President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

And now the Luv Guv has gotten an injunction from a judge he originally appointed to stop impeachment proceedings.

Judge grants restraining order stopping impeachment proceedings

Greg Griffin. Someone that corrupt deserves to have his name made widely known.

 

If anyone can tell me why this nowhere use of high explosives is more effective than Obama's policy and also poses less risk, I'd like to heae it. I mean, a reason besides "bombing brown people makes me, a white American, feel better." If Trump thinks it's worth it to overthrow Assad at the risk of WWIII, let him go on TV and explain why. If this is just a stunt, we'll find out soon enough. The idea war has no payback is very dangerous. It would serve this country right as an institution (not millions of innocent citizens at risk of course) if one day we hit a country capable of hitting us back just as hard.

 

Just as long as the hitting back doesn't hit a metro area, right?

 

I'd just as soon give it a miss until my son ages out of the Selective Service window at a bare minimum.

 

Pathetic. I don't know where you live, but I don't wish blowback on anyone. I'm just trying to say our ready, fire, arm approach to world politics is a formula for eventual disaster.

 

So you're admitting your post from last night was pathetic?

 

Apologies for being off by a fortnight.

 

For fuck's sake, you posted this less than 24 hours ago:

But I guess now you're way above that sort of thing.

 

Many of the congressional Republicans who are praising President Donald Trump's decision to strike a Syrian airfield were opposed to President Obama's request to approve a similar action against Syria in 2013. ...

Many Republicans opposed his request. One of the most prominent was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who on Friday tweeted out his support for Trump's strike, writing, "This was a clear signal from America that Bashar al Assad can no longer use chemical weapons against his own people with impunity." In a speech on the Senate floor in 2013, however, McConnell announced his opposition to Obama's proposal, saying, "A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President's proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the President says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration." ...

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also endorsed Trump's actions in a statement released Thursday night. "Tonight the United States responded," he said. "This action was appropriate and just." But in 2013, he too opposed Obama's proposal to attack Syria, saying, "I believe the President's proposed military strike in Syria cannot achieve its stated objectives. In fact, I fear it will make things worse."

Sen. Marco Rubio, who called Trump's actions "the right move" in an interview with CNN on Friday, said of Obama's proposal in 2013, "While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don't." He added, "I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power. The strike the administration wants us to approve I do not believe furthers that goal. And in fact, I believe U.S. military action of the type contemplated here might prove to be counterproductive."

Sen. Orrin Hatch approvingly tweeted of Trump's decision to attack on Thursday night, but in 2013, he said in a statement, "What is clear is that launching a few missiles will do nothing to end Syria's civil war, and is neither a real strategy to stop the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria nor a guarantee that chemical weapons won't be used in the future by the Assad regime. That is not a plan for the region. "That's why I continue to have strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria."

House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz tweeted "God Bless the USA" following news of the strikes. But in 2013, Chaffetz repeatedly issued statements declaring his opposition to attacking Syria saying he saw "no clear and present danger to the USA to justify going to war in Syria."

Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike - CNNPolitics.com

 

Forget sending missiles. Just put up a couple thousand loudspeakers and play Lee Greenwood on a loop. Assad would abdicate within 48 hours.

 

That's all well and good, but in case you haven't noticed Republicans don't ever seem to pay an electoral penalty for hypocracy.