it's quite a task, but all the early signs point to him being capable of pulling it off.

"They're not strong enough to protect themselves, so we're going to protect them for them--by bombing the **** out of them."

Does this really make sense to you? Seriously?

Just listen to the interview where Trump is talking about his glorious chocolate cake. "We sent the missiles to Iraq" and the interviewer has to correct him, no it was Syria. We don't care about these people. Maybe Obama did, but 45* and his voters certainly do not. They could get behind bombing the **** out of Syria, Iraq, and any other country that doesn't have too many white people in it. They couldn't pick them out on a map or explain to you how it helps our long term strategic interests, but they'll support bombing the crap out of them because they're brown and that's how we deal with brown countries. Let's face up to that at least.

Yes, as long as you're correctly flexible about the use of the word "them".

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...eitbart-215026

Decent piece on how Bannon will not go quietly into the night if Trump gets rid of him.

Trump probably just keeps him around, throws him a bone every now and then rather than cut him loose in favor of the "NY wing" or whatever it's called.

Taxes due Tuesday. If I don't file will Trump release my pee tapes?

All of this plus...

...there is no indication that Trump has any idea what he is doing. He clearly doesn't understand the complexities and nuances of foreign policy/diplomacy (lol "diplomacy" with Trump). He's a button-masher. He thinks, "ISIS is bad, so I have to bomb them." His opinions change daily and not because he has studied or tried to learn about the multitudes of factors, history, and people involved in foreign issues, but because he saw something on TV or someone told him to do something because it would look good.

Someone probably told him to bomb Syria because it would look good, but he has no clue as to what the ramifications of the attack are. He has no idea how or why to get involved. A few days ago, someone posted a video of Obama explaining his thoughts on Syria. He understood why he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't and how his decisions either way could both help and cause more problems. He educated himself and used critical thinking to come up with informed opinions and decisions.

Trump does none of this. Whether or not one thinks that attacks on Syria and Afghanistan were the right thing to do, they were only done because Trump was playing President, not because he understood what he was actually doing.

Lol another einbert hot-take. Trump bombed Syria because they're brown.

Umm Ok.

Seriously has it been established exactly what is eating his face?

Nope, he bombed Syria because his daughter saw some coverage that hit her in the feels. Much better.

The ramifications are that Assad probably won't use chemical weapons against his own people again. That was the stated objective.

Obama's plan failed in that objective.

obama was simply following what trump told him in tweets

a) Try thinking beyond the very basics. Trump can't do this. Attempt to use some critical reasoning to look at what an attack might mean beyond just Assad himself.

b) lol if you and Trump think that the attack will definitely achieve the stated goal (and that this is the one and only goal)

It appears a bunch of NSA hacking tools just got dumped on the internet for everyone to use.

WAAF every computer hooked up to windows.

seems like they were for windows 7 and 8 i think?

The majority of conservatives in 2013 did not want Obama to attack Syria. Donald Trump in 2013 did not want Obama to attack Syria. Obama did not attack Syria, and in fact got Assad to turn over chemical weapons and not use sarin again for the rest of his term.

Now you're claiming that you #actually wanted Obama to attack Syria, unilaterally going around Congress denying him authorization to do so?

LOL Sushy

Best joke itt.

You realize you are addressing Sushy?

hey guys how about you keep quoting and replying to BS, he's clearly a sincere poster with legit, consistent political opinions and is definitely not trolling at all

It's fairly simple. They don't trust some black democrat dude to do it right. Now that there's an old rich white republican dude pulling the trigger they trust him to hit the target.

I see logic has once again appeared in the thread.

a) Okay. It might mean that lots of (brown) people won't get gassed again.

b) Hopefully it will. So far it has. Time will tell.

Correct.

Thankyou.

Assad continued to use chemical weapons (chlorine) and obviously didn't turn over all his supplies.

I read that the agreement Assad assented to didn't include chlorine, and if your standard for success is that you think Assad will not use even chlorine again, well, we'll see!