from a scandal by cooking up some big international attack with May, Macron, etc.? Naw. That's just conspiracy theory area and I'm quite surprised to see really anyone here (ITT, other parts of the WATMM wildlands, well...) going in for that, even half-jokingly.

 

 

 

I've seen next to nothing to suggest that the Syria bombing has anything at all to do with Trump's current drama. If y'all have proof otherwise I'm all for seeing it.

Trump has been in office for just over a year. He has had ample opportunity to address Assad through serious policy options, and has failed to take action.

While I’m never going to be able to prove it, the timing of these strikes, in concert with his tweets over said strikes, is highly suspicious.

Trump probably thinks “Wag the Dog” is a documentary.

 

There's surely something curious about why this chemical attack has gained traction on the international news, but it has. On your point, Haley mentioned that Syria has used upwards of 50 chemical attacks, which I'd not heard but would assume is correct (her track record at her position hasn't suggested her to lie from the little I know)...which of course makes me wonder why the hell this one was latched on to by reporters/leaders/etc. Could be the mass amount of people killed/wounded, including children and so forth...I don't know. I get the chemical weapons thing, but at the end of the day it doesn't much matter if Assad is killing children with a bomb, sarin gas, a bullet, or a rock. He's killing children. But, I digress... Ultimately I think the US is certainly capable of coordinating attacks or whatever for nefarious and secret reasons, sure, but Trump? He's not fucking smart or reliable enough to go along with it if someone is holding his fucking hand. Much less spearheading some vast international conspiracy. That's a fucking laugh, y'all. If there's shady shit happening, it's despite Trump, not because of him.

 

also what goDel said

Edited April 14, 2018 by auxien

[ignatius]

if trump cared about human rights.. or people at all.. he'd let syrian refugees into america

 

I've seen next to nothing to suggest that the Syria bombing has anything at all to do with Trump's current drama. If y'all have proof otherwise I'm all for seeing it.

Trump has been in office for just over a year. He has had ample opportunity to address Assad through serious policy options, and has failed to take action.
While I’m never going to be able to prove it, the timing of these strikes, in concert with his tweets over said strikes, is highly suspicious.
Trump probably thinks “Wag the Dog” is a documentary.

 

 

 

'trump' and 'serious policy options' are in two totally different universes

lolll

 

[Hugh Mughnus]

lol

[may be rude]

 

What adults around him? He has surrounded himself with toadying yesmen.

Mattis. Arguably Kelly as well.

 

 

Just so you know, Mattis was against it.

[may be rude]

 

^

i think people are saying that because of the timing. yeah, it is speculative. however, republican senators are publicly telling trump not to fire mueller or rosenstein, sometimes with ominous overtones. republican congress people are telling mueller to make his report of the investigation public. paul ryan is resigning, along with fleets of other republican congress people, following years of frustration about trump. trump's long time personal lawyer had 3 of his locations raided - the kind of thing that doesn't just happen. that kind of thing is always a precursor to major developments. the fbi is closing in on him for money laundering, obstruction of justice, and collusion with russia. trump, who was in negotiations over talks with mueller, is now saying he will not talk with mueller. that may actually speed along what mueller is doing. comey put out his book, which undoubtedly is meant to prime the public for serious discourse, i.e., surrounding impeachment and removal votes.

 

i totally appreciate your point about the causation not being substantiated. if we set aside whether or not it is conclusively proven, i think we can appreciate that a person in trump's situation would go for an easy strike against a clear bad guy, as an attempt to shore up support among voters and congress people.

 

this should be considered seriously, as these things are unimaginably dangerous. world war 1 began because of a web of alliances and runaway consequences to rapidly escalating military decisions, beginning with something seemingly not very major.

Thanks for being reasonable and (very) honest  about your view of it. I'm well aware of what all's going on and why he would want to distract from that, but I don't agree that it's the case, or really should even be considered as a thing...keep your eyes open, of course, I'm not saying that it's not possible ever, just that I've seen literally nothing that would suggest this. Specifically I don't even think that Trump's the kind of asshole who would risk setting off a war, killing civilians, etc., because it might help him on the news cycle for a week...He's a shitty person in a lot of ways, but he's not struck me as that type of shitty (could be wrong here, of course).

 

For one, he's not prone to doing distracting in the news cycles...I don't honestly think he's 'tactical' enough to do that sort of thing. His success is because he hits people in the face with things, be it things they want to hear or shit he totally just made up...but trying to distract from a scandal by cooking up some big international attack with May, Macron, etc.? Naw. That's just conspiracy theory area and I'm quite surprised to see really anyone here (ITT, other parts of the WATMM wildlands, well...) going in for that, even half-jokingly.

 

 

I didn't mean Trump may have been motivated to do the strike to displace news headlines, exactly. I meant that the military action may have looked appealing to him because it would draw out support for him from congress and Americans at a time when the added support may make a big difference in what his future looks like.

Edited April 14, 2018 by very honest

[Tricone RC]

Surgical strike was the least worst option. At least it *might* deter the dentist-despot from massacring civilians in quite a blase fashion. Ground action would almost definitely end up with mission creep and thus a protracted bloodbath. And probably some diplomatically-inconvenient dead Russians too. But doing nothing was barely an option. Despite all the other middle east shit shows I do think Western states possess a tiny, miniscule shred of moral justification for things like this. And the UN is of the opinion that chemical weapons were used too. This isn't like Iraq where it was all made-up crap

 

 

Honestly, I think Trump is handling middle east conflicts better than Obama did.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Tricone RC

[joshuatxuk]

well tbf ninety dollars isn't going to buy you a lot of destruction. that's like a flake of metal off one tube (toob).

 

lol oops forgot the "mil" 

[joshuatxuk]

Honestly, I think Trump is handling middle east conflicts better than Obama did.

 

It's barely different in action - Obama preferred drone strikes worldwide, Trump executes curiously timed airstrikes in Syria.

 

The difference is Obama didn't talk out of his ass the entire time on twitter nor try to green-light even more unlimited defense spending. We went from a POTUS who was well-versed in worldwide conflicts with a mostly hands off approach to a man trying to meddle in things he doesn't understand let alone care about long-term consequences of. The decisions he makes are flippant, and overall inconsistent middle eastern policies that literally go hand-in-hand with his and his inner circles personal economic interests.

Edited April 14, 2018 by joshuatx

[auxien]

(quote wall edited for length and to allow illegals to invade this thread)

 

I didn't mean Trump may have been motivated to do the strike to displace news headlines, exactly. I meant that the military action may have looked appealing to him because it would draw out support for him from congress and Americans at a time when the added support may make a big difference in what his future looks like.

Okay, upon rereading I'm seeing that better, my mistake for not catching it. I would agree with that in general for sure, he touts the military worship as much as (or perhaps more than) any of the pandering Republican politicians. And that definitely does influence his specific decisions, he's certainly been one to talk a big (if very vague/stupid) game.

 

 

Also, ^^joshuatx^^ speaking the truth there too.

Edited April 15, 2018 by auxien

[Tricone RC]

 

It's barely different in action - Obama preferred drone strikes worldwide, Trump executes curiously timed airstrikes in Syria.

The difference is Obama didn't talk out of his ass the entire time on twitter nor try to green-light even more unlimited defense spending. We went from a POTUS who was well-versed in worldwide conflicts with a mostly hands off approach to a man trying to meddle in things he doesn't understand let alone care about long-term consequences of. The decisions he makes are flippant, and overall inconsistent middle eastern policies that literally go hand-in-hand with his and his inner circles personal economic interests.

 

 

IMO Obama got sucked into a few too many interventions, many of which had too much mission creep. Well-intentioned, of course, but I remain to be convinced that they actually helped the region. Libya is fucked, partly thanks to Obama and Sarko. Syria is the most complex clusterfuck since the Yugoslav collapse, and Barry decided to wade in and arm a nebulous group of basically-unknowns. Whereas, for his many blindingly obvious faults elsewhere, Trump has, on the whole, stuck to undertaking very targeted strikes with very specific and narrow aims. To me that's the least worst approach. Best would be for properly supported UN peacekeeping forces to roll in en masse; unfortunately that's not really on the cards these days

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

It's barely different in action - Obama preferred drone strikes worldwide, Trump executes curiously timed airstrikes in Syria.

The difference is Obama didn't talk out of his ass the entire time on twitter nor try to green-light even more unlimited defense spending. We went from a POTUS who was well-versed in worldwide conflicts with a mostly hands off approach to a man trying to meddle in things he doesn't understand let alone care about long-term consequences of. The decisions he makes are flippant, and overall inconsistent middle eastern policies that literally go hand-in-hand with his and his inner circles personal economic interests.

 

IMO Obama got sucked into a few too many interventions, many of which had too much mission creep. Well-intentioned, of course, but I remain to be convinced that they actually helped the region. Libya is fucked, partly thanks to Obama and Sarko. Syria is the most complex clusterfuck since the Yugoslav collapse, and Barry decided to wade in and arm a nebulous group of basically-unknowns. Whereas, for his many blindingly obvious faults elsewhere, Trump has, on the whole, stuck to undertaking very targeted strikes with very specific and narrow aims. To me that's the least worst approach. Best would be for properly supported UN peacekeeping forces to roll in en masse; unfortunately that's not really on the cards these days

True, Libya was pretty fucked, realpolitik 101. Still 3 governments fighting each other now IIRC. It was like a mini Iraq invasion but EU lead and no ground war. Quite surreal.

 

I see your point about the Trump admin being more pragmatic and nonintervetionist in appearence but the kicker is he and his base are very anti-UN and have even fewer moral guidelines than neocons, who at least had this naive nation building ethos. They just want retribution and to flex might recklessly. Instead of speaking softly and waving a big stick its now speaking loudly and waving a limp dick...(with small hands)

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[ambermonk]

Not to mention driving a golf cart on the green and farting everywhere

[ignatius]

middle east meddling or not meddling is the tough call of our lifetimes for the western world.  if we'd not meddled then it'd be easier to not meddle now. 

 

i think obama tried really hard in some ways to hope things would be better by doing nothing but he was deep in Afghanistan trying to fix what was left to him and i think it's a fools errand to go there though the school children and the women's rights etc make it seem otherwise. can't see many people fit for that job of making those decisions. 

 

after reading enough chomsky and seeing enough adam curtis documentaries and frontline and reading other books etc.. wtf. a mess. always a mess. why meddle? we always do it wrong because we don't understand that place or those people. cultures etc.. or maybe they didn't try even. enough to get it close. even. idk.  i'm drunk on the internet because coping w/pain is dumb. 

Edited April 15, 2018 by ignatius

[goDel]

remember obama? the time when the us still had some kind of diplomacy? those were the days. nowadays, a lack of diplomacy seems to have been upgraded to "non-interventionist". which is kinda ironic. when obama was confronted with gas attacks in syria (and had that invisible red line), he went for diplomatic options. in trumps case, tomahawks. not saying tomahawks are bad or god, or anything, but non-interventionist? why? and more pragmatic? does that mean he's acting without a plan or something? not sure how that's going to work out.

 

it may appear to be non-intervnetionist, for whatever reason - i really don't know why - , but with shrinking diplomatic abilities, things will be able to escalate sooner rather than later.

 

good luck there in the us. doing non-interventionist us politics in a 19th century kind of way.

[ignatius]

yeah.. i don't even think it was declared policy as non interventionist. i think there was hesitation to enter into conflict because there were 2 already.. which is weird because they killed a shit ton of people w/drones/  how is that non interventionist? is it because the people flying the drones are far as fuck away? 

 

it's mind fuck. i don't know how they split decisions but i guess it's what they do. one behavior for this geography and another one for this other geography. 

 

in america i think there's a collective dream that the middle east would go away but it seems impossible to be ignored. the world is twin peaks. 

[Sally Vingoe]

I think trump will do whatever he thinks will get the military on his side - he gives the pentagon cart blanche to do whatever they want in existing conflicts, gives them a huge military budget, and is constantly talking them up on twitter

 

the conspiratorial part of my brain wonders if he thinks he might be able to stage a military backed coup if he gets impeached or something