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: 8645
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 # 39.
#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 agree. It was an emotional decision,not a wise political decision. After all,ain't stuff like this WHY the United Nations is SUPPOSED to exist? He needs to get down on THEIR asses and tell them they either get their stuff in order and start policing the 3rd world,or he will cut off all the US money and aid that feeds the parasites back in their home countries and keeps them from assassinating their leaders. Chances are that Syria won't use poison gas again, so Trump will have achieved his objective. They would be crazy if they didn't. After all,the missiles were never a threat to anyone in the Muslim leadership,and they couldn't care less how many peasants die. Hell,Trump killing a few saves them the trouble. Now they pretty much HAVE to do this again because they know if they do it will bring them TONS of money and aid from Muslim countries,as well as a few countries that aren't Muslim,but just hate the US,and if they cower and DON'T do it,their funding will dry up. Success breeds success,and quiters never win. If Trump wants to do something worthwhile,he needs to start killing off the Muslim leadership and their money people,not mechanics and cooks at some airstrip.
We shall see. I think that the Russians are spooked and won't let them do it again, because the Russians have probably estimated, correctly, that Trump will not back down. So, in the game of gas/America strikes back - the Russians have to back down every time and not do anything, be like Obama. Because if the Russians strike back at America, Trump will strike back at Russia. And thence escalation, and the end of the world unless Russia backs down. The Russians are in a difficult position. The easiest thing for them to do is to control their ally. So they will.
Because if the Russians strike back at America, Trump will strike back at Russia. And thence escalation, and the end of the world unless Russia backs down. I don't see it. The Russians have spent a lot on developing the S-300/S-400 missiles and their revamped Kalibre missile. They want to sell these missiles in the Mideast and Asia. They also want to sell the idea of allying with Russia and making massive purchases of Russian arms, a market they lost to us when the Soviet machine fell apart. And Vlad can't afford to look weak at home in Russia either. They cannot allow us to bomb their allies/customers with impunity or the bottom falls out for them in arms sales and in diplomacy. The Russians have pulled the plug on the confliction line. So no more polite consultation on where their planes and our planes and the Syrian planes will fly. And that seems to mean that we will fly no more sorties in manned aircraft over Syria, at least nowhere near an S-300 battery. You notice that we haven't exposed any of our aircraft to the S-300 systems already in place in Syria since the Tomahawk attack. I think Trump caught the Russkies by surprise. They miscalculated, thinking he wouldn't strike. I don't think he'll be that lucky again. I wonder what Trump would do if the Russians announced that, as a result of America's (alleged) war crimes, they are stationing battlefield nuclear weapons on cruise missiles there in Syria. Vlad has many options to escalate if he wants.
Given that Trump's purpose was to punish a gas attack, Trump won't need to escalate. Russia can't defend a gas attack. And indeed Trump prevented retaliation against Syria in the age of Obama by stepping in and saying they would police the gas stockpiles. The gas attack was a lapsus that resulted in an American strike. The Russians cannot afford another such strike, so they WILL control Assad - if he's the source - and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source. If there is another gas attack, Trump will strike again, harder. It will be focused on the gas attack. Russia can shoot down a few Tomahawks - if they can - to demonstrate their equipment - but they dare not shoot down manned American aircraft, if we use any. Trump is not bluffing about the chemical weapons. He has issued an order, in keeping with international law, forbidding their use. The Russians can't defend their use, and can't stop the US from hitting again, if they're used. It's too perilous for them. So they have to control Assad, and they have to take out the terrorists more swiftly...both of which things operate in favor of what Trump wants to see in Syria. So all in all it was an effective strike.
Indeed, *IF* Assad was the source. And what if the source was instead the rebels? Instead of the attack serving to punish Assad, it instead rewarded the rebels, in which case, we may see more such incidents which will be automatically assumed to be the work of Assad. Then Trump will be under political pressure to strike Assad again, which will further inflame US - Russia tensions. If the rebels have access to chem weapons, they could use them to greatly increase the odds of a USA-Russia confrontation, and it's all because the MSM has portrayed Assad as a Marvel Comic Batman villain, when the truth is he may be nothing of the sort. And as has been pointed out by multiple observers including Ron Paul, it makes no sense that Assad would have used chem weapons at this point, right after gaining a US policy change related to his presidency, and after a very productive year in, with Russia's help, taking back so much Syrian territory and putting all the various rebels on the run. I have YET to see any MSM come out and present a motive for Assad to have been responsible for this event, and Americans have by-in-large accepted the notion without scrutiny, critical analysis, or pause. Americans have seen too many batman movies. Seriously.
The second part of my sentence read "and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source." If Assad is the source, it's easy for the Russians to control the situation: launch Sarin attacks again, and you're dead. Simple. It doesn't happen again. But if Assad is not the source, then the Russians have a powerful incentive to go all in to get the war OVER, by conquering the enclaves where the terrorists are. So, either way, the pressure is on Putin to make sure that the gas attacks do not happen again, whether from Assad, or from Assad's enemies.
If Assad is the source, it's easy for the Russians to control the situation: launch Sarin attacks again, and you're dead. Simple. It doesn't happen again. But if Assad is not the source, then the Russians have a powerful incentive to go all in to get the war OVER, by conquering the enclaves where the terrorists are. So, either way, the pressure is on Putin to make sure that the gas attacks do not happen again, whether from Assad, or from Assad's enemies. hahahaha..... You do real realize that you have succeeded in holding Assad and Putin responsible for the gas attacks no matter who it was that actually did it, right, whether it was Assad or the people trying to kill him? I must say, Vicomte, the operative words that come to mind are "How convenient!" Trump was right to order the attack and that while it not even mattering who committed the atrocity. I think you are a lawyer, and if so, that skill of projecting responsibility is coming through very nicely! (Nothing against the profession, as that's simply what you're supposed to do to represent your client). But fine. You be the lawyer, and I'll be the judge, or at least the defending attorney. Speaking to the implication of your message, it's that Assad and Putin have not treated the civil war they are enduring as a particularly high priority, and they need to get off their asses and win the damn thing post haste, because until now they've just been goofing off. Oh, and they need to do it without those Migs that the US destroyed, but hey should be easy for a country racked with civil war for 5 years to replace. I'm sure building new ones could be made into volunteer High School projects throughout the non-rebel areas. Never mind that after some 8 years of occupation in Iraq and some twice that in Afghanistan, the USA could do not even square those countries away, and Iraq didn't even have a civil war. Well, I'll tell you what. Russia has nukes. No more than half a dozen of them on the rebel held cities, and yes, it'll be over. No more civil war. But no, that won't be good enough for the west because they used nukes which is another WMD. It's clear you are working to justify Trump's attack on Syria in a particularly biased manner. Which is fine, but you are clearly not giving balanced consideration to the facts, and that should be pointed out.
That's right. The RUSSIANS need to do it, because the Syrians can't. The Russians have deployed a lot of force there, and are deploying more. They want to move slowly and methodically. But if ISIS has Sarin gas, they need to move faster to secure the country, lest ISIS use Sarin again and the US attack Assad again, making the Russians look weak and making Assad's final victory less certain. All the airstrike really did was convey Trump's anger at the gassing of civilians, while putting everybody on notice that the US will now itself also engage in surprise attacks against things that it dislikes, something that the world could count on NOT happening during Obama's, and even during W's term. W always ponderously projected everything: Do this...OR ELSE we'll do that. And eventually we had to "do that". With Obama everybody knew they could do anything and he'd never attack. But Trump will attack first, without warning at all, if you violate EXISTING treaties and conditions. That complicates a lot of calculations. If Kim Jong Un is preparing to launch another missile over Japanese airspace, we might just blow it up with its missile crews on the pad before he even launches it. We might wait for the launch and then suddenly rain missiles down on the reviewing stand and take out the North Korean leadership. We MIGHT do anything. North Korea has no right to fire missiles through Japanese airspace, and the fact that they've ALREADY DONE IT several times MEANS that Trump could attack NOW, for reasons that happened in 2015. If ISIS has the gas, they need to use it quickly to get the benefit of more US strikes - IF they have the gas. But they don't. If they did, Washington or New York or London or Paris would already be dead.
After all the absurdity I pointed out in your position of holding Assad and Putin responsible for the gas attacks even if they were carried out by Assad's enemies, you you stand by it, and I didn't even point out that some of Assad's enemies are funded and supported by the same country that punished them for the chem attack happening. You are truly morally bankrupt, and embody the worst stereotype that lawyers are held to.
My clients have always been pleased with my services, and have paid me handsomely for them. So, I'll see your "moral bankruptcy" and raise you a "pretty nice life" - with a crusty butter croissant on the side.
There are no replies to Comment # 39. End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#8. 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.
#18. To: sneakypete (#8)
Now they pretty much HAVE to do this again
#20. To: Vicomte13, Gatlin (#18)
So, in the game of gas/America strikes back - the Russians have to back down every time and not do anything, be like Obama.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#20)
Vlad has many options to escalate if he wants.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
The Russians cannot afford another such strike, so they WILL control Assad - if he's the source - and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source.
#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)
And what if the source was instead the rebels? Instead of the attack serving to punish Assad, it instead rewarded the rebels,
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
The second part of my sentence read "and they will triple down on suppressing the terrorist groups if Assad isn't the source."
#35. To: Pinguinite (#31)
Oh, and they need to do it without those Migs that the US destroyed, but hey should be easy for a country racked with civil war for 5 years to replace.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
#39. To: Pinguinite (#36)
(Edited)
and embody the worst stereotype that lawyers are held to.
Replies to Comment # 39.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]