Toups

The Politics Thread

14,523 posts in this topic

I'm horrified that we are on the edge of taking military action in Syria under a president who doesn't know what he's doing. What a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBS just cut in. I was in another room, but I think it said under orders from a**hole, missiles HAVE BEEN fired?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

Judging from the response on Twitter, his insane fan base is angry with him over this.

Then for once I agree with them. Not that I'm angry, I'm just deeply, deeply skeptical.  Days ago he said he said he wasn't interested in regime change. Many people have said that signaled to Assad that he had impunity and led to the recent chemical attack on civilians. Now he decides that killing under 100 people is the straw that broke the camels back, but the 400,000 Assad killed over the last few years wasn't? I find the lack of a coherent, logical position very concerning.

 

Now if this strike actually is very limited and does some good great. I'll be the first to say the right thing was done. Still conventional wisdom seems to be that getting rid of Saddam was a mistake and he was every bit as brutal as Assad when it comes to using chemical weapons.  I'm just not sure Trump took the time needed to thing through the unintended consequences here. Time will tell.  I'm be a lot more willing to support this if I had a shred of confidence in the man in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shït is just going to get worse until he is removed. He does not think beyond the moment.

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

Then for once I agree with them. Not that I'm angry, I'm just deeply, deeply skeptical.  Days ago he said he said he wasn't interested in regime change. Many people have said that signaled to Assad that he had impunity and led to the recent chemical attack on civilians. Now he decides that killing under 100 people is the straw that broke the camels back, but the 400,000 Assad killed over the last few years wasn't? I find the lack of a coherent, logical position very concerning.

 

Now if this strike actually is very limited and does some good great. I'll be the first to say the right thing was done. Still conventional wisdom seems to be that getting rid of Saddam was a mistake and he was every bit as brutal as Assad when it comes to using chemical weapons.  I'm just not sure Trump took the time needed to thing through the unintended consequences here. Time will tell.  I'm be a lot more willing to support this if I had a shred of confidence in the man in charge.

 

Considering the fact that dead bodies are still being counted from his raid in Yemen, he doesn't have a very good track record so far.

 

Also, isn't there supposed to be some type of Congressional approval to launch missiles? This isn't a raid (which doesn't require Congress, I believe) but launching missiles is altogether different, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vee said:

This shït is just going to get worse until he is removed. He does not think beyond the moment.

No kidding. The bastard going on about the "beautiful babies" being killed in the chemical weapons attack are the very people he won't let in our country.  This is the caliber of the mind potentially leading us into a proxy war with Iran and Russia.

Just now, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Considering the fact that dead bodies are still being counted from his raid in Yemen, he doesn't have a very good track record so far.

 

Also, isn't there supposed to be some type of Congressional approval to launch missiles? This isn't a raid (which doesn't require Congress, I believe) but launching missiles is altogether different, isn't it?

I'm not sure. There having been some experts saying that he had prior authorization for some reason. The details were lost on me, but I'm sure we'll be hearing more on that over the next few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Trump is speaking to reporters but it can't be broadcast live because Mar-a-Lago isn't set up for a live broadcast??!!  WTF. I'm so skeptical right now, it's coming across as if he planned it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't plan any of this. He's just an idiot. He switched policy on Syria overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vee said:

He didn't plan any of this. He's just an idiot. He switched policy on Syria overnight.

 

I don't mean plan as in long term plan. I mean plan as in "I'm in Mar-a-Lago and I can strike tonight and not be expected to speak on it right away".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an anti-Trump conservative whose is appalled by the direction the GOP has taken. I deeply opposed the Obama presidency and I can't stand the Clintons, and truly feel like a political orphan at the moment (especially as the Democrats have drifted further and further to the left). This past November, I wrote in John Kasich's name as a protest vote.

 

I used to post here quite often, but I took a long break from this forum because I felt that there were some people who were very rude to me simply because I held differing political views than just about everyone else here. (What was particularly hurtful was that one poster said I opposed President Obama because of his skin color. But in fairness, some other folks--who are very liberal--always treated me very nicely.) While I don't miss the political arguments that we used to have, I really did miss the insightful soap opera discussions that are a hallmark of Soap Opera Network.

 

I personally think that the country is long overdue for a viable third party that consists of people who are tired of being ostracized as "RINOs" or "Corporate Democrats" by the extremists who have come to dominate both parties. However, I have serious doubts about a viable third party ever developing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

I don't mean plan as in long term plan. I mean plan as in "I'm in Mar-a-Lago and I can strike tonight and not be expected to speak on it right away".

 

I really don't think he thought that far, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Vee said:

 

I really don't think he thought that far, either.

 

Welp. Either way, it's not a good feeling. at all.

Especially seeing as Trump appears to be calling for his own version of a "coalition of the willing".

Edited by DramatistDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/327738-pentagon-us-strike-in-syria-a-proportional-response

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member