Trump Pushes Back Against Neocon Plan to Invade Syria

[Origanalist]

It is not about brainwashing. You can support Trump for practical reasons. I think Danno is right about the Syria missile strikes helping Trump politically in the US. The media stopped talking about the sickening russian narrative. Proof again it was just a hoax to manipulate the public opinion.

Trump made a good call as a politician. Libertarian souls can bitch all they want about principles and being conned. Trump is going to disappointed again. I have enough hairchest.

Just answer the question. Which game is Trump playing?

We're all pleased to know you have enough hairchest.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Are you actually defending, "wagging the dog"?!

You see, this is emblematic of what Trump has done to your brains. You were conned. But instead of coming to that realization, you're doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to make things fit. In fact, you're actually supporting military action as a way to gain political power!! You will completely drop any pretense of principles if it'll help you believe the fairy tale that you didn't fall for the con. You'd be much, much better off if you'd just admit it and move on. At least then, you'd maintain a shred of dignity.

You have a point, and maybe you're right, but why should anyone believe that he was conned? Wouldn't it make more sense if the horrid ideas he vomits up every day are his real beliefs and anything to the contrary was a pretense? I mean, we know that the deep state tries to infiltrate political forums, and Stormfront has infiltrated RPF before.

 

[timosman]

I think that this is the first time that I have ever heard someone praise a presidential administration for using a military operation to distract from an ongoing investigation.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

We're all pleased to know you have enough hairchest.

He's so alpha. You're just a jealous paulcuck.

 

[Pizzo]

It is not about brainwashing. You can support Trump for practical reasons. I think Danno is right about the Syria missile strikes helping Trump politically in the US. The media stopped talking about the sickening russian narrative. Proof again it was just a hoax to manipulate the public opinion.

Trump made a good call as a politician. Libertarian souls can bitch all they want about principles and being conned. Trump is going to disappointed again. I have enough hairchest.

Just answer the question. Which game is Trump playing?

You certainly do, fella.

 

[Superfluous Man]

According to White House sources who spoke to Infowars,

'Nuf said.

 

[Ender]

Ya, I took the same position as you all did if you recall - but I also recognize that Trump gained massive amounts of political capital that he may be able to use to create peace, and if a 15 minute air raid on an empty airbase achieves that then I certainly prefer that plan to a massive globalist military boondoggle.

I mean, how the hell was he supposed to make any sort of deals with Russia while the media was maligning Putin for getting Trump elected, and Trump being a Putin stooge. It would have been impossible. Now that narrative is dust, and Trump can move on and actually accomplish something. It's called forward thinking, Trump has it.

What's the excuse for bombing Raqqa? This was NOT an empty airbase.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508448-Race-For-Raqqa-Major-US-Escalation-In-Syria

 

[dannno]

Are you actually defending, "wagging the dog"?!

You see, this is emblematic of what Trump has done to your brains. You were conned. But instead of coming to that realization, you're doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to make things fit. In fact, you're actually supporting military action as a way to gain political power!! You will completely drop any pretense of principles if it'll help you believe the fairy tale that you didn't fall for the con. You'd be much, much better off if you'd just admit it and move on. At least then, you'd maintain a shred of dignity.

I don't know if he supported the military action, I did not. However, if you are viewing things from the correct perspective, it's not all that bad. It was an empty airbase, the attack lasted 15 minutes. That is the negative. The positive is that Trump is fighting against the deep state globalists who want to murder millions of people, and this action gave him tremendous political capital that could be used to further world peace, as opposed to killing millions of people. If in hindsight, Trump ends up saving millions of lives, then it was probably a good action to take. Not being able to see into the future, taking a principled stand like Ron or Rand, like myself or you or the other people here is the best option. But the deep state would most likely murder that option before they ever got into power. So it's called having a preference, a preference against the deep state, it is a very reasonable preference to have. The deep state is evil, and there are a lot of people on here actively shilling for them and I think that is a mistake.

 

[dannno]

What's the excuse for bombing Raqqa? This was NOT an empty airbase.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508448-Race-For-Raqqa-Major-US-Escalation-In-Syria

For the millionth time, Trump campaigned on getting rid of ISIS. My preference would be for Ron Paul's plan to bring the troops home over Trump's plan, but I prefer Trump's plan of getting rid of ISIS and then not attacking sovereign countries over a continuation of the deep state plan to fund ISIS and radical Islam and create more proxy wars and regime change and nation building.. The analogy I used recently was that getting rid of ISIS is like picking up dog poop on your neighbor's lawn.. it's trespassing, but your dog pooped and so your neighbor appreciates it. jmdrake made some crazy claim that Assad wouldn't want us there helping to get rid of ISIS, but that is ignorant. Assad would welcome our military in the fight against ISIS.

Do you have a preference for a continuation of the deep state proxy wars, funding ISIS, regime change and nation building over Trump's plan of defeating ISIS and protecting America?

 

[nikcers]

For the millionth time, Trump campaigned on getting rid of ISIS.

Trump campaigned on being the most militaristic person and the least militaristic person, and his campaign would tell the audience that he was fooling the other group.

 

[Constitutional Moderate]

What happened to not being globalists? To making America great again? We have threats right here like Islam. I'm a firm believe in what Mark Twain said, support your country all of the time and the government when it deserves it. This should be a no brainer. We are only helping Isis against Assad when we strike like we have or invade Syria. We cannot involve ourselves further especially with no proof Assad even did this. Even if there was Isis is far more of a threat than Assad. We need to take back control of the government that serves us. Their soul purpose is to protect our rights. We must act by writing or calling our congressman and expressing what we the people want. Individually as that is what we are based on and what holds power. Not groups. Until we stop letting government do whatever it wants we are likely to have tyranny under a democracy with no freedom. We still have our republic but it doesn't keep itself. We the people. Like Reagan said the government is the car and we are the driver. We cannot sit back and not utilize the law we are ruled by and the Republican form of government we have get destroyed. I voted for Trump because I thought he was the best candidate but there is no way I will I will sit back while he doesnt follow through on his promises. Draining the swamp didnt happen. Our focus seems to have gone global when he said its what we need to stop doing. I refuse to act like a liberal sheeple just because of who is president. It would make me just like the blind sheeple for obama while he did major destruction while supporting him. Never voted for the socialist but even when I did with Trump, if he starts acring like a politician he said he's not I am going to call him on it.
We need to do what we can to let our employees know in government we cannot do this. Stop the attacks and don't invade. Bring the focus back to America. Build the wall like you promised...its law. Reagan said a nation without borders is not a nation. Islam was banned/outlawed/made illegal here in 1952 because it's a hate group. If we don't follow the laws we are ruled by we can kiss freedom goodbye and say hello to tyranny of the elite in being mob rule then I inevitably ruled by the elite (democracy always degenerates to oligarchy...always) keep our republic!!!

 

[Ender]

For the millionth time, Trump campaigned on getting rid of ISIS. My preference would be for Ron Paul's plan to bring the troops home over Trump's plan, but I prefer Trump's plan of getting rid of ISIS and then not attacking sovereign countries over a continuation of the deep state plan to fund ISIS and radical Islam and create more proxy wars and regime change and nation building.. The analogy I used recently was that getting rid of ISIS is like picking up dog poop on your neighbor's lawn.. it's trespassing, but your dog pooped and so your neighbor appreciates it. jmdrake made some crazy claim that Assad wouldn't want us there helping to get rid of ISIS, but that is ignorant. Assad would welcome our military in the fight against ISIS.

Do you have a preference for a continuation of the deep state proxy wars, funding ISIS, regime change and nation building over Trump's plan of defeating ISIS and protecting America?

And for the millionth time, it is obvious that you have not watched this video.

ISIS was hardly present in Raqqa- the US is supporting 2 different factions there that are fighting EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NOT ISIS.

Many innocents were killed for what cause? Trump's ego?

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Edit: I checked the rules, and apparently there has been a rule added to outlaw FIFY posts, so I will rephrase the exact same information in a more politically correct way to appease the trumpflakes:


Trump's plan IS proxy wars, funding ISIS, regime change and nation building. That is exactly what Trump has been doing. The deep state and media have been wanting to destabilize Syria and have done a pr campaign against Assad, and Trump has dutifully attacked Assad both verbally and militarily. Anything repackaging those real, tangible events is fan fiction. If Trump and the deep state are really fighting, it is nothing more than The Wars of the Roses.

 

[dannno]

And for the millionth time, it is obvious that you have not watched this video.

ISIS was hardly present in Raqqa- the US is supporting 2 different factions there that are fighting EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NOT ISIS.

Many innocents were killed for what cause? Trump's ego?

Ok, do you realize that there also factions at war within our intelligence agencies and military?

Some of them still want to arm ISIS and create boondoggles for the military industrial complex. Others want to make America great again.

There will no doubt be hiccups and issues on the battlefield, that is part of the nature of these types of fights and that is why I don't support them. How do you know who is fighting for who? We have been told over and over it is almost impossible to tell.

But I do have a preference for a leader whose overall reaching goal is to defeat ISIS, even if there are a couple hiccups, if the other alternative is endless boondoggles, regime change and nation building.

Which do you prefer? I keep asking, you keep NOT answering.

 

[dannno]

Meh.

Reported - against forum guidelines.

 

[Ender]

Ok, do you realize that there also factions at war within our intelligence agencies and military?

Some of them still want to arm ISIS and create boondoggles for the military industrial complex. Others want to make America great again.

There will no doubt be hiccups and issues on the battlefield, that is part of the nature of these types of fights and that is why I don't support them. How do you know who is fighting for who? We have been told over and over it is almost impossible to tell.

But I do have a preference for a leader whose overall reaching goal is to defeat ISIS, even if there are a couple hiccups, if the other alternative is endless boondoggles, regime change and nation building.

Which do you prefer? I keep asking, you keep NOT answering.

Neither.

I prefer a president who will bring the military home and quite fucking up countries with wars WE have started.

 

[dannno]

Meh.

I reported this post because it is fraudulent, not because it hurts my feelings. (this is a response to your -rep, you can -rep me all you want I don't really care)

 

[dannno]

Neither.

I prefer a president who will bring the military home and quite fucking up countries with wars WE have started.

If I had that option, I would pick that too.. but that is not reality.

The reality is your dog pooped on your neighbor's lawn. You have the option of picking up the poop on your neighbor's lawn, or dumping 100 tons of manure on their house.

 

[Mordan]

Neither.

I prefer a president who will bring the military home and quite $#@!ing up countries with wars WE have started.

you don't have such a president. and people cheered anyways.. Drudge had Trump at 50% approval ratings.

 

[Mordan]

I don't feel conned because I never supported Trump for the reasons hard libertarians here think I did.

You keep saying it trying to fit my actions into your narrative. Nobody answered my question. What game is Trump playing? He is not playing the "most libertarian president ever"game. He is playing real politics. Syria's strike was a winning move according to the latest developments. It is not a winning move to hardcore principled libertarians. Hey newsflash. I never was a principled libertarian.

Nobody answered my views about solving the issue that power is corrupting elected officials. Oh yea.. because it is not a pure libertarian solution.