United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump Is Losing His Support Base After Attacking the Syrian Government
Source:
The Anti-Media
URL Source: http://theantimedia.org/trump-losing-support-base/
Published: Apr 8, 2017
Author: Darius Shahtahmasebi
Post Date: 2017-04-09 05:39:02 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9465
Comments: 63
Although it is widely speculated that one of Trump’s aims in striking Syria was to garner further domestic public support for a political career off to a horrendous start, the result may, in fact, cost him a significant portion of his original support base. While Democrats and the media have rushed to praise — or at least failed to condemn — the president’s decision to launch yet another illegal strike on a sovereign nation, many of his original supporters have begun to express their dissatisfaction with the American president. A good example of this can be seen with one of Trump’s stalwart allies, United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage. He has sharply criticized Trump for his decision to bomb Syria. “I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying ‘where will it all end?’” Farage stated, before adding, “As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I’m surprised. Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular.” According to the Telegraph, Farage is only one of many far-right Trump supporters who has expressed their distaste for Trump’s decision to strike the Assad government. The others include Milo Yiannopolous, Katie Hopkins, right-wing vlogger Paul Joseph Watson, Ann Coulter, and others from within the UKIP circle. Paul Joseph Watson, a highly popular Youtube commentator who also works as an editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars, shared a tweet stating the following: “If [Donald Trump] started a war with Russia and Syria because of an emotional reaction, then he’s not fit to have the nuclear codes.” “Hard to argue with this,” Watson captioned the retweet. “Guys, I can’t vehemently oppose destabilizing the Syrian government for 6 years and then support it just because Trump did it,” he also stated. Most importantly, Watson said, “I guess Trump wasn’t ‘Putin’s puppet’ after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet. I’m officially OFF the Trump train.” Yiannopolous called the decision to strike Syria “FAKE” and “GAY.” Coulter ironically stated: “Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.” [emphasis added]. These pro-Trump pundits are not alone in their criticism of Trump’s military strike. As one Twitter user stated in response to Trump’s recent assertion that the U.S. should stay out of Syria: “What I am saying is the same thing, and pretty much everyone else who voted you in.” [emphasis added]. A Trump-supporting war veteran expressed his dissent over the strike, stating: “From a veteran, we need to stay out of Syria, NOT OUR PROBLEM! I did not vote for you for this! Jobs, Wall, Security.” [emphasis added] As one alt-right user astutely noted: “The AltRight is portrayed as bloodthirsty, ignorant and vicious yet every Alt Right person on Twitter right now is campaigning against war.” It appears many Trump supporters were not necessarily simply out of loyalty to Trump, but also, at least in part, due to a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton’s policies, particularly regarding Russia and Syria. Most surprising, however, is the fact that many of them have stuck to these principles, and Trump’s recent decision to strike Syria has not changed their mindset on the Syrian war and/or Russia. In this context, Trump supporters are actually proving more principled and honest than Obama and Clinton supporters considering many Obama supporters appreciated his anti-Iraq war stance only to stay silent as he bombed seven nations in a six-month period. Trump may start to unite Democrats and corrupt politicians behind him, but he ultimately may be losing the significant section of his voter base that voted him in as the antithesis to Clinton — not her alter-ego. We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Trump hit Syria because the Syrians gassed a bunch of kids. He was horrified and offended by it, and - unlike most of us - had the power to be able to punish them for what they did. So he did. Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective. If people like that, that's good. If they don't, well, they're not the one making the decision. He is, and I'm sure he doesn't regret it. If you saw his speech, he was truly offended by the killing of the children, so he punished Syria for doing it. It's no more, or less, than that. You may not like it. You may want to see something deeper in it. But there very probably is not anything deeper in it than that.
I've considered that Trump is simply taking advantage of the situation, regardless of who actually did launch an attack or even if the Syrian bombing hit a stockpile of rebel sarin gas (as Russia/Syria seem to be saying). Of course, that would be profoundly cynical. But a strike by Trump on Assad at this time will strengthen Tillerson's hand in the upcoming ceasefire and peace talks with Syria and the Syrian rebel groups. Assad probably has won and can't be dislodged as long as he has Iran's and Russia's backing. But Trump can exercise a lot of leverage to reduce Syria's bargaining position. Trump isn't stupid. But is he so profoundly cynical that he would fling 60 Tomahawk missiles at a cost of $45M-$70M total just to improve his bargaining position with Syria as well as strike a little fear into the ranks of our rivals like Russia and China and our enemies like Iran and North Korea? I wouldn't put it past Trump to be exactly that cynical. It also strengthens his hand considerably to do something suddenly that was quite unpredictable. History provides countless examples of achieving strategic dominance through unpredictable action. This is, after all, exactly the kind of thing that McMaster and Mattis would be telling Trump IMO. Those two are among the most intellectual generals the Pentagon has ever produced and they are also highly regarded for their military prowess. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Who gassed the Syrian civilians? Who cares? As long as Trump's and Tillerson's hands are strengthened across the board and we draw our allies close into the Trump orbit. You have to ask what was gained by Trump and consider that he intended exactly this outcome. Could it be that Trump is playing the role of Ronald Reagan, Mastermind, as in the old SNL skit with Phil Hartman? You can't put it past him. Trump could prove to be extremely devious, like Nixon was. And LBJ was even worse.
Huh? None of those people fear missile attacks by Trump. One is insane,and the others know he won't do it because they can and WILL fling missiles back at him.
I think Assad does. Trump could have fired another 20 missiles from each ship for a total of a hundred. Imagine a hundred Tomahawks raining down on Assad's compound in Latakia and his presidential palace. It might not kill him but he would be very very unhappy. Similarly, Russia would not like to see it demonstrated that they cannot protect their client. So they may not be afraid of such a strike taking out Assad but that doesn't mean they wouldn't care if we did launch such a volley. Vlad has had a good run for the last few years and doesn't want to have to explain why he can't (or won't) protect Assad with the S-300 batteries. I would have been interested to see an attempt to use the S-300 to stop a Tomahawk strike like this one. The Tomahawk isn't very fast or stealthy but it might fly low enough to make trouble for the S-300's radars.
Imagine the Russian response!
If positioned correctly, the S-300's would take out the Tomahawks that are rather slow flying jet aircraft. That is, if we didn't find a way to take out their controlling radars or jam them. And we do have a lot more talent in electronics than the Russkies. We warned the Russians so they wouldn't react to our strike. So they evacuated their guys and tipped off Assad's military. And they didn't try to use the S-300's or retaliate. Because then America would have had to try to take out the S-300's. And then you'd have a shooting air war with Russia in Syria. I notice Russia has told us firmly that they won't stand down next time. But maybe Trump doesn't need a next time. I wonder what polls will show this week. Trump up from 38% to maybe 55%? Wouldn't surprise me.
Apparently someone also warned you also.
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective. If people like that, that's good. If they don't, well, they're not the one making the decision. He is, and I'm sure he doesn't regret it.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Trump isn't stupid. But is he so profoundly cynical that he would fling 60 Tomahawk missiles at a cost of $45M-$70M total just to improve his bargaining position with Syria as well as strike a little fear into the ranks of our rivals like Russia and China and our enemies like Iran and North Korea?
#10. To: sneakypete (#9)
None of those people fear missile attacks by Trump.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#10)
Imagine a hundred Tomahawks raining down on Assad's compound in Latakia and his presidential palace.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#13)
Imagine the Russian response!
#16. To: Tooconservative (#14)
We warned the Russians so they wouldn't react to our strike.
Replies to Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]