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: 8696
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 # 27.
#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.
...making it an emotional reaction which many here would characterize as typical of "bleeding heart liberals". It's a similar response we get from those types when they want to ban guns every time a child gets shot. Makes the claim of Ivanka's possible role in influencing Donald credible, and if so, a sound reason why Ivanka should be fired from White House activities. Maybe she didn't even do anything wrong, but a president should not be influenced in national security matters by the emotions of his daughter. She could be a dangerous weakness to Trump. This assumes the gassing was done by Assad. If it was instead done overtly by the rebels, whether purposely intent on framing Assad, or an "accident" when chem munitions held by rebels were hit by Mig-23 conventional weapons causing a chem discharge, one should expect more incidents in the future at the hands of the rebels, as the fallout from the incident (Trump bombing the airfield) was probably the best news rebels have had in the last 2 years. And why let a great opportunity go to waste? Why not go for a repeat and make Assad look even more evil?
Well, if you got to decide the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of this world, I'm sure that you would fire her pronto. But your opinion, and mine, and others', about how the world ought to work doesn't set law.
Well, if you got to decide the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of this world, I'm sure that you would fire her pronto. But your opinion, and mine, and others', about how the world ought to work doesn't set law. This isn't about law. One criticism of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades in the oval office is that it set him up for black mail. That is not a lawful determination but a practical one. And to say that Bill Clinton should not engage in activities that open him up to blackmail with US national security is done so for the exact same reason as one would say that Trump should not have anyone advising him who can sway him emotionally. And if Ivanka went to her dad crying about photos of dead kids and demanding he do something about it, then that is a problem.
What Clinton was doing was immoral. Trump having Ivanka as an advisor is not immoral.
Like others I discussed Trump's strike with, you either refuse to see or cannot see the point I am making, the latter perhaps due to a desire to be loyal to Trump the man and president, instead of being loyal to what he stands for, or used to stand for. When a president makes decisions related to attacking another country, being influenced by irrational emotions, or any other influence that is unrelated to what is in the best interests of the country, it is BAD. Period. So any person who can exert such influence over said president should NOT be permitted to do so, and if teary-eyed Ivanka went crying to her dad about the pictures she saw and pleaded with him to punish Syria, then she needs to be removed from the White House. Period. If you want to talk about morality, 300 million people should not have to go to war with Russia because Trumps baby girl cried. THAT is immoral. Trump needs advisers who can think rationally and whom Trump can readily tell to go pound sand if and when he disagrees, and a good father will simply not do that to a daughter. Ivanka should go.
#30. To: Pinguinite (#27)
We are not ruled by robots. Human beings are emotional creatures, and we don't expect them to isolate themselves from their bases of support when in office. Do you know who the most influential person is in every single presidency? The First Lady. And she is unelected. It's impossible to separate men from their emotions, and it is undesirable to try. I understand where you are coming from, but it is completely unrealistic. It's the sort of thing that was argued back in the day as to why homosexuals could not serve - because they might be able to be blackmailed. EVERYBODY has sexual secrets or issues they don't want made public, so then by the same theory EVERYBODY could be blackmailed. But in truth, when you take the fangs out of the anti-gay laws and the purity laws, what happens is that people become much harder to blackmail, because people won't betray their country to spare themselves mild embarrassment. Most won't betray their country even to save severe embarrassment. We are men, not machines. We don't have to be free of emotion and human contact to effectively rule. Your point isn't lost, it's just grossly exaggerated. First Ladies have the same or greater influence as Ivanka Trump. We don't require celibacy of Presidents, to protect the national welfare. And we shouldn't. Because the national welfare is simply not that jeopardized by normal human emotions. And if it IS, that would indicate that there is something pathologically wrong with the nation that needs to be changed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
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.
#17. To: Pinguinite (#12)
Maybe she didn't even do anything wrong, but a president should not be influenced in national security matters by the emotions of his daughter. She could be a dangerous weakness to Trump.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
(Edited)
What Clinton was doing was immoral. Trump having Ivanka as an advisor is not immoral.
Replies to Comment # 27. When a president makes decisions related to attacking another country, being influenced by irrational emotions, or any other influence that is unrelated to what is in the best interests of the country, it is BAD. Period.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]