Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

I doubt that, what's trump going to do? waste more missiles in publicity stunts?

As russia just drew a line in the sand, is trump going to cross it into syria? absolutely not. Looks like Assad will rule for at least another 4 years.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

Hagel seems to be cut from the same cloth as Mattis. I already know your irrational hate-on for HRC, but she's at least as qualified administrator as Tillerson. (And without the dubious ties to Russian oil giant Gazprom!)

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

Advice can be given but not heeded. Trump is a master at not listening to advice.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions that have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of months, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

I heard this story on the radio, so I don't have a link handy.

But it sounds like "Not even Hitler was as bad as Assad" was not a Spicer slip-up and that he might have been repeating an official White House talking point when he went down that rabbit hole.

Secretary Mattis also gave a statement (heard the clip, don't have a source) where he stated that nobody had used used used chemical weapons on the battlefield since WW1, including Germany and Korea. Which IMO makes it more likely that Spicer didn't come up with the analogy by himself, and that both he and Mattis were working off prepared talking points that came form inside the White House.

Now Mattis was just a tiny bit better at articulating the whole "on the battlefield, in an actual war" aspect of Good Guy Hitler not gassing people vs Spicers "Hitler's Holocaust Center Vacation Package for Non Germans" rambling. But it seems that Spicer is just unable to handle being the face and voice of the Trump Administration without taking the turd sandwich he is tasked with selling and making it look even worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

Meanwhile, the guy who ordered the whole thing can't remember whether he just launched missiles at Syria or Iraq without help from his interviewer...

 d-usa wrote:


Now Mattis was just a tiny bit better at articulating the whole "on the battlefield, in an actual war" aspect of Good Guy Hitler not gassing people vs Spicers "Hitler's Holocaust Center Vacation Package for Non Germans" rambling. But it seems that Spicer is just unable to handle being the face and voice of the Trump Administration without taking the turd sandwich he is tasked with selling and making it look even worse.

Aye, the level of incompetency by most of the people in this administration is mind boggling, and should be infuriating regardless of political stances. As the head of WH communications, this guy should never have had a snowballs chance in hell at the role if it were merit based.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

indeed...

Sometimes you need someone talking who has a clue what they are talking about, not just someone who has a relationship with reporters. I point you to Bush's talking head for a while, Dana Perino, who had no clue what the Cuban Missle Crisis was or what it was about, who now works at Fox News, and has for the last few years because she is a genial attractive blonde.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

Reason 3 Obama's actions/non-actions over Syria were so bad, that even former Obama admin officials praise Trump's actions:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-democratic-hawks-237024
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/ex-obama-officials-show-true-colors-on-syria-after-strikes.html

Of course the warmongers would be happy. They need an enemy to attack, that's their purpose in life.

On the other hand, if Mattis was to send Whembly and Frazzled on front line and they avoid bullets as much as facts, it may actually be a good idea to win the war.

Still war, though. So, who will be hit next? Another Syrian target or some North Koreans? Who knows, maybe Luxembourg. It's so small anyway, just one Tomahawk will do to make a big crater. Some documentary on Fox News would be fine to teach Trump it even exists and it's full of terrorists/spiritual sons of Hitler, that would be enough for him to have the idea to launch an attack to show how "badass" he can be.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

Reason 3 Obama's actions/non-actions over Syria were so bad, that even former Obama admin officials praise Trump's actions:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-democratic-hawks-237024
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/ex-obama-officials-show-true-colors-on-syria-after-strikes.html

Yes, we already established that 38% of Democrats support military strikes against Syria regardless of who is in power. But thanks for pointing out that consistency.

 Sarouan wrote:
Of course the warmongers would be happy. They need an enemy to attack, that's their purpose in life.

On the other hand, if Mattis was to send Whembly and Frazzled on front line and they avoid bullets as much as facts, it may actually be a good idea to win the war.

Sure, show me the nuke button.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

Reason 3 Obama's actions/non-actions over Syria were so bad, that even former Obama admin officials praise Trump's actions:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-democratic-hawks-237024
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/ex-obama-officials-show-true-colors-on-syria-after-strikes.html

Yes, we already established that 38% of Democrats support military strikes against Syria regardless of who is in power. But thanks for pointing out that consistency.

You missed...

 whembly wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
Of course the warmongers would be happy. They need an enemy to attack, that's their purpose in life.

On the other hand, if Mattis was to send Whembly and Frazzled on front line and they avoid bullets as much as facts, it may actually be a good idea to win the war.

Sure, show me the nuke button.

Its weird, I'm the guy advocating not fighting anyone and pulling back, and this statement is made about me.

On the other hand, drop me on the front line and the US will be accused of using weapons of mass consumption.
NOM NOM NOM

 whembly wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
Of course the warmongers would be happy. They need an enemy to attack, that's their purpose in life.

On the other hand, if Mattis was to send Whembly and Frazzled on front line and they avoid bullets as much as facts, it may actually be a good idea to win the war.

Sure, show me the nuke button.

And I thought you were more like the kind of player looking for "Hardcore" mode. Nuke button is the "Easy" mode.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
Of course the warmongers would be happy. They need an enemy to attack, that's their purpose in life.

On the other hand, if Mattis was to send Whembly and Frazzled on front line and they avoid bullets as much as facts, it may actually be a good idea to win the war.

Sure, show me the nuke button.

Its weird, I'm the guy advocating not fighting anyone and pulling back, and this statement is made about me.

On the other hand, drop me on the front line and the US will be accused of using weapons of mass consumption.
NOM NOM NOM

Cry havoc, and let LOOSE THE HOUNDS!!!!!!!!!

 whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Yes, we already established that 38% of Democrats support military strikes against Syria regardless of who is in power. But thanks for pointing out that consistency.

You missed...

The point is pretty simple, and was well established before you replied:

 Vaktathi wrote:

2013: 22% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons. 2017: 86% of Republicans and 37% of Democrats support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons

- Republican approval for military strikes against Syria varied between Obama and Trump.
- Democratic approval for military strikes against Syria is consistent between Obama and Trump.
- 38% and 37% of Democrats support a strike against Syria regardless of who is POTUS.

Then you came in and made some random "well, then how do you explain these previous Obama administration officials praising Trump" post. Despite the fact that we already established that the same percentage of Democrats support striking Syria under either Obama and Trump. You didn't add anything to the discussion that we didn't already establish. That's why I pointed out that we already knew that 38% of Democrats were okay with Trump bombing Syria when you replied "look at these Democrats supporting Trump for bombing Syria".

If "Democrats support Trump" wasn't the point of making a "Democrats support Trump" post in response to poll numbers showing consistent support of Democrats for bombing Syria under Obama and Trump please elaborate, but I'm guessing in your haste of making another "stupid liberals, this will show them" post you forgot what actual point you were trying to make.

And in a totally unsurprising turn of event, Russia vetoed the UN Draft resolution on Syria attack.

Some Fox News link to make our right wing friends happy;

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/12/un-draft-resolution-on-syria-attack-vote-fails-with-russia-veto-china-abstains.html

So, it's going at that again. I bet it's Obama's fault, anyway.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

I LOL'd, one exalt for humorous truth sir.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Yes, we already established that 38% of Democrats support military strikes against Syria regardless of who is in power. But thanks for pointing out that consistency.

You missed...

The point is pretty simple, and was well established before you replied:

 Vaktathi wrote:

2013: 22% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons. 2017: 86% of Republicans and 37% of Democrats support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons

- Republican approval for military strikes against Syria varied between Obama and Trump.
- Democratic approval for military strikes against Syria is consistent between Obama and Trump.
- 38% and 37% of Democrats support a strike against Syria regardless of who is POTUS.

Then you came in and made some random "well, then how do you explain these previous Obama administration officials praising Trump" post. Despite the fact that we already established that the same percentage of Democrats support striking Syria under either Obama and Trump. You didn't add anything to the discussion that we didn't already establish. That's why I pointed out that we already knew that 38% of Democrats were okay with Trump bombing Syria when you replied "look at these Democrats supporting Trump for bombing Syria".

If "Democrats support Trump" wasn't the point of making a "Democrats support Trump" post in response to poll numbers showing consistent support of Democrats for bombing Syria under Obama and Trump please elaborate, but I'm guessing in your haste of making another "stupid liberals, this will show them" post you forgot what actual point you were trying to make.

I made the point that the descrepencies may be rooted to the Obama admin's handling of the situation.

Not a 'pro/anti- war' stance.

Hence why I brought up actual ex-Obama officials who cheered the strike. That has to be a bit jarring that Obama's own people wished he had done it differently.

Am I not being clear here??

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

Reason 3 Obama's actions/non-actions over Syria were so bad, that even former Obama admin officials praise Trump's actions:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-democratic-hawks-237024
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/ex-obama-officials-show-true-colors-on-syria-after-strikes.html

the question was do you support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons use, not their overall Syria policy or the view of the administration overall.

There are absolutely democrats that supported the strikes, nearly 40% in both instances. Nobody is debating that. Many strongly disagreed with Obama at the time. The issue was the one group remained almost unchanged while the other, along strictly partisan lines, almost quadrupled support.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

Reason 3 Obama's actions/non-actions over Syria were so bad, that even former Obama admin officials praise Trump's actions:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-democratic-hawks-237024
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/ex-obama-officials-show-true-colors-on-syria-after-strikes.html

the question was do you support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons use, not their overall Syria policy or the view of the administration overall.

This is one of the things I hate about these types of polls, as the response is treated as a black&white dichotomy. The policy at the time is definitely dependent on how you answer that.

It's a mistake to interpret this results as, hey, GOP said "no" cuz Obama was Prezzie... but, when it's Trump? LOL NUKE IT FROM ORBITZZ!!!

EDIT: saw you update this:

 Vaktathi wrote:

There are absolutely democrats that supported the strikes, nearly 40% in both instances. Nobody is debating that. Many strongly disagreed with Obama at the time. The issue was the one group remained almost unchanged while the other, along strictly partisan lines, almost quadrupled support.

...okay, why do *you* think it's an issue that the support jumped up 4x?

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or, it could simply be a reflection that no one wanted the Obama Administration to "handle" this situation.

And they honestly believe *Trump* will do better?

Really?

With the likes of Mattis / McMaster / other serious people giving advise? Better than the Obama administration?

Absolutely.

so...you're saying two appointments, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people pay zero attention to, and who neither make the final go/no go call nor head instiutions thay have been radically changed, people who have been in office only a couple of montha, is sufficient to induce a higly partisan swing from almost no support to almost total support?

Just because we've got Matthis instead of Hagel?

Really?

Well, we have two possible reasons.

Reason 1 is that that the overwhelming majority of self identified republicans are intimately familiar with the appointments, qualifications, and motivations of key policy makers in both the Obama and Trump administrations. They are able to formulate the likelihood of consequences based on individual situations by anticipating the reactions of key players in the region in response to varying actions by either administration and then determine if the military actions are something that they could support.

Reason 2 is "Yeah, Trump" and "feth Obama".

We will never know which is more likely.

Reason 3 Obama's actions/non-actions over Syria were so bad, that even former Obama admin officials praise Trump's actions:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-democratic-hawks-237024
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/10/ex-obama-officials-show-true-colors-on-syria-after-strikes.html

the question was do you support strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical weapons use, not their overall Syria policy or the view of the administration overall.

This is one of the things I hate about these types of polls, as the response is treated as a black&white dichotomy. The policy at the time is definitely dependent on how you answer that.

It's a mistake to interpret this results as, hey, GOP said "no" cuz Obama was Prezzie... but, when it's Trump? LOL NUKE IT FROM ORBITZZ!!!

Hrm, to some degree I dont disagree and there is something to be said for that. However, we also had a rather clear and confined query. The starkly partisan nature of the split and the great disparity between 2013 and 2017, when compared to the other respondents that have otherwise similar information, would tend toward that answer.

In fact, a coworker at lunch had almost this exact response while watching the news in the breakroom. When I asked her about it, her response was literally "Obama never had the guts to do something like this".

Just watching social media, the number of posts I see people praising airstrikes and the like skyrocketed since Trump took office, even attributing strikes to Trump and Mattis that were originally ordered or began planning under Obama, to show how "tough" the new admin was. Others outright denied that airstrikes of targets like ISIS oil assets ever occurred under Obama and only Trump and Mattis dared engage in such.

Anecdotal of course, but I didnt see the same ra-ra airstrike cheerleading until...hrm, January or so.

EDIT: saw you update this:

 Vaktathi wrote:

There are absolutely democrats that supported the strikes, nearly 40% in both instances. Nobody is debating that. Many strongly disagreed with Obama at the time. The issue was the one group remained almost unchanged while the other, along strictly partisan lines, almost quadrupled support.

...okay, why do *you* think it's an issue that the support jumped up 4x?

The simplest explanation that doesnt require assumptions of public knowledge of the administration and the Syria situation far in excess of what could reasonably be expected of the average person, confined to a single partisan demographic making the same conclusion based on the supposed wildly superior quality of new appointees...?

Simple partisan favor. "It's cool when our guy does it". Not to say that other factors dont also factor in, but thats going to be the crux of it. I cannot think of a factor that would explain such a huge swing amongst a single demographic otherwise. People react differently to the same thing when presented in different ways.

This behavior isnt unique to any one group or issue, I've been guilty of it myself, everyone has, but it is a rather stark example in this case.

 d-usa wrote:
I heard this story on the radio, so I don't have a link handy.

But it sounds like "Not even Hitler was as bad as Assad" was not a Spicer slip-up and that he might have been repeating an official White House talking point when he went down that rabbit hole.

Secretary Mattis also gave a statement (heard the clip, don't have a source) where he stated that nobody had used used used chemical weapons on the battlefield since WW1, including Germany and Korea. Which IMO makes it more likely that Spicer didn't come up with the analogy by himself, and that both he and Mattis were working off prepared talking points that came form inside the White House.

Now Mattis was just a tiny bit better at articulating the whole "on the battlefield, in an actual war" aspect of Good Guy Hitler not gassing people vs Spicers "Hitler's Holocaust Center Vacation Package for Non Germans" rambling. But it seems that Spicer is just unable to handle being the face and voice of the Trump Administration without taking the turd sandwich he is tasked with selling and making it look even worse.

Mattis handled it much better, but then again that's what you'd expect from an intelligent and reasonable adult who's a student of military history. It was important that he made the point that since WWI armed forces across the world have recognized that it's best to abstain from deploying chemical weapons on the battlefield which makes the repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria noteworthy and heinous. On the flip side we have Spicer who is a fething train wreck. Spicer has not shown himself to be either articulate or even knowledgeable when it comes to the administration's policies and position and he seems to relish being combative to boot. I realize the press secretary may need to be combative sometimes but Spicer hasn't seemed capable of cultivating any positive relationships with the press which is one of the primary responsibilities of the job and being antagonistic also puts himself at the center of media stories far too often which is incredibly counter productive and stupid. If Trump really did surround himself with the best people then I think a decent amount of his Trump-iness could be contained but when a good chunk of his administration is incompetent it makes things exponentially worse.

On the other hand, maybe Trump likes the press Spicer gets, it sort of distracts from his actual policies, or lack of coherent ones. After all, when the story becomes about the press coverage, it de facto becomes less about the actual story.

EDIT: this was directed at Vaktathi.

To me... it's a lazy cheap partisan trick to argue that it supports the "it's cool when my guy does it".

It's too flippant.

A better, more concise interpretation, imo, would be "I trust my guy to do the right thing".

That's where I'm at.

I truly think Trump actually does tries to listen to Mattis/McMaster/et. el. in these regards.

My only complaint is that these adventures really should be unconstitutional. Congress need to claw back the powers they've delegated via the War Powers Act. Trump ought to demand a new AUMF.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
On the other hand, maybe Trump likes the press Spicer gets, it sort of distracts from his actual policies, or lack of coherent ones. After all, when the story becomes about the press coverage, it de facto becomes less about the actual story.

I...

...4D chess here?

Aw feth it, you might have a point.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If Trump really did surround himself with the best people then I think a decent amount of his Trump-iness could be contained but when a good chunk of his administration is incompetent it makes things exponentially worse.

Trump likes to think he is the smartest person in the room and that is one of the reasons that he will never actually hire the best people. The possibility that they could be better than him would be an unbearable thought for someone like Trump.

It's not really 4d chess, more like what he did in the primaries with his Twitter outbursts. Got a bad news story? Change the perspective of the story. It's the basic calling card of the modern GOP brought on initially by Gingrich. It isn't particularly insightful or original. It is what Orwell's point was in "Politics in the English Language". Problem is, somehow the right reads the work as "how to do it and make friends" not "what to be wary of, people"

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
On the other hand, maybe Trump likes the press Spicer gets, it sort of distracts from his actual policies, or lack of coherent ones. After all, when the story becomes about the press coverage, it de facto becomes less about the actual story.

Trump has a weird and very narrow range of people he wants to surround himself with.

He wants people that don't act like they are bigger than him, and he wants people that don't bring him bad press. Kellyanne Conway was the shining grace of Trump for a while, until she fell from the limelight. Bannon seems to be on the way out, and it's hard for Trump to have any kind of message when Spicer often becomes the message himself.

And his fashion sense is horrible, and there have been voices from inside that this can irritate Trump just as much as any actual blunder.

 d-usa wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
On the other hand, maybe Trump likes the press Spicer gets, it sort of distracts from his actual policies, or lack of coherent ones. After all, when the story becomes about the press coverage, it de facto becomes less about the actual story.

Trump has a weird and very narrow range of people he wants to surround himself with.

He wants people that don't act like they are bigger than him, and he wants people that don't bring him bad press. Kellyanne Conway was the shining grace of Trump for a while, until she fell from the limelight. Bannon seems to be on the way out, and it's hard for Trump to have any kind of message when Spicer often becomes the message himself.

And his fashion sense is horrible, and there have been voices from inside that this can irritate Trump just as much as any actual blunder.

On one hand I sadly think you are right, on the other, his best dressed people just happen to be his best advisors. It is total coincidence, but he will read it the wrong way. Kushner, Ivanka, Mattis, all immaculate dressers. Bannon, Spicer, Conway, himself. All can't find a mirror if their life depended on it. Maybe the fact that some of them can't stand to even look at themselves in a mirror means something?