Mexal Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Him bombing the shit out of ISIS and avenging dead gassed kids? Come on, man. That might not make him popular with you, but his base will eat that like an apple fritter. This government hasn't done a ton of major things yet, but they've still managed to get Gorsuch and kill the filibuster, they've managed to repeal a whole host of Obama-era regulations, they've managed to strip the EPA of a ton of protections. The House is kind of dysfunctional on certain things - but don't expect that to last. Especially don't expect that to last on horrible tax reform and deficit spending. They'll still fail quite a bit on things that aren't in their ideological boathouse, but going to war to kill Muslims? Hell, McCain wants that right now. Cutting benefits for minorities? It'll be shocking how fast they sign that into law. We'll see. Congressional republicans are doing the same thing they did in 2013 and said Trump must come to them. We'll see if he does or if he does it unilaterally. Either way, entering yet another war and trying another regime change, while pissing off the Russians in the process is not going to end well. Yea, they can do things like that you suggested but they are incapable of passing major legislation and they increasingly look terrible in more or less everything they do. And this isn't going to get easier. Syria, North Korea and the FBI investigation plus not staffing 3/4s the leadership positions will lead to continuing issues. I think it's going to get worse then it already is and it's already bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Lord of Rhinos said: Maybe read that statement about unpopularity again? And wars are not some blanket category that makes the president popular. If they were George H. Bush would have gotten a second term. If you think a war in Syrian is a popular position among the right you should probably read some Trump supporting sites. The hardcore Trump supporters completely despise the idea of going to war in Syria. Unpopularity doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as we thought. At least on the Republican side. Again, he got basically the exact same amount of votes that McCain and Romney did. Wars aren't something that make someone more or less popular necessarily, but in general the public is loathe to switch presidents in the middle of the war. So yeah, GHWB had a recession and had a war that finished; GWB was in the middle of two wars and his popularity rose for a bit. There are certainly some Trump supporters that don't want to go to war, but that was before chemical weapons. And my central thesis is that as long as Trump says it is good, they'll go along with it. Just now, Mexal said: We'll see. Congressional republicans are doing the same thing they did in 2013 and said Trump must come to them. We'll see if he does or if he does it unilaterally. Either way, entering yet another war and trying another regime change, while pissing off the Russians in the process is not going to end well. I suspect that Mattis and McMaster and McCain will be cool with it, so that'll assuage those republicans who are worried Trump is over his head. Just now, Mexal said: Yea, they can do things like that you suggested but they are incapable of passing major legislation and they increasingly look terrible in more or less everything they do. And this isn't going to get easier. Syria, North Korea and the FBI investigation plus not staffing 3/4s the leadership positions will lead to continuing issues. I think it's going to get worse then it already is and it's already bad. They're incapable of passing an ACA killer, at least right now. They're more than capable of passing all sorts of other legislation (and have done so). And tax reform might be harder, but it's much easier to get it through the House and Senate and get majorities of Republicans backing it because they are going to be fucking rich afterwards. As to North Korea, that's a real pickle for me, I do confess. I don't know whether or not a war that kills millions and devastates the global economy will make him more or less popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Unpopularity doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as we thought. At least on the Republican side. Again, he got basically the exact same amount of votes that McCain and Romney did. Wars aren't something that make someone more or less popular necessarily, but in general the public is loathe to switch presidents in the middle of the war. So yeah, GHWB had a recession and had a war that finished; GWB was in the middle of two wars and his popularity rose for a bit. There are certainly some Trump supporters that don't want to go to war, but that was before chemical weapons. And my central thesis is that as long as Trump says it is good, they'll go along with it. As to North Korea, that's a real pickle for me, I do confess. I don't know whether or not a war that kills millions and devastates the global economy will make him more or less popular. Of course, popularity matters. I see no solid proof that the public is loathe to switch presidents during a time of war. When I said Trump supporters are against going into Syria I meant post-chemical attack. Go read the comments to this Breitbart article: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/06/tillerson-steps-way-remove-assad-power-syria/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said: Of course, popularity matters. I see no solid proof that the public is loathe to switch presidents during a time of war. GWB in 2004 is one example, where people were worried about switching. Quote When I said Trump supporters are against going into Syria I meant post-chemical attack. Go read the comments to this Breitbart article: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/06/tillerson-steps-way-remove-assad-power-syria/. I'm sure some on the Breitbart side are, the same way that I'm sure Bannon is against it too. But that isn't his base, and he knows it. His base are the ones that cheered and supported him when he talked about killing the families of terrorists, and supported Cruz when he wanted to bomb them back to the stone age. This set of people - the nationalists who want to step away from everything - have never been Trump's biggest supporters. ETA: HOLY SHIT THOSE COMMENTS Basically as far as I can tell you're right - because they believe that the Rothschilds are in control of everything, that the World Bank is in control, and Syria is at least outside of that influence and HOLY FUCK MY EYES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said: Of course, popularity matters. I see no solid proof that the public is loathe to switch presidents during a time of war. When I said Trump supporters are against going into Syria I meant post-chemical attack. Go read the comments to this Breitbart article: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/06/tillerson-steps-way-remove-assad-power-syria/. It's a bit of a red herring considering that the U.S. is pretty perpetually at war and has been since Hoover. But there is little...ie no...exception to the phenomenon of a popularity surge as a war begins. Unpopularity can kick in if it goes on long enough or is less successful, but other than that...the example cited is actually perfect; the highest approval rating any President has ever had was George H. Bush's 89% during the Gulf War. After the war was over, his popularity became more tied to the economy and taxes, but during the war he got almost universal support in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 also; the base?! Lol, look at all these liberals coming out with the "I don't support trump but something must be done in Syria" takes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Just now, r'hllor's red lobster said: also; the base?! Lol, look at all these liberals coming out with the "I don't support trump but something must be done in Syria" takes... Wait, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Mexal said: I don't think being in Syria is going to help Trump win votes. War that can be presented as a success always helps a sitting president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Wait, what? i was trying to agree with your point that a good ol' all american is good for a president/ruling party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Kalbear said: ETA: HOLY SHIT THOSE COMMENTS Basically as far as I can tell you're right - because they believe that the Rothschilds are in control of everything, that the World Bank is in control, and Syria is at least outside of that influence and HOLY FUCK MY EYES It's pretty awesome, isn't it? I don't think there is a consensus view as coherent as the one in your statement, but they do have all of those elements and more. It's particularly intense in this case because the gas attack has most of the elements common to false flag operations, but the commenters manage to grow these theories even on much less fertile ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yes, the Breitbart comments are amazing. It's like staring into the soul of human stupidity. But the comments are similar to what you see on reddit's /r the donald. These people are Trump's biggest supporters. True Trumpists are (white) America Firsters, not traditional republicans. Everyone was surprised by how big a faction of the Republican Party they turned out to be. They powered him to the presidency. If they start abandoning him it will be a far more serious blow to his chances of reelection than virtually anything else could be. The Iraq War went really, well for America. After huge debates and predictions of thousands of American deaths in house to house fighting in Baghdad from the Left, America was able to take over the country in a matter of days with an unbelievably small amount of causalities. The early parts of the war had the neocons beating their chests in triumph. It was only as the war dragged on that it become clear to the public how much of a quagmire it was. By the 2006 elections it was clear and the Republicans had major loses because of ti. My point being a president doesn't get more popular because of war. The circumstances around the war are what makes it popular or unpopular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said: Yes, the Breitbart comments are amazing. It's like staring into the soul of human stupidity. But the comments are similar to what you see on reddit's /r the donald. These people are Trump's biggest supporters. True Trumpists are (white) America Firsters, not traditional republicans. Everyone was surprised by how big a faction of the Republican Party they turned out to be. They powered him to the presidency. If they start abandoning him it will be a far more serious blow to his chances of reelection than virtually anything else could be. The Iraq War went really, well for America. After huge debates and predictions of thousands of American deaths in house to house fighting in Baghdad from the Left, America was able to take over the country in a matter of days with an unbelievably small amount of causalities. The early parts of the war had the neocons beating their chests in triumph. It was only as the war dragged on that it become clear to the public how much of a quagmire it was. By the 2006 elections it was clear and the Republicans had major loses because of ti. My point being a president doesn't get more popular because of war. The circumstances around the war are what makes it popular or unpopular. No, Presidents ALWAYS get more popular because of war. The circumstances affect how much of that popularity lasts, and for how long, arguably, but that's different and most politicians think in pretty immediate terms. But pick a President and you can be pretty sure that his AR at the start of killing folks over there will be the highest he sees, often 20/30 points above his norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 yeah, and the "he's gassing kids over there and we're gonna stop that" isn't the kind of the the rubes don't get behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said: yeah, and the "he's gassing kids over there and we're gonna stop that" isn't the kind of the the rubes don't get behind Especially when the gassing is 'Obama's fault!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 He's not going to war in Syria as long as Assad is supported by Putin. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Rhinos Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, James Arryn said: No, Presidents ALWAYS get more popular because of war. The circumstances affect how much of that popularity lasts, and for how long, arguably, but that's different and most politicians think in pretty immediate terms. But pick a President and you can be pretty sure that his AR at the start of killing folks over there will be the highest he sees, often 20/30 points above his norm. Sure, I think you're right. There is an immediate rally around the flag effect when the US starts a war. Once dissent is no longer meaningful some of the naysayers will support the troops. However, I think it is hard to extract winning from that approval. The modern US always has huge initial wins when it goes to war and I think if either Bush had started a war with Iraq that had huge US losses we would have seen very different approval ratings. In any case, those high approval ratings don't last. H. Bush hit his highest approval ratings during the brief Iraq ground war in January and February. By December he had hit a low. Which is to say I'm not terribly concerned about war helping Trump's AR this far out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Tomahawk missiles hitting Syria by the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 BREAKING NEWS 50 Tomahawk missiles launched against Syrian airfields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 34 minutes ago, aceluby said: He's not going to war in Syria as long as Assad is supported by Putin. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. US has launched 50 tomahawk missiles that have just struck Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 sure this will be a "limited, proportionate response" with little to no fall out whatsoever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.