Trump has ordered strikes against Syria

BCC said:
 I believe if either party had offered some one else s/he would have won. 

Well, duh. 

dave23 said:

BCC said:

Before you get riled up you really should read what I write.

 I do. In this thread you just said it was joined and supported, then commented on Schumer's support, then moved on to attacking people because you think they oppose Trump just because he's Trump. So I will take it that you support the airstrike. Do you support his overall Syria strategy?

 You do, and you ask me to  share what I support, when I just did?

He indicated he would like to get out of the Middle East and leave it to the locals. There is a great deal of push back on that by people he trusts and it remains to be seen where he will come down on that, at which point I will decide whether to support him or not.

Hillary is way above that cretin in terms of honesty and trust.

mem, BCC is a big BUT THE EMAILS!! guy.

Crime of the Century he tells ya!!

bcc said:
"The Dems most surely picked a candidate as odious as Trump and the polls consistently showed it. That's why I didn't vote for President. I believe if either party had offered some one else s/he would have won."

mem said:
But Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, so that statement is wrong. Hillary may have a lot of baggage, but she is certainly not "odious", unless you fell for the fake Russian news, i.e., pizzagate, the emails!, or Benghazi. Ugh. 

as in the discussion of torture, the discussion of Trump vs Hillary is nonsensical, and merely infers credence on a side that is utterly, in any sense , devoid of any morality, political or otherwise.

Some things are not open to question.

Unless there are emails involved of course.

mem said:
Hillary is way above that cretin in terms of honesty and trust.

Politifact had her rated as the most truthful of any of the candidates in 2016.  Her percentage of truthful statements was even higher than Obama's.  

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

Before you get riled up you really should read what I write.

 I do. In this thread you just said it was joined and supported, then commented on Schumer's support, then moved on to attacking people because you think they oppose Trump just because he's Trump. So I will take it that you support the airstrike. Do you support his overall Syria strategy?

 You do, and you ask me to  share what I support, when I just did? He indicated he would like to get out of the Middle East and leave it to the locals. There is a great deal of push back on that by people he trusts and it remains to be seen where he will come down on that, at which point I will decide whether to support him or not.

That's not a strategy, but ok. Yes, I think we ought to get out, as do many here. Is bombing Syria a step toward that? No.

Does he have a plausible strategy? Not that I know of and I'm not confident in his ability to craft one.

And I strenuously disagree with his policy of blocking Syrian refugees from coming to the US. 

So you agree with Trump's Middle East policy. Any others?

DannyArcher said:

Of 4 leaders - Trump, Putin, Modi and Xi Jinping, only Modi and Xi Jinping has plans for their countries ....

 Be careful who you hold up as aspirational models.   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

I just think that Modi and Xi Jinping actually have forward-looking visions for their countries unlike Putin who wants to resurrect the Soviet Union and Trump who wants Happy Days.  I am not endorsing their character.

dave23 said:

BCC said:

dave23 said:

BCC said:

Before you get riled up you really should read what I write.

 I do. In this thread you just said it was joined and supported, then commented on Schumer's support, then moved on to attacking people because you think they oppose Trump just because he's Trump. So I will take it that you support the airstrike. Do you support his overall Syria strategy?

 You do, and you ask me to  share what I support, when I just did? He indicated he would like to get out of the Middle East and leave it to the locals. There is a great deal of push back on that by people he trusts and it remains to be seen where he will come down on that, at which point I will decide whether to support him or not.

 That's not a strategy, but ok. Yes, I think we ought to get out, as do many here. Is bombing Syria a step toward that? No. Does he have a plausible strategy? Not that I know of and I'm not confident in his ability to craft one. And I strenuously disagree with his policy of blocking Syrian refugees from coming to the US.  So you agree with Trump's Middle East policy. Any others?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say I agreed with his Md-East policy. You seem to be having a reading problem. Read it again.

 And let us turn this around. Is there any Trump policy you and the others agree with? Do you agree with his policy towards NOKO and his attempt to settle that problem with out a war? I have yet to see anyone from the echo chamber come out and say so.

BCC said:

 Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say I agreed with his Md-East policy. You seem to be having a reading problem. Read it again.  And let us turn this around. Is there any Trump policy you and the others agree with? Do you agree with his policy towards NOKO and his attempt to settle that problem with out a war? I have yet to see anyone from the echo chamber come out and say so.

Okay, so you don't agree with his Middle East policy? You just decided to attack people who *also* don't agree with it for no reason, referring to mirrors, Schumer and whatnot? Odd habit, but okay.

I have no problem answering your question, even if I am repeating myself: Settling the North Korea challenge "without war" is not a policy. It's a goal, perhaps, and one that 99.999% of the population agrees with. For what it's worth, I'm fine with him meeting with Kim Jong Un. I also think that John Bolton is exactly the wrong choice to avoid war.

So extend the same courtesy and answer this, clearly and directly, even if you feel you've already made yourself clear: What policies of Trump's do you agree with?

 I remembered that other thing that Trump said that I agreed with. Not that he's done anything about it or ever mentioned it again, but he once said that he though our elections should have a paper trail. I wholeheartedly agree.

ml1 said:
if Trump ends up joining TPP, and it addresses some of the issues with China and IP, I'd approve of that. 

 aaaaaannnnddd....Trump has now reversed himself on TPP again.  At this point, only a dope would be in support of anything Trump says or tweets.  I also love that the Times used the word "apparent" in its headline, since they know that any words that come Trump are worthless.

Trump, in Another Apparent Reversal, Says Trans-Pacific Trade Pact Has ‘Too Many Contingencies’

I don't know if Trump can manage multi-variate thinking.  Therefore, he can't possibly understand that the point of the TPP is to give the member countries bargaining power versus China as opposed to giving us immediately advantages over the other countries who have joined the TPP.

dave23 said:

BCC said:

 Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say I agreed with his Md-East policy. You seem to be having a reading problem. Read it again.  And let us turn this around. Is there any Trump policy you and the others agree with? Do you agree with his policy towards NOKO and his attempt to settle that problem with out a war? I have yet to see anyone from the echo chamber come out and say so.

Okay, so you don't agree with his Middle East policy? You just decided to attack people who *also* don't agree with it for no reason, referring to mirrors, Schumer and whatnot? Odd habit, but okay.
I have no problem answering your question, even if I am repeating myself: Settling the North Korea challenge "without war" is not a policy. It's a goal, perhaps, and one that 99.999% of the population agrees with. For what it's worth, I'm fine with him meeting with Kim Jong Un. I also think that John Bolton is exactly the wrong choice to avoid war.
So extend the same courtesy and answer this, clearly and directly, even if you feel you've already made yourself clear: What policies of Trump's do you agree with?

Policy is how you go about achieving a goal and you still have that reading problem..

I did not say I don't agree with Trump's Mid-East policy, I said:

'He indicated he would like to get out of the Middle East and leave it to the locals. There is a great deal of push back on that by people he trusts and it remains to be seen where he will come down on that, at which point I will decide whether to support him or not.'

Pompeo meets with Kim to work out details for meeting withTrump.

Trump maintains sanctions based on previous NOKO performance yet Kim agrees to Trump's demand to discuss 'denuclearization'.

SOKO and NOKO will sit down to talk and reports say that, after 65years, it will include coming to an agreement on signing a peace treaty and I would hope,  unification.

We don't know how it will turn out and there remains a great deal to do but things are moving in the right direction. You would never know it by listening to the Mirror Image.

Reasonable people don't expect Kim Jong-un to commit political suicide by opening North Korea to the light of day.  I see no scenarios under which there will be a timetable for reunification or, absent major U.S. concessions, complete and verifiable denuclearization.  

It has nothing to do with any Mirror Image, BCC.  Maybe that is just your way of dismissing inconvenient truths.

BCC said:

 
Policy is how you go about achieving a goal and you still have that reading problem..


I did not say I don't agree with Trump's Mid-East policy, I said:


'He indicated he would like to get out of the Middle East and leave it to the locals. There is a great deal of push back on that by people he trusts and it remains to be seen where he will come down on that, at which point I will decide whether to support him or not.'

You are correct in your definition of policy, and Trump's stated goal still needs a policy, as you suggest.

Your ongoing personal insults aside,I've been forthcoming about the (few) areas that I agree with Trump's stated goals. Do you have any?

.

tjohn said:
Reasonable people don't expect Kim Jong-un to commit political suicide by opening North Korea to the light of day.  I see no scenarios under which there will be a timetable for reunification or, absent major U.S. concessions, complete and verifiable denuclearization.  


It has nothing to do with any Mirror Image, BCC.  Maybe that is just your way of dismissing inconvenient truths.

relations between North Korea and South Korea have been thawing over the past year or so without U.S. involvement.  Americans like to think we drive everything that goes on in the world, even when we don't.

tjohn said:
Reasonable people don't expect Kim Jong-un to commit political suicide by opening North Korea to the light of day.  I see no scenarios under which there will be a timetable for reunification or, absent major U.S. concessions, complete and verifiable denuclearization.  


It has nothing to do with any Mirror Image, BCC.  Maybe that is just your way of dismissing inconvenient truths.

 Things don't become true because you say so. This is what I said:

'We don't know how it will turn out and there remains a great deal to do but things are moving in the right direction. You would never know it by listening to the Mirror Image.'

And thank you for validating

'You would never know it by listening to the Mirror Image.'

BCC said:

tjohn said:
Reasonable people don't expect Kim Jong-un to commit political suicide by opening North Korea to the light of day.  I see no scenarios under which there will be a timetable for reunification or, absent major U.S. concessions, complete and verifiable denuclearization.  

It has nothing to do with any Mirror Image, BCC.  Maybe that is just your way of dismissing inconvenient truths.

 Things don't become true because you say so. This is what I said:
'We don't know how it will turn out and there remains a great deal to do but things are moving in the right direction. You would never know it by listening to the Mirror Image.'

And thank you for validating

'You would never know it by listening to the Mirror Image.'

 I know two things:

1.  North Korea is a tough negotiator and not afraid to stand up to the U.S.

2.  Trump will accept smoke and mirrors if he can crow about how great he is.

So, yes, talking is better than fighting, but this either ends up with Trump getting a wedgie or nothing.

It is good that there is a peace vibe in the air though that's all it is right now.  It's a tough situation, NK is tough and notoriously fickle, so I wouldn't get too excited but I stand by ready to give credit should some long term verifiable progress be made.

To the extent Trump is not getting enough credit for this tentative peace vibe, isn't his impulsiveness and day to day flip flopping about all things partly to blame?  Nobody takes him too seriously.  He really doesn't do "policy" so with him, you have to be especially cautious and wait and see if something really happens.

Given his 100% devotion to appearance and ego, vs. actual achievement, we also have to be wary of him claiming victory over things that are mere window dressing.  

The President's "compliance" with the War Powers Resolution: https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri...

It contains the following as legal justification:

"I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and in the vital national security and foreign policy interests of the United States to promote the stability of the region, to deter the use and proliferation of chemical weapons, and to avert a worsening of the region’s current humanitarian catastrophe.  The United States will take additional action, as necessary and appropriate, to further its important national interests."

There's no evidence of Trump promoting stability, actually deterring use of chemical weapons, or addressing the "region's current humanitarian catastrophe".  The "justification" highlights that his action violated legal and constitutional requirements.

nohero said:
The President's "compliance" with the War Powers Resolution: https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri...


It contains the following as legal justification:

"I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and in the vital national security and foreign policy interests of the United States to promote the stability of the region, to deter the use and proliferation of chemical weapons, and to avert a worsening of the region’s current humanitarian catastrophe.  The United States will take additional action, as necessary and appropriate, to further its important national interests."

There's no evidence of Trump promoting stability, actually deterring use of chemical weapons, or addressing the "region's current humanitarian catastrophe".  The "justification" highlights that his action violated legal and constitutional requirements.

I think most of the blame resides with Congress, who have been loathe to authorize military action while also urging recent presidents to act. They don't want to put their necks on the line, but want to be able to blame the president when things don't go well and accept credit when they do.

dave23 said:

nohero said:
The President's "compliance" with the War Powers Resolution: https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri...

It contains the following as legal justification:

"I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and in the vital national security and foreign policy interests of the United States to promote the stability of the region, to deter the use and proliferation of chemical weapons, and to avert a worsening of the region’s current humanitarian catastrophe.  The United States will take additional action, as necessary and appropriate, to further its important national interests."

There's no evidence of Trump promoting stability, actually deterring use of chemical weapons, or addressing the "region's current humanitarian catastrophe".  The "justification" highlights that his action violated legal and constitutional requirements.

I think most of the blame resides with Congress, who have been loathe to authorize military action while also urging recent presidents to act. They don't want to put their necks on the line, but want to be able to blame the president when things don't go well and accept credit when they do.

 I'll concede that.  I'll reply that its zero justification or excuse for Trump acting without it in this instance.

nohero said:
 I'll concede that.  I'll reply that its zero justification or excuse for Trump acting without it in this instance.

 Especially since the Trump refuses to put any pressure on Russia.

LOST said:
I agreed with Trump's position on Syria but then he changed it.
I agreed to an extent with Trump's position on DACA but then he changed it.
I agreed to an extent with Trump's position on guns but then he changed it.

 BCC, The foregoing was just two posts above one of yours. 

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

 When I asked for someone who supported Trump on a major issue there was no response. The mirror image is intact.

 Not true. I responded. How can one support Trump on a major issue if he is constantly changing his position? If I am wrong tell me a major issue on which you support Trump?

 
Kindly give me a link to your response

 See below

LOST said:

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

 When I asked for someone who supported Trump on a major issue there was no response. The mirror image is intact.

 Not true. I responded. How can one support Trump on a major issue if he is constantly changing his position? If I am wrong tell me a major issue on which you support Trump?

 
Kindly give me a link to your response

 See below

 The foregoing was just two posts above one of yours.

LOST said:

LOST said:
I agreed with Trump's position on Syria but then he changed it.
I agreed to an extent with Trump's position on DACA but then he changed it.
I agreed to an extent with Trump's position on guns but then he changed it.

   

This is the problem with discussing whether one agrees or disagrees with a Trump policy. Even his chosen ambassador to the UN has that problem.

BCC said:

tjohn said:
Reasonable people don't expect Kim Jong-un to commit political suicide by opening North Korea to the light of day.  I see no scenarios under which there will be a timetable for reunification or, absent major U.S. concessions, complete and verifiable denuclearization.  


It has nothing to do with any Mirror Image, BCC.  Maybe that is just your way of dismissing inconvenient truths.

 Things don't become true because you say so. This is what I said:
'We don't know how it will turn out and there remains a great deal to do but things are moving in the right direction. You would never know it by listening to the Mirror Image.'


'

 The problem with things moving in the right direction with Trump is that it is never a straight line.