Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 190: Slightly Erotic Politics

(+) Yeah! (+)

Inviso posted...

Corrik, how is it that you can take things completely literally and without nuance in EVERY other situation, but when Trump uses the term "coal jobs", suddenly it's up for interpretation as REALLY meaning things that USE coal? Okay, so steel then. Alright. Then why do we need coal mining at all in this country? Can't steel just import cheaper coal from China or overseas?

Of course it means things that use coal. No coal = no production for things that use it.

The war on coal is not a fucking war on coal mining.(for the most part) Coal mining is actually probably the least cared about in the scheme of it. It is a war on USING coal.

If you literally think the war on coal is against coal mining, and can't figure out how the fuck Clinton lost pa, Ohio, michigan then God bless you.

She wanted to kill coal which is used in power and steel industry and what do you think is centered in those states? Steel production. (and some other areas)
---

It's clear Trump meant literal coal mining jobs since almost every time he spoke about it when signing stuff, at rallies, etc., he used the word "miners"

But somebody writing ABOUT Trump says "coal jobs" and suddenly Corrik is like "Can't take that literally or you're dishonest fuck you"

It's almost hilarious
---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's clear Trump meant literal coal mining jobs since almost every time he spoke about it when signing stuff, at rallies, etc., he used the word "miners"

But somebody writing ABOUT Trump says "coal jobs" and suddenly Corrik is like "Can't take that literally or you're dishonest fuck you"

It's almost hilarious

It's almost like Corrik just a troll that has zero interest in honest conversation or debate, just like I (and a few others) have been saying for over a year now!

and by "almost" I mean "this is exactly what it's fucking like, jfc you're all morons for entertaining him"

Yeah, I occasionally take him and red sox off ignore just to see if they've changed any but they never do so I'm just gonna perma this
---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's clear Trump meant literal coal mining jobs since almost every time he spoke about it when signing stuff, at rallies, etc., he used the word "miners"

But somebody writing ABOUT Trump says "coal jobs" and suddenly Corrik is like "Can't take that literally or you're dishonest fuck you"

It's almost hilarious

Yeah, he went to steel factories and talking about bring back coal because they might be related to a fucking miner or something. Has to be trolling. No one is literally this dumb.

Okay just leaving this so you can circle jerk back to your bullshit statistics to fight the neverending holy war against Trump. Lmfao
---

Trump is never literal about anything. This should not be so hard to understand after 3 years of Trump politics. His statements are not facts - they cannot be proven true or false because they do not carry any meaning that is capable of being evaluated objectively. Rather, Trump statements must be understood subjectively. The question to ask is: how does this make person 1,2,3....n feel?
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

It's clear Trump meant literal coal mining jobs since almost every time he spoke about it when signing stuff, at rallies, etc., he used the word "miners"

But somebody writing ABOUT Trump says "coal jobs" and suddenly Corrik is like "Can't take that literally or you're dishonest fuck you"

It's almost hilarious

Yeah, he went to steel factories and talking about bring back coal because they might be related to a fucking miner or something. Has to be trolling. No one is literally this dumb.

Okay just leaving this so you can circle jerk back to your bullshit statistics to fight the neverending holy war against Trump. Lmfao

Why is that not believable? If you're willing to extrapolate that Trump meant steel when he talked about miners and "coal jobs", then why is it so farfetched to believe that Trump would just talk about specifically saving coal (not industries that USE coal) at ANY campaign event in the rust belt, believing that they ALL care about saving coal mining jobs? Maybe I'm giving Trump too little credit, but I think you're giving him too MUCH credit, based on the information we have.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Trump is never literal about anything. This should not be so hard to understand after 3 years of Trump politics. His statements are not facts - they cannot be proven true or false because they do not carry any meaning that is capable of being evaluated objectively. Rather, Trump statements must be understood subjectively. The question to ask is: how does this make person 1,2,3....n feel?

They literally can't figure out why Clinton lost states that the steel industry is in or has business that relies on it after her coal comments. They can't understand why Union workers who usually vote Democrat voted Red and the literal ire Clinton made with one comment. Like, that one comment probably lost her the fucking election. It definitely swung PA and likely Michigan.

Union workers blasting the fucking USW openly on social media for endorsing Hillary and calling them traitors.

Like, holy fuck. But, I forgot. America is just racist is why Trump won. He won because she ran a stupid fucking campaign that alienated voters. She basically gave away the rust belt.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, I occasionally take him and red sox off ignore just to see if they've changed any but they never do so I'm just gonna perma this

yessssssssssssssssssss make politics containment great again
---

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump is never literal about anything. This should not be so hard to understand after 3 years of Trump politics. His statements are not facts - they cannot be proven true or false because they do not carry any meaning that is capable of being evaluated objectively. Rather, Trump statements must be understood subjectively. The question to ask is: how does this make person 1,2,3....n feel?

They literally can't figure out why Clinton lost states that the steel industry is in or has business that relies on it after her coal comments. They can't understand why Union workers who usually vote Democrat voted Red and the literal ire Clinton made with one comment. Like, that one comment probably lost her the fucking election. It definitely swung PA and likely Michigan.

Union workers blasting the fucking USW openly on social media for endorsing Hillary and calling them traitors.

Like, holy fuck. But, I forgot. America is just racist is why Trump won. He won because she ran a stupid fucking campaign that alienated voters. She basically gave away the rust belt.

Again, while that statement likely didn't help, she lost by 80,000 votes in those states. And I have to wonder just how many of those hard-working, roughneck, blue collar, steel and coal workers really felt good about voting for a woman to lead them in general. Again, there is just as much reason to believe my interpretation as there is yours.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump is never literal about anything. This should not be so hard to understand after 3 years of Trump politics. His statements are not facts - they cannot be proven true or false because they do not carry any meaning that is capable of being evaluated objectively. Rather, Trump statements must be understood subjectively. The question to ask is: how does this make person 1,2,3....n feel?

They literally can't figure out why Clinton lost states that the steel industry is in or has business that relies on it after her coal comments. They can't understand why Union workers who usually vote Democrat voted Red and the literal ire Clinton made with one comment. Like, that one comment probably lost her the fucking election. It definitely swung PA and likely Michigan.

Union workers blasting the fucking USW openly on social media for endorsing Hillary and calling them traitors.

Like, holy fuck. But, I forgot. America is just racist is why Trump won. He won because she ran a stupid fucking campaign that alienated voters. She basically gave away the rust belt.

Again, while that statement likely didn't help, she lost by 80,000 votes in those states. And I have to wonder just how many of those hard-working, roughneck, blue collar, steel and coal workers really felt good about voting for a woman to lead them in general. Again, there is just as much reason to believe my interpretation as there is yours.

You are making up sexism to have a fairytale villain.

Her comment put their livelihoods on the line in the election.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump is never literal about anything. This should not be so hard to understand after 3 years of Trump politics. His statements are not facts - they cannot be proven true or false because they do not carry any meaning that is capable of being evaluated objectively. Rather, Trump statements must be understood subjectively. The question to ask is: how does this make person 1,2,3....n feel?

They literally can't figure out why Clinton lost states that the steel industry is in or has business that relies on it after her coal comments. They can't understand why Union workers who usually vote Democrat voted Red and the literal ire Clinton made with one comment. Like, that one comment probably lost her the fucking election. It definitely swung PA and likely Michigan.

Union workers blasting the fucking USW openly on social media for endorsing Hillary and calling them traitors.

Like, holy fuck. But, I forgot. America is just racist is why Trump won. He won because she ran a stupid fucking campaign that alienated voters. She basically gave away the rust belt.

Again, while that statement likely didn't help, she lost by 80,000 votes in those states. And I have to wonder just how many of those hard-working, roughneck, blue collar, steel and coal workers really felt good about voting for a woman to lead them in general. Again, there is just as much reason to believe my interpretation as there is yours.

She lost by less than 1% in those states. This wasn't like McCain who would have still lost if he ran the perfect campaign, because the economy was so bad. Hillary lost to the most unpopular candidate in the history of polling.
---

She pandered to her base that already was going to vote for her instead of pandering to the votes that were on the fringe. And she lost them. And it cost her the election.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And, here's a big one. Proving that money does not win elections. Trump won, despite getting massively outspent. Dems rail against money in politics constantly, but they ignore the one person who has done the most to show it need not be so important.

Donald is an unindicted co-conspirator regarding his refusal to fully disclose payments to women he had affairs with. The NRA also received Russian funding before donating to Donald in record numbers, and now we have a President who caters to Russia more than any other President in our lives.

Your post is not conclusive.
---

A few days ago, people were upset about Trump canceling a 2% raise for government employees. And here Hillary was, threatening to take away people's livelihoods.
---

HaRRicH posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And, here's a big one. Proving that money does not win elections. Trump won, despite getting massively outspent. Dems rail against money in politics constantly, but they ignore the one person who has done the most to show it need not be so important.

Donald is an unindicted co-conspirator regarding his refusal to fully disclose payments to women he had affairs with. The NRA also received Russian funding before donating to Donald in record numbers, and now we have a President who caters to Russia more than any other President in our lives.

Your post is not conclusive.

I didn't say he isn't influenced by money. He may be the most corrupt president ever, actually. But he proved you can win the election while spending far less than your opponent, and that's a big deal for the future.
---

Commend Donald defending coal if you want, but Donald's also the reason why tourism is down so much in America and there are more jobs being affected there.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Commend Donald defending coal if you want, but Donald's also the reason why tourism is down so much in America and there are more jobs being affected there.

I was actually gonna bring this up before Corrik went on his whole "coal jobs doesn't JUST mean coal jobs" tangent.
---

So then you see why Democrats aren't hailing Donald as some savior against money in politics.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Commend Donald defending coal if you want, but Donald's also the reason why tourism is down so much in America and there are more jobs being affected there.

Well, I was asked which things he did that were done with good intentions or have good merit.

You could go what about this or that for any last thing.

He said he was going to end the war on coal. He has eliminated a lot of legislature against it. He put tariffs against those who were dumping or were subsidized by governments or were operating unfairly (tho he did slap tariffs on way way way more than he should have). And steel is booming now. As far as I am concerned, that is a best case scenario for me.

If Hillary just punted on that issue, she would be president right now.
---

HaRRicH posted...

So then you see why Democrats aren't hailing Donald as some savior against money in politics.

But they should! Instead of attacking Citizens United for the umpteenth time, how about mocking Jeb Bush for spending $5,000 per vote he got in Iowa while the Donald paid around 10 cents?
---

Inviso posted...

HaRRicH posted...

Commend Donald defending coal if you want, but Donald's also the reason why tourism is down so much in America and there are more jobs being affected there.

I was actually gonna bring this up before Corrik went on his whole "coal jobs doesn't JUST mean coal jobs" tangent.

4/20/2017
TWITTER - Yaroslav Trofimov (Greater Middle East columnist for the Wall Street Journal)

Int'l tourism to the US crashing. 107,000 lost jobs: nearly twice as many as the *entire* US coal industry employs. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/19/news/us-visa-waiver-program-europe- tourism/index.html?sr=twCNN042017us-visa-waiver-program-europe- tourism0306AMStoryLink&linkId=36685904

*PICTURE OF EXCERPT*

https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/854983136836333568

---

red sox 777 posted...

HaRRicH posted...

So then you see why Democrats aren't hailing Donald as some savior against money in politics.

But they should! Instead of attacking Citizens United for the umpteenth time, how about mocking Jeb Bush for spending $5,000 per vote he got in Iowa while the Donald paid around 10 cents?

I assure you, few people were made fun of as much as Jeb!
---

Way more jobs in industries using steel are going to be lost than jobs in making steel are going to be created (iirc estimates were like 400000 vs 30000 or something. I probably have the exact numbers wrong, but there was a huge discrepency). Basically, tariffs may be good for specific industries but theyre terrible overall (and thats not even getting into the fact that consumers are then going to have to pay more for products).
---

To be entirely honest......I don't mind there being less tourism. It makes our national parks less crowded. And the feeling I've gotten recently is many parks are filled as much as the infrastructure will allow already.
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

It's clear Trump meant literal coal mining jobs since almost every time he spoke about it when signing stuff, at rallies, etc., he used the word "miners"

But somebody writing ABOUT Trump says "coal jobs" and suddenly Corrik is like "Can't take that literally or you're dishonest fuck you"

It's almost hilarious

Yeah, he went to steel factories and talking about bring back coal because they might be related to a fucking miner or something. Has to be trolling. No one is literally this dumb.

Okay just leaving this so you can circle jerk back to your bullshit statistics to fight the neverending holy war against Trump. Lmfao

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/4190319-u-s-steel-natural-gas-process-will-soon-replace-coke/

Hey look, five years ago US Steel said natural gas can and would replace coke, aka coal.

But no, WERE being disingenuous.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

It's clear Trump meant literal coal mining jobs since almost every time he spoke about it when signing stuff, at rallies, etc., he used the word "miners"

But somebody writing ABOUT Trump says "coal jobs" and suddenly Corrik is like "Can't take that literally or you're dishonest fuck you"

It's almost hilarious

Yeah, he went to steel factories and talking about bring back coal because they might be related to a fucking miner or something. Has to be trolling. No one is literally this dumb.

Okay just leaving this so you can circle jerk back to your bullshit statistics to fight the neverending holy war against Trump. Lmfao

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/4190319-u-s-steel-natural-gas-process-will-soon-replace-coke/

Hey look, five years ago US Steel said natural gas can and would replace coke, aka coal.

But no, WERE being disingenuous.

74% of steel in the world is made using Coke. They have tried to bring out electric arc furnaces but a lot of them are having problems. To my knowledge.
---

George Papadopoulos gets 14 days in prison @CNNPolitics https://cnn.it/2Qa6YSl

What a nice slap on the wrist. O well, it was just "lying to the FBI" anyway.
---

It's a small amout of time, but as I understand it this still counts as a felony. Part of George's defense includes Donald's witch hunt-tweets influencing him, so that might become more interesting later.

Not sure if this is a plea deal that brought down his time, or a rough sentence on a situation that wouldn't normally get you time.
---

9/7/2018
NEWSWEEK - FOX BUSINESS HOST CALLS FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH A 'RADICAL' LIBERAL

Fox Business News Host Lou Dobbs called former Republican President George W. Bush a liberal on his show, Lou Dobbs Tonight, Thursday.

In a segment on free trade, the conservative host, who has interviewed President Donald Trump on numerous occasions, called President Barack Obama a radical left-winger, and said that Republican President George W. Bush was a radical... What would you call him? A liberal himself. He wasnt a conservative.

Bush considered himself a compassionate conservative, and often had single-digit approval ratings from Democrats during his presidency.

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-lou-dobbs-george-bush-liberal-1111686

Yeah, but like...we don't want him either.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Commend Donald defending coal if you want, but Donald's also the reason why tourism is down so much in America and there are more jobs being affected there.

Yeah, I literally have a friend who generally comes to the states as a tourist every summer from Australia, and is refusing to visit while Trump is in office.

(Although this friend is like...actually outright communist like...I'm sure this is partially just an internet persona, but uses USSR imagery online and jokes about idolizing the soviet union).
---

Huh, I missed a bit it seems.

HaRRicH posted...

It's weird. On one hand, what better proof is there of Donald's racism than to describe the time he tried to clarify Nazis were bad (which was already clarified poorly) was his worst speech and biggest fucking mistake? On the other hand, letting Bannon go later that week is weirder timing now. The pressure to let Bannon go was definitely strong, it's just worth noting to see how strong that pressure must have been to have fired him in this moment where Donald so strongly regretted attempting to be less than racist.

I think connecting Bannon to that is your mistake. I don't think the decision to let him go had anything to do with optics. By all accounts, the inside of the WH these days (well, especially those days) is like something out of Game of Thrones. I think it's more likely that Bannon "lost" that and got thrown out than anything.

Sticking with the Woodward quotes another one that came out IIRC detailed an exchange between Bannon and Ivanka in which Bannon got pissed at her and yelled that she was essentially subverting the chain of command by not working through the Chief of Staff (then Priebus.) Specifically calling her a "staffer" and Ivanka firing back that, "I'm not a staffer, I'll never be a staffer. I'm the first daughter." (doing those quotes from memory. Wording might be slightly off. May have been profanity involved.)

XIII_rocks posted...

So what do you guys think he has done well - or at least, like, stuff you can at least understand is a good idea with bad execution, or something. I've been doing a bit of very surface research but a lot of it is so partisan it's kind of difficult to nail down.

To be completely honest, like LotM, I can't really say anything that wouldn't be expected under a generic President. And to piggyback on what he said about economic indicators simply continuing trends they had under Obama, IIRC, jobs numbers - while still up - are up less than they were under Obama's 2nd Term if you average his second term against Trump's time in office.

The closest thing I can think of would be NK but that has so many asterisks around it it doesn't feel intellectually honest to count. In a vacuum "peace and denuclearization with NK" is a good thing. However, I'd say the execution was so bad that in the end it may have set us back and the best case scenario is that nothing happened. (To head off preemptive arguments I mean this in that Trump's administration's concessions with NK may lead to them demanding more from future administrations in any attempt they make to address the issue)

I have this nagging feeling I'm forgetting something minor as well but I just can't recall it. Stopping the Sinclair deal maybe? Although that's "funny" to mention since Trump himself criticized his own administration for doing that.

~~~

Re: The whole Coal/Steel debacle.

I don't want to wade into this too much, but I'll just say my reading on the subject backs what LotM said about the tariffs costing far more jobs than they save. The tariffs will help the steel industry some (although not as much as Trump himself claims given he's been caught repeatedly lying about new plants opening) and IIRC Corrik is in that, so I understand why he is personally in favor of it. But it hurts all other industries that use steel and ends up as a huge net negative to the economy as a whole.

Re: Clinton's remarks on coal specifically

Just want to remind everyone that Clinton's remarks were taken out of context (and yes to hurt her in key states.) In the whole quote, she literally states that we must be there to provide support and training for those workers who would lose their jobs from the closing of coal. It was basically "You didn't build that!" Part II: Electric Boogaloo.
---

As far as perks with Donald, uh.....

*Jim Mattis seems to be a pretty good pick for Secretary of Defense.

*Donald's proposal to change required business reports from quarterly to semi-annually is interesting -- pros and cons, but a unique move to consider.

*I don't have confidence dealing with North Korea will ultimately be beneficial for America, but it is a powerful thing to get some of our soldiers' bodies back.

*Not really a perk so much as rumors unfairly pinned on him, but Donald didn't remove MLK's sculpture from the White House and I think he knew Frederick Douglas was dead. He has PLENTY of other reasons to think he's an ignorant racist, but those weren't among them.

Don't think I can name anything else right now.
---

Wasn't there a thing where the first act of the Republican Congress was to gut the Congressional Ethics Office, but Trump told them it was bad optics and they backed off? That seems like something more in the playbook of Donald Trump than of Generic Republican President.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

Wasn't there a thing where the first act of the Republican Congress was to gut the Congressional Ethics Office, but Trump told them it was bad optics and they backed off? That seems like something more in the playbook of Donald Trump than of Generic Republican President.

Ah, yes. You are correct. Perhaps that's what I had been thinking of. That is indeed a good thing.

(Though in the interest of completeness, the House GOP did still sneak in a change to weaken it. Namely that where once the Speaker and Minority Leader had to concur on appointments to its board, now they need only "consult" them - meaning they just need to tell the other and don't need them to agree. Nevertheless, they did scrap their original plan which was way worse when Trump tweeted at them.)
---

I endorse his stance on Assad, even if the execution has been rather sloppy
---

i agree with trump on GWB having been a terrible president.

not sure if this qualifies as a "good thing trump has done," though. is simply saying something i agree with enough to qualify?
---

On his first day, I believe he signed an executive order banning foreign lobbyists and making former members of Congress wait 5 years before they could become lobbyists.
---

i'll say something general about trump that's positive: i like how he's a republican president who's NOT super fanatically religious. ok, he did pick pence as his vp, but trump strikes me as the kind of guy who doesn't give a flying fuck about christianity and just claims to believe in god because atheists can never become president of the US. this puts him in sharp contrast with the aforementioned GWB.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

On his first day, I believe he signed an executive order banning foreign lobbyists and making former members of Congress wait 5 years before they could become lobbyists.

Yes. Although this one is more murky because:

1. He removed the Obama-era requirement on public disclosure of how the administration is actually complying with said order

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/trump-lobbying-ban-strips-out-language-
requiring-public-reporting-on-ethics-compliance/

2. He's been issuing waivers from a different part of the order (incoming administration officials must pledge that for 2 years they not work in areas related to prior conflicts of interest they had) that because of (1) we have no idea how many or why

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-issuing-secret-waivers-to-his-own-ethics-rules-so-much-for-draining-the-swamp/
2017/05/06/60f11762-302a-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html

(Opinion article but just ignore the author's connecting it to the drain the swamp stuff and focus on the substance)

So, I mean, it's another one where in a vacuum it's a good idea but the execution is arguably bad enough to undercut the whole thing.
---

Trump makes a lot of high risk plays in general.

Like...the tarifs he's putting in place are not without a purpose--he's trying to put pressure on China among others to change some policies that are manipulative of the market and bad for US interests.

Short term loss (and in some cases risk of future competition if other regions start farming soybeans) in exchange for a shot at fixing a number of trade agreements that have been flawed for years.

I don't know if he'll succeed, obviously it would be nice if he does. Ultimately history will decide if these were good or terrible moves in the long run.

I'll also give him (and his supporters) credit. He hasn't started a war yet, and the one time he dropped bombs in Syria his supporters criticized that decision.

The last thing that I think he's good at is getting people to disagree with him. Like...remember the whole banning transgender people in the military? Originally the republican plan for the midterms was to make the midterms about whether or not medical costs for transgender military should be covered. That's a position that might have been effective at swaying the public, or causing a lot of controversy. Instead of a nuanced position like that, Trump comes in, announces a ban on transgender people in the military, and pretty much everyone including the generals is like "wow, that's stupid." (I don't know if Trump was torpedoing that talking point on purpose, or if he ddn't think through the public reaction and just hates transgender people, but by taking such a ridiculous position he swayed public opinion in the other direction).
---

metroid composite posted...

and the one time he dropped bombs in Syria his supporters criticized that decision.

You sure about this?

Reg posted...

metroid composite posted...

and the one time he dropped bombs in Syria his supporters criticized that decision.

You sure about this?

The conspiracy theory Vlado-type ones were critical, because they are pro-Russia first and foremost, and thus pro-Assad, and they think the chemical attacks were a false flag.

The America First middle aged rural types generally supported it because they trust TRUMP first and foremost
---

Then you have alt-right people like PJW who TRIED to be ideologically consistent by criticizing Trump heavily for bombing Syria, and wanting off the Trump Train if he wasnt going to be an isolationist, but then reversed course once they saw their followers drop <_<
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Reg posted...

metroid composite posted...

and the one time he dropped bombs in Syria his supporters criticized that decision.

You sure about this?

The conspiracy theory Vlado-type ones were critical, because they are pro-Russia first and foremost, and thus pro-Assad, and they think the chemical attacks were a false flag.

The America First middle aged rural types generally supported it because they trust TRUMP first and foremost

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/11/ (space) daily-202-reflexive-partisanship-drives-polling-lurch-on-syria- (space 2 LOL) strikes/58ec27d4e9b69b3a72331e6e/

In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trumps decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

Pretty sure there wasn't that much criticizing going on among Trump supporters.

metroid composite posted...

I'll also give him (and his supporters) credit. He hasn't started a war yet, and the one time he dropped bombs in Syria his supporters criticized that decision.

Not that you're wrong -- there was SOME vocal opposition -- but.....

4/11/2017
TWITTER - andrew kaczynski (reporter at CNNs KFile)

Democrats:
37% support Trump's Syria strikes
38% supported Obama doing it

GOP:
86% supported Trump doing it
22% supported Obama doing

*PICTURE OF EXCERPT*

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/851794827419275264

---

that said, there's a decent chance I misunderstood you because I initially read it as "these two groups had these opinions for these reasons, but the rest criticized it"

darn u reg i got regt
---