In the weeks since the White House announced an upcoming withdrawal from
Syria, media coverage and comments from lawmakers on the matter have
been almost uniformly critical. In many cases, the coverage has been hysterically so, warning of an imminent second 9/11 over it.
Yet this consistent narrative isn’t informing the public nearly so much as opinion-makers likely expected it to. A new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed a narrow majority of American voters remain in favor of the withdrawal of US troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
The polling figures showed 52% in favor of the Trump-announced drawdowns, and 48% against. The polls also showed a narrow 54-46% majority in favor of keeping troops “in places like Syria and Iraq,” though no Iraq drawdown is being contemplated at the moment.
After weeks of condemning the Syria pullout, media analysts are trying to downplay the significance of the poll showing a majority of voters supporting it, suggesting that there isn’t deep support for either position.
In reality, the persistence of the majority support speaks volumes, after weeks of consistent media portrayals of it as a colossal mistake. While there may always be some ambivalence on the margins, for 52% to remain in favor of a pullout shows a lot of resilience.
Poll: Narrow Majority of Americans Back Trump’s Drawdowns in Syria, AfghanistanMajority supports withdrawals despite negative media coverage
In the weeks since the White House announced an upcoming withdrawal from
Syria, media coverage and comments from lawmakers on the matter have
been almost uniformly critical. In many cases, the coverage has been hysterically so, warning of an imminent second 9/11 over it.
77 thoughts on “Poll: Narrow Majority of Americans Back Trump’s Drawdowns in Syria, Afghanistan”
Until it bites their own @sses back home and not too many coffins comes flying back from the US instigated global wars, MSM- indoctrinated, opiode high and morbidly obese Yankfags will continue to “support our troops”….
… Just over half of Americans don’t support the wars, and a fair amount of effort has to be expended to keep the lesser half in line.
Anti-Americanism is a psyops tool, that while may be drawn from real anti-American sentiment incited by imperial activities, is harnessed to whip Americans into an unthinking pro-war frenzy.
Ultimately anti-Americanism is not really helpful to the antiwar cause.
“Ultimately anti-Americanism is not really helpful to the antiwar cause.”
Opposing the anti-liberty, anti-peace policies of the US federal government is not being anti-American, if we define America as the American ideal of liberty and peace.
I love my country, and support its people in opposition to its government’s policies.
No doubt on your intentions, however, that doesn’t change the hostile, adversarial anti-American nature of the comment I was responding to.
Nowhere was singled out malign U.S. government policy as apart from The People as a whole, nor pro-war, pro-imperial popular factions segregated for due scorn, nor can such be seen as implied.
Not all Americans are warmongers, even if many are.
If the American People are to be treated as one, encouraging the better half to prevail and define the whole is far more rational than inciting collective nationalist defense even of the worst.
Actually, 65% of US citizens oppose unending wars of aggression worldwide. Whatever poll stated 58% or less hasn’t done its homework. Far less are warmongers, and those numbers are falling.
A decade ago, many more Americans were warmongers .. but as the years went buy w/o any victories, the numbers of warmongers dropped considerably. 65% opposing these endless wars of aggression is quite remarkable, to say the least, and the percentage is rising.
America in principle stands for liberty in peace, in practice it advances enslavement and war. It’s an uncomfortable contradiction, and to the extent Americans identify as such, they are likely to take personally the loss of their illusions.
It’s shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone that a message that states; “I Support our Troops, I want them to come home for Christmas”, plays better in the heartland than calling people names, right? Making fun of people who actually still do believe in the Land of the free and brave, etc. doesn’t help a thing, explaining why we would all be better off without war and have lost our way often does.
I think a whole lot of people forget who actually has the most skin in the game. When I’m trying to get people to support the anti-war position I find tons of allies among the right wing pro Trump movement, most of them have family members or friends who served. That’s shocking to people on the left, many of whom don’t know a single person who has served, not any under the age of 40 anyway. It’s mostly “deplorable” households where there is a veteran of our current wars sitting around the table. I’m not sure what conversation the left thinks the deplorables are having around that dinner table, but it’s not usually centered around the idea that we need more war. Just the opposite actually, at least in my experience.
googled, “I Support our Troops, I want them to come home for Christmas”
No results found for “I Support our Troops, I want them to come home for Christmas”.
A narrow antiwar majority is disappointing, but at least its there and perhaps growing.
I agree. Actually the numbers are, if true, shocking. It does show that the war mongering msm still has teeth.
Considering the endless onslaught of war pornography that most people subject themselves too though, it’s promising.
It’s important to remember that most people don’t read sites like this. Most people are not very well informed. If Trump has done anything right aside from pulling out of Syria, it’s further blackening the undeserved good name of this countries imperial Fourth Estate.
The simple truth is that the mainstream media has not been able to convince the people that peace is bad. The people want peace – that is always the case. And despite the McCarthyite – no, Stalinist – attacks of the media, Trump is emerging as the peace president, and after the Singapore Summit, the Helsinki Summit and now the Syria and Afghan drawdown, he deserves it.
If the economy holds the Dems will have to run as the Party of war and misery. Deservedly so. They are horsemen of the apocalypse and they deserve to lose.
Disgusting – no deplorable – that they have tried to portray themselves as the Party of peace. What a joke progressives/liberals have become.
My gOD, we could be in WW3 and you’d still be trotting out the same cherry picked bullsh*t about Trump. Can’t wait for the next vote in congress on anything pertaining to war.
Cherry picked BS? Like no longer refueling the Saudi jets and demanding they negotiate, did you even read the statement put out on Yemen? How about pulling out of Syria and forcing our side to negotiate with the Taliban? How about in North Korea where we are working towards peace? And instead of talking about that you bring up WW3 as if it’s Trump who will bring that about/ WTF are you talking about?
The reality is that the biggest danger of us ending up in WW3 would be if we continue to leave our troops in Syria and that would have been the plan if Trump had lost the election. One of the first things he did was to stop funding for the moderate rebels, he is getting us out of the very situation that could bring about WWIII and instead you act like it’s Trump who might get us there. That is such a complete and total BS it’s hard to believe you said it.
I swear the more Trump gets right the more a certain element on this site freaks out and comes up with more hyperbolic nonsense so they never have to admit they were wrong.
WWIII, yep let’s talk about it that. Hillary wanted to shoot down Russian jets and did you just miss her recent tweet on Syria? WWIII was on my mind when I voted for Trump and boy am I glad I did too. WWIII was one of my main concerns. Although it obviously isn’t really your concern or you wouldn’t have brought it up in such a ridiculous way.
We are right now, Thanks to Trump getting out of the situation that is most likely to bring us into direct military opposition with Russia and you bring up WW3 as if it’s Trump and not Hillary who would have gotten us into it. Talk about freaking clueless, holy cow!
Has the humanitarian crisis in Yemen ended because we stopped refueling Saudi warplanes? Wasn’t there a recent UN resolution that we disagreed with because it didn’t put the blame squarely on Iran? Didn’t Trump just say that we could re-enter Syria, if needed, from our bases in Iraq? Should a peace president talk about illegally re-entering another sovereign country from a base in a country he said we should never have invaded but are still there? Didn’t Trump just drop more bombs on Afghanistan in 2018 than have been dropped on that country since 2002? And didn’t he lessen the rules of engagement resulting in the civilian death toll to soar? And doesn’t the drawdown of troops pretty much equal the number increased during Trump’s surge? The Singapore summit was great but our sanctions continue unabated. The Helsinki summit was also a great thing but we continue to back Ukraine and supply them with weaponry even the big O wouldn’t. Now we’re talking about building up their Navy. Or how about when we talk about Trump’s summits we also talk about his visit to Saudi Arabia? The orb rubbing, sword dancing Iran hate fest that never gets mentioned while talking about our peace president. And never mind his hate filled tirade towards Iran at his UN speech or his cap filled tirade tweet that threatened Iran with annihilation. And we will never talk about his pro torture stance because most peace presidents would find torture beyond abhorrent.
My comment about WW3 was about the poster’s blind loyalty to Trump and meant that he’d continue to cherry pick if it did happen.
We have peace negotiations going in North Korea, Yemen and Afghanistan and we just pulled out of Syria. But sure you are right, Trump isn’t the Peace president. That’s not peace it’s something else entirely. Peace isn’t peace until it’s peace the way you say it must happen, sure thing, makes perfect sense.
I’ll call him the peace president though if you don’t mind, just because I want to. I think it sets a good tone to encourage people when they get it right. I think that whenever they do something good we should encourage it. But go ahead an split hairs and blah blah blah blah blah.
You can call him Santa Clause if you WANT to but that don’t make him Santa Clause now does it ?
No one is against him trying to make peace happen, we’re just not calling it peace until it actually happens.
Saying you want peace is not peace. Commanding peace is not peace until the orders are followed and the killing stops, no matter if they’re official US troops or proxy troops, spooks, or CIA owned terrorists that were shooting our own troops last week.
There’s also the possibility that NO president can stop a war by the US MIC anymore. Some would go so far as to say one president died bucking the MIC already.
If he actually commanded peace that still wouldn’t make him a peace president in your eyes. That pretty much says it all right there, thanks for making that clear.
That honestly might be the single dumbest comment I have heard today, good job. So until he is absolutely perfect he can’t call himself a peace president, well bully for you, that’s a good one!
No it doesn’t since he can just change that command next week. Not to mention stopping one war so you can start another or double down somewhere else doesn’t make you a peace president.
Somehow you place more value upon rhetoric than you do reality in your definition of peace……….
Well, no, “we” didn’t just pull out of Syria.
Trump said “we” are going to pull out of Syria.
I do hope it happens, and if does Trump deserves the credit for it, as he’s going right up against the political class on the matter.
But until it actually happens, it hasn’t happened.
Thanks that added so much to the conversation, we didn’t actually know that until you informed us. Honestly, why did you just state the obvious? Oh and for gods sake don’t play that stupid game where WE split hairs over the use of the term WE and put it in quotation marks. That one was dumb when it went around 10 years ago and it’s not any better now that it’s a decade old. We all know and understand that “WE” doesn’t literally mean YOU and I and everyone else including the government. We know it’s not the same thing, god I get tired of dealing with people who still feel the need to be fussy about everything possibly related to their philosophy. We get it you’re an anarchist and you are not included in WE blah blah blah.
I guess I judge someone on the totality of their actions and not just the ones that prove my point.
LOL no you judge someone by excluding the evidence. In fact you choose to exclude what he is doing right now and then demand that none of it counts because he isn’t doing even more.
He is pulling troops out of Syria, he has serious peace negotiations going in three other countries as well. Serious talks about peace, not some BS
nothing to see here move along nonsense.This is for real and we really do need to get behind it. Instead all you guys can do is second guess him and act like nothing is really changing at all. All that says to me is that you guys either don’t want to admit you are wrong or you are so entrenched in your views that you honestly can’t see what everyone else is seeing, including those who want endless war. This is a major change in foreign policy. It’s not perfect it’s not done but it is MAJOR shift for the better and we have not seen anything like it in nearly two decades! But to you guys that’s not what’s important, what’s important is that you not be wrong about Trump-bad-man!
Why are you pretending that this isn’t a major policy shift? We are now talking peace instead of starting new wars and all you guys can do is
pretend you were right all along. How sad, we finally have what everyone here at anti-war used to call for a major shift away from endless war. Peace talks are breaking out all over the place thanks to Trump but nope, he still sucks and it’s not really a change and blah blah blah.
I didn’t exclude anything. I gave reasons why I thought Trump shouldn’t be considered a peace president. Your long winded sermons aren’t going to change my mind.
Yes I’m quit sure I wont’ change your mind, facts don’t seem to make a dent so why would my opinion? And again who cares what you think? You have decided that your definition of Peace President matters and your definition alone matters. Honestly, You created your own definition of what a “peace president” must be and you did so in a way that excludes actually doing the hard work it takes to make peace possible. Good for you, that truly shows you are right, Trump is not a peace president. Working towards ending conflicts, not starting new ones, actually pulling us out of a war, nope not a peace president, sure thing. He’s only a peace president if he makes peace the way you think peace should be made, that’s pretty much exactly what I said from the start and it’s also obviously true. It’s a 100% semantic argument and that’s that, but it does a really good job of highlighting how ridiculous you anti-Trumpers are. He’s not a peace president even when he has peace negotiations going in three countries and just pulled us out of a war that could have spawned WWIII. Nope, no peace prize for Trump.
So how many wars will he have to end before you call him a peace president? Don’t answer because you already gave your definition. He will never be a peace president to you because he already waged war and nothing he is doing now will change that. You defined peace president to exclude anyone who ever waged war even if they didn’t start it. And do you know what? If you were a pacifist I’d fully understand that position. But are you a pacifist? Probably not but honestly the only way I’d take you seriously is if you were a pacifist.Then your position would at least make sense.
Another long winded sermon saying the same god damn thing. In the real world does everyone think you are as smart as you think you are?
“but it is MAJOR shift for the better”
It would appear to be a shift in rhetoric, rather than substance. Believe me, I have fallen for rhetoric before. This belief is not a result of “hateful partisanship,” but from simple experience with other Presidents, including Obama.
I hate the partisanship too, which is why most of the time, after reading a column by JR, I get angry. JR’s pro-Trump partisanship is as blatantly ridiculous to me as the anti-Trump partisanship I see in the MSM, and, occasionally, in the comments section here on AWC.
Try to differentiate between anti-Trump partisanship and simple skepticism about anyone in power. There are examples of both on this site, but, for some reason, you conflate them and think it is all partisanship. The reason Trump is the topic here, and not Obama or Clinton, is that Trump is the President, and the others are not.
You can’t even admit he is trying to get us out of the wars and I’m supposed to think that it’s Justin who is wrong and not you?
What exactly do you think Trump is trying to do then? He has all these talks going, with all these nations attending, etc. etc. What is the point? Nobody here is saying why he would do all of the work it takes to get all these talks going if he isn’t serious. Do you have a theory? Nobody else seems to, they just state it like it’s a fact or a great unknown. But honestly, if you can’t even come up with a theory why he would do all this and at the same time you even have a hard time admitting it’s anything in the first place, you have a problem.
And I have no doubt that you have fallen for rhetoric before, but all that means is that your judgment isn’t so great. It doesn’t mean Justin is wrong or that I am. I didn’t get fooled by Obama for a second, not even close. Why? Because Obama’s actions never reflected his Rhetoric. That’s not the case with Trump, even though you won’t admit it. Obama armed the “rebels” Trump stopped arming them. That is not a difference in Rhetoric. Trump is pulling the troops out that is not just rhetoric. And it’s not just rhetoric to actually get peace talks going or to allow North Korea to continue to move forward, etc. etc.
If you want my honest opinion. I think that you can’t believe that a guy, who is as lousy as human being as Trump is, would ever keep a promise or do the right thing. But your problem is that you are actually denying the very real things that make Trump different. Probably in the same way you ignored the very things that made Obama no different than Bush.
“way you ignored the very things that made Obama no different than Bush.”
What makes you think I was fooled by Obama? I never supported Obama, was not taken in by him, and did not vote for him. I used him as an example of the prevarication of politicians, which I observed over the years (just to let you know, I have not supported any major party candidate for President in a general election since 1976) . Why should I think that Trump is any different? I don’t think for a moment that Obama was a “better” person than Trump, such judgements are not the proper province of humans. I thought of Obama as someone who was a power mad sociopath, the same as Bush, but a little smoother talking.
I have stated, however, many times in this forum, that I do not trust xenophobes politically, as their total and complete irrationality in that area makes me skeptical of their ability to reason at all. If that is what you meant by “lousy human being,” you are essentially correct. Someone who has no qualms about crushing immigrants under the jack-booted heel of the State, would probably have no qualms about carpet bombing innocent people in the Middle East.
And this really has nothing to do with Trump. Can’t you clearly see that I am not a knee-jerk Trump hater? I don’t personally know ANY of these politicians, so it is not a matter of “hate.” I have observed over the years, that politicians, of almost any rhetorical ideology, are bold faced liars, and will do almost anything to secure power. This includes the Clintons, Bushes, Obama, and, I believe, Trump. Why should I think Trump is different? Because he’s not smooth and polished like Obama, that means he supports peace? You’ve got to be kidding!
P.S. — The one whose rhetoric I was “taken in” by was Ronald Reagan, in the 1976 Presidential primaries, because he talked a good game about freedom and putting limits on the federal government. At that time, if you were born already, I doubt you were of voting age.
You just made a great case for why you have a knee jerk reaction to distrust all presidents and you still claim your are not predisposed to disbelieve Trump. That’s not a logical argument. Furthermore, you have not answered the simple question of WHY. If Trump is not actually trying to get us out of these wars then WHY would he get all these nations involved in peace talks? That’s a lot of work and it uses up a lot of political capitol to do it, but WHY do it if his intentions are to just keep us there?
When I see actual actions take place I don’t ignore them because they don’t fit in with what I believe. I don’t reduce actual actions to rhetoric either, which you clearly did. And all that is fine, just don’t pretend to have an open mind about Trump. You clearly don’t and that’s ok, you don’t have an open mind about any of them according to you so obviously you can’t have an open mind about Trump.
Considering the state of the world it makes zero difference if you care to give him the benefit of the doubt or not, it doesn’t even matter if you are willing to admit he has done more that spout rhetoric, just don’t expect ME to see you as non-bias when you are not. Being bias against all of them is not the same as having no bias at all. Ignoring what he actually has done and calling it rhetoric isn’t going to convince me you have an open mind about Trump and honestly who cares if you have an open mind. You are not the one acting like an @ss to Justin so I don’t have a problem with you in the slightest.
And one more time, If I’m going to reject an imminently plausible explanation of events I need to have at least a somewhat plausible explanation to replace it with. None of you have come up with a theory that is even remotely plausible for why Trump would go to all this hassle getting all these nations involved in the peace process if he wasn’t seriously looking for a way out of this mess. Would it seem logical to you to ignore actual events because they don’t fit in with preconceptions? It doesn’t make sense to me, but then again his actions actually do fit in with what I expected of him so it’s no great shock to me, nor is it hard for me to believe.
The guy paints himself as a populist, he obviously knows how to read the way the wind is blowing or he would never have managed to get elected in the first place. Ending the wars would cement his place in history as a good president and probably assure re-election. He’s a businessman as well and has to see that our foreign policy is bleeding us dry. I could name a number of reasons why it makes perfect sense for him to want to be the guy who gets us out. I can see NO reason why he would get all these nations into the process if he isn’t serious.
Now can you understand my logic? I think I understand your position because you just explained it. You don’t trust any of them and that’s fine but it’s also a bias whether you care to admit it or not. It’s a predisposition to NOT believe despite evidence to the contrary. I have provided that evidence which you ignored it while simultaneously refusing to provide a plausible alternative to explain his actions.
“predisposition to NOT believe despite evidence to the contrary.”
He has not actually ended any of these wars yet, and I am quite open to him doing so. I am keeping my fingers crossed, and hoping that you are correct about him. But I have to see evidence actually showing that at least one of these wars has ended (or at least US participation in them). I will grant you, that it appears that something non-status quo may be happening. I am totally open to that, otherwise, why would I have written the White House and told Trump to hold firm on his promises?
Well we have that in common, I’ve been writing letters and blowing up the phone. In fact I should have spent more time doing that and less time arguing. Peace.
Indeed; Obama got the Nobel Prize before he did anything, and he certainly isn’t giving it back even after letting Hiliarity rampage over Libya.
Calling Trump a ‘Peace’ president informally is not unreasonable, so far. The level of opposition to Trump just for existing is ridiculous.
What a joke the fake left/right paradigm has become. Or did you forget who kicked the middle east hornet’s nest in the first place ??
You’re also forgetting the economy will not hold which is being admitted to by the very thieves running it as well as the fact it has only worked for the top 10% of earners for about 45 years now.
Conflating top and bottom with left and right is exactly how we got to now and in no way helps us find a solution.
You may want to do some research concerning your claim that Trump is a “peace president”.
This is eerily similar to the bs Obomber used to distract from his imperialism.
Trumps moves in regards to Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and yes even Yemen have proven you wrong, there is simply no doubt about that. But hey whatever floats you boat man, keep doubling down if it helps you sleep at night.
Trump is not the complete Peace president, he’s a “realist” and moving away from the constant control by Neo-conservatives and other war mongers makes this a very nice change indeed. Why you can’t see this is beyond me but I’m guessing you just hate to be wrong and can’t get past it. For you it’s tragic that Trump is better than the war monger because it makes YOU wrong.
I think you and others like you confuse bringing about a resolution with being a pacifist. You Dave are only correct if you demand that a peace president and a pacifist be one in the same. (I doubt you would make that demand of anyone you voted for but I could be wrong and maybe you are just the rare absolute pacifist) Trump is no pacifist but he is working towards resolutions to a number of our wars. If you want to declare that this doesn’t make his a “peace” president that’s fine, it’s a silly semantic argument but whatever, you are allowed to be silly.
Trump is still waging war no doubt about it and for the absolute pacifist that will never be enough. Are you a pacifist Dave?
Can anyone actually deny, with a straight face, that he is attempting to wind down our wars while not having started any new ones? That’s not perfect but it certainly is a huge improvement over Obama, the Bush’s or the Clinton’s all of whom not only continued wars but started new ones of their own. Can Trump realistically be called a Peace president, yes if you are comparing him to any of our last presidents, no if you compare him with a pacifist. I don’t demand that a president be a pacifist to also be considered a peace president, He is moving us away from the ever expanding wars and is instead shutting them down. Less war = more peace = peace president to me, but if you want to split hairs and play a semantic game then fine.
And you can admit this or not, but it was in fact Trump who saved us from Hillary Clinton or another Bush term and HE IS BETTER. The fact that you won’t admit this is a major problem for your credibility. In fact you continue to lose what little credibility you once had faster and faster all the time.
Hillary Clinton saved us from Bush by promoting Trump and then saved us from Hillary by being slightly worse than Trump.
Trump is a conman and has led a life full of defrauding investors and cheating tax payers out of money with his corporate welfare schemes.
Please don’t try to make him sound like he’s more than a half a step up from a Clinton or a Bush since he knows and has bribed both families in the past in order to “win” at capitalism.
“Hillary Clinton saved us from Bush by promoting Trump and then saved us from Hillary by being slightly worse than Trump.”
Wow! Hillary saved us! Oh Wow! And then Hillary saved us from herself. Oh Wow! Off the scale wow!
You the man, Dave!
That’s pretty much how it happened. Or do you think Trump could have beat a candidate that wasn’t a thieving war criminal ?
Be careful you don’t start denying Hillary had the press in the back pocket of her pantsuit and she didn’t end up throwing him billions of dollars in free air time thinking he would self destruct and hopefully cover up the fact she’s a psychopathic megalomaniac.
Are you drunk Dave, you sound like it. What does him being a conman, fraud artist or tax cheat have to do with anything at all? He could very well be all of the above and still be ten times better than Hillary who is murdering scum. We might argue they both are murdering scum depending on what you think of war and you bring up tax cheat, yep that’s what I’m worried about.
Here is a fact that must just chew you up. If NOT for the fact that Donald J Trump decided to run for office you would have either Hillary Clinton or a war mongering Republican pushing these wars and pushing for new ones. Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone made the decision to run for office. I don’t know his motive and neither do you, but we both know exactly what Hillary promised to do in Syria. And what she promised to do is far worse than anything any president has ever done in the private sector. You can take that to the bank.
The fact Trump did exactly what Hillary was going to do anyway doesn’t even register with you does it ?
“Didn’t Trump just drop more bombs on Afghanistan in 2018 than have been dropped on that country since 2002”
Yep, he’s THE PEACE PRESIDENT and thank God he dropped TRUMP bombs that just hug people to death instead of those mean Hillary or Jeb bombs !!!
He’s a peace president because he has peace talks going with three countries and just pulled us out of a forth war. Why can’t you see that this is in fact one hell of a change from Hillary, Obama or Bush? Are you that freaking blind? Don’t answer, obviously you are.
Oh and I get it, to you he sucks because he waged any war at all. I don’t know what planet you live on but the one I live on, it matters whether you are doing your best to end wars or doing your best to start new ones.
In case you forgot, Hillary helped start every single one of these wars and she promised to not only continue them but to be even more belligerent with Russia of all places. Trump on the other hand seems to be doing his best to get us out. You want to pretend that’s the same thing, go right ahead, it only proves my point about how ridiculous the whole bunch of you have acted since day one.
Oh well that clinches it ! He is TALKING about peace ! I’ll bet no other president has EVER talked to other countries about peace before !!
He is doing more than talking he ordered actual real negotiations for peace and he signed the orders to get us out of Syria. Working on diplomacy, getting cease fires in place etc. is not just talking. Right now if someone read what you just wrote they would think you were genuinely too ignorant to understand how important it is to get these talks going. Right now there is a ceasefire in Yemen.That is not just talk. He stopped arming the rebels in Syria and is pulling us out, that is not just talk. Trump is doing exactly what every real anti-war pro-peace activist I have ever know calls for. He is Working towards peace and not starting new wars and what do you have to say about it? Trump-bad-man
He has done far more than just talk, he has taken concrete steps towards moving us away from war but you refuse to admit it or you just are too stupid or blind to either understand or see what is actually going on. Trump is working to disengage from these conflicts that’s simply a fact and your denial of the facts just makes you look like an ignorant sore loser and sore in such a dumb way too.
Why not just be happy you were wrong and move on? Is that really too much to ask? Don’t answer it obviously is too much to ask. Trump could end five wars and you nuts would still blame him for something.
And honestly do you know how freaking stupid you look shouting “He is TALKING about peace”, like that isn’t incredibly important and a major step in the right direction. And guess what? W didn’t do it, Obama didn’t do it, and Hillary didn’t do it either so yes it does seem to be a fairly rare event and did you know this as well? It takes peace talks for peace to break out and nobody that is anti-war should ever act like it’s anything but desperately important that these talks take place. So pull your head out of your backside and act like you understand how these things work.
” he signed the orders to get us out of Syria”
No, he didn’t. He signed orders to withdraw the official US ground troop presence. No word yet on the drone strikes, the air and missile strikes from offshore, etc.
I’m hopeful that he’ll get “us” out of Syria (I’m not actually in Syria, but I’ll go with what I take to be your intended meaning). If he does, he’ll deserve plaudits.
As of now, what he deserves is support for what seems like it might be his intended course of action.
LOL you really can’t help yourself can you? He signed the damn orders, so stop splitting hairs for heavens sake you don’t have to be right
about every tiny thing and acting like you must be, right down to the tiniest detail is so childish, honestly, damn man.
And guess what? Actually getting people to go to peace negotiations is in fact more than just talking. It takes a lot of organization and hard work to pull these things off. And what do you mean might by his “intended” course of action. His Course of action was to get people to negotiate. That wasn’t a “Might be” situation and it is a big deal. That’s a lot of work by a lot of people and it’s already accomplished real things. You know, like the fact that they opened the highway in Yemen so aid can get through? That’s actually real stuff, so are the
negotiations and they are desperately needed, so to hear you poo poo them as nothing but “might be” is just really lame. There is no might be about it, the negotiations are on-going and they have already gotten some real results.
It’s amazing that we have a president who is working towards peace and you sit there and act like he “might be” working towards peace. Seriously what do you think he is doing? Do you think he got all these people together to talk peace just for the
hell of it? Or are you one of the people who think this is some kind of conspiracy theory to fool his ignorant base? Seriously if he isn’t trying to make peace then just exactly what is it that you think he is
trying to accomplish by ordering his staff to work towards peace? You do know that he has absolutely ordered his staff to get to work trying to
end the war in Afghanistan right?
What’s your theory on why he would enter into all these negotiations if he’s not serious? Are we honestly supposed to believe he doesn’t want peace but is just talking peace in three countries for the hell of it or for the optics, what is it? You seem to think it’s likely he has some alternate motive but for the life of me I can’t see what that would be. Care to clue us all in on what it is you think he is up to if it’s not trying to end these wars? Why on Earth would he waste all this time getting all
these people together if he doesn’t actually want to get us out? Do you actually have a theory that would explain that or are you just blowing smoke out of your backside again?
If any other president had peace talks going in three countries and had just signed orders to get us out of Syria would anyone really be looking for
conspiracy theories to come up with some crazy idea that peace talks are not actually peace talks? I swear that only with Trump would we see so many positive signs and still have you being a doubting Thomas. I don’t mean you have to assume all will go well but isn’t it time you stop pretending that his peace talks are not actually intended to try and get
And I know what you are going to say, Trump doesn’t deserve to be trusted, blah blah blah. But why not trust that he is actually trying, unless you have an really good alternative theory for why he would get all these people together to talk I can’t
see how you can realistically believe otherwise, not unless you don’t bother applying logic to anything that is. Is it logical in any way shape or form that he would do all of this and not actually want us out
of the wars? Be honest and don’t just make some stupid shit up like you usually do. Do you actually, honestly and truthfully think Trump is going through all these peace talks but doesn’t want to get us out? Honestly? And if you honestly don’t think he is trying to end the wars, then again, what the hell is your theory for why he would do all this? He doesn’t have to actually go through the process of starting all of this rolling if all he wants to do is change the rhetoric.
His base would be just as happy with talk so why the actual actions, and yes getting people to the negotiating table is an actual action, so is getting them to open highways, agree to prisoner swaps etc.
See, that’s what actually gets me about all this. You guys act like he would do all this for nothing but you don’t even bother to explain why in the hell he would do all that. Did you even bother thinking up a reason for why your assertion would make any sense at all? Doesn’t seem like it to me, in fact it just sounds like knee jerk stupidity.
It doesn’t seem like he got people to the negotiating table, he actually got them there. It doesn’t seem like he is talking peace with these countries, he is actually talking about how we can have peace. He didn’t just say he was pulling our troops out, he signed the order. And I can see zero reason why he would do all that if he didn’t want us out of there. I doubt you have a reason either other than you are just obstinate and are not willing to admit you were wrong. But go ahead prove me wrong. What is your brilliant theory on why he would do all this if he isn’t seriously trying to end the wars and if you don’t have a theory then “we” know you are full of it. You must have some reason for thinking he would go to all this trouble and that he really wants the wars to continue. So lay it on me, Is he just a deep state guy too but undercover and has everyone fooled? Is that it, I’m really curious because other that some really out there scenarios I can’t find a single reason why he would go to all the trouble if he isn’t actually trying to end the wars.
And honestly, everything I know about him tells me he would love to be the guy who goes down in the history books as having ended these wars. That certainly makes more sense than some goofy conspiracy theory that he would do all this for nothing or that he’s really an undercover guy for the powers that be or whatever else people come up with. I think he wants to go down in history as the hero that fixed everything and doesn’t that really make more sense then thinking he would do this for any other reason? The guys got a big ego and would like to be seen as the big hero, I’m not sure why anyone would make it more complicated than that. Especially not when that actually explains pretty much everything about the man and it explains why he would be working to put all these people together to find a solution.
And if you reply that all this is true but it’s still 1% possible Trump is not trying to move us out of these wars because you can never really know anything then fine, that’s true anything is possible. He could be from Mars too, but is it likely? No it’s not and it certainly doesn’t seem likely he would do all this because he secretly wants us to stay there forever. Possible? Sure anything is possible, some day you might even admit you are wrong, that’s possible too, just so unlikely that it’s close enough to bet against.
You really can’t be bothered with reality can you ?
Correct. The left-right deception is another way of dividing and manipulating the population. The real problem is the political class that holds us back. Wars are one of a number of ways this is achieved. If we were not wasting so many resources on wars, there would be a lot more prosperity. Wars keep us poorer. Even half of the US military budget was put to productive use, there would be immense positive results.
I keep telling you guys that it’s the economic system but you refuse to believe that the people winning capitalism don’t want to lay down the reigns of power.
Nope. Those that control the State don’t want to relinquish that power. Many of these are opportunists. A lot of them are a!so sociopaths.
Power always draws both of above. Regardless of the institution or organization. The worst political systems of the modern world in this regard are Socialism and the associated fascism. That’s because Socialism adds the power over property. It’s not who owns it, it’s who gets to control it.
In the case of Fascism, the State is in collusion with corporations. The State tells the corporations what it can produce, how to produce it, who the can employ and more. In exchange, the corporations are guaranteed a profit and the State will limit competition and guarantee viability.
You might look at the last paragraph. For example, in 2008, the State prevented the mega banks from going under. Guaranteed them profit. In the case of big pharma, the State guaranteed that drug prices would not be negotiated. The State extended patent rights. That was a key element of Obama care.
“Nope. Those that control the State don’t want to relinquish that power.
Many of these are opportunists. A lot of them are a!so sociopaths.”
Actually they’re capitalists looking for a profit. The profit motive is exactly why they’ve seized the government at every level necessary to preserve their advantage.
You seem to forget how Rockefeller was able to monopolize the oil industry due to a week state and capitalist buddies. You also seem to want to blame everything on socialism despite the fact privatization is killing our society more and more every day.
Government is benign, you’re a slave to capital, not government.
Your benign governments murdered several hundred millions in the 20th century. Though the vast majority were Socialist types.
LOL. Tell me. How much were people paying for Kerosene before Standard Oil? And how much after. Those evil capitalists reduced the price of goods and services. Prosperity resulted.
Corporations can’t force me to buy their product. Big difference. And anyone can use capital.
Yes. Only the State should be allowed to fund production. Creating an entire class of people who control what we can have. Therefore Socialism replaces capitalists with apparatchiks.
Guessing that’s OK with you. As for people like me who would not play that game? Reeducation camps, gulugs, and more!
And… there would be a massive decline in prosperity. You see, what drives increases in wealth are people, like me, that are productive. And people who decide what to buy with their money. Choice, not force.
Yours is force. Mine is choice. Historically capitalism works. Socialism fails.
Standard Oil was not even technically a “monopoly”. By the time the antitrust suits had completed, before ANY government sanctions had been applied, their market share had fallen from 90% to about 65% (The Myth That Standard Oil Was a “Predatory Monopoly”). And this is touted as the worst free market “monopoly” ever.
Not to minimize the harm actually done by “monopolies,” but always keep in mind that the State itself is the worst monopoly there is, and virtually all other monopoly power in society derives from its actions.
The State is indeed the greatest monopoly. It has the monopoly of force within geographical area. It’s offspring monopolies are such things as the banking cartel. Notice how many on the left defend the banking cartel? Because that cartel is the wellspring of today’s modern State.
“Government is benign”
What planet are you living on? In the twentieth century, States murdered over two hundred million of their own citizens (Democide), and that doesn’t even include warfare.
The only true mass violent power private individuals and companies have, is the power they exert through their control of their governments. Once the State is given the power of legal plunder (socialism), you can’t complain when that power is used by the rich to plunder the poor and the middle class (fascism). One begets the other.
The State has never been, is not, and never can be the friend of the common person, as the only means it has at its disposal to enforce its edicts is violence. As violence is not a benign means, it can never, overall, serve benign ends.
You seem to demonize people voluntarily trading with each other to secure an income, but worship the violence of the State. Tell me, ignoring the rhetoric for a few minutes, do you honestly believe that the governments of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China were serving the interests of “the people,” or simply serving themselves?
“The profit motive is exactly why they’ve seized the government at every level necessary to preserve their advantage.”
And somehow giving the State more power will eliminate the “profit motive?” This seems unlikely to me, given that the State is the easiest means to make a killing without actually providing value in return.
‘Crony’ capitalism; there’s a difference, the same way there’s a difference between crony communism and real communism.
A lot of work went into breaking up liberalism into left and right factions as if to avoid finding a balance of individual and collective rights in favour of perpetual social conflict.
I agree, the vast majority of American’s are sick of war. Even this poll was a joke because what most people complained about was HOW he got out, not the fact that he is getting us out. The complaint I hear is that he shouldn’t have blindsided our allies. Personally I’m glad he did, because I’m afraid that otherwise they would have found a way to stop him from doing it.
“I agree, the vast majority of American’s are sick of war.”
Yes, what I have seen is that the American people’s skepticism about war has been increasing steadily for the past 15 years. Whether you believe me or not, I do hope you are right about Trump, I just see very good reasons to be extremely skeptical.
Think of it this way. What if you could go back and ask the 48% the same question, but put it like this. If Obama was still in office and pulled out troops after months of consultation with our allies would you support the move? What would they say then? I’d bet money that 99% of that 48% would then support it. (most of the 52% would then flip flop too)
Sadly I don’t know of any way to conduct a poll that doesn’t include the knee jerk partisan hate but I can absolutely guarantee that this poll had plenty of that nonsense baked in.
Most of the complaints I hear about this are as follows. Trump didn’t think this through, he should have consulted out allies, etc. etc. etc. VERY few people I have talked to come out and say it was wrong to pull the troops out, instead they are complaining about HOW he went about it. So even under those conditions I think you would find far more people who want the troops out than who want them to remain. It’s just that partisans need something to blame Trump for, even when he does something they support.
I have no doubt that if you framed the questions differently you would find very little support for any kind of open ended commitment to troops in Syria. But you can always count on partisans to answer questions in a way that does not show support for the other team no matter what they do.
Exactly – the POTUS is making policy seemingly at random, according to his ‘gut,’ with his staff finding out at the same time everyone else does.
If he truly was the “peace president” so many people want to make him out to be, he would have held the budget hostage over troop withdrawals and not a phenomenal waste of money like building a f**ing wall.
The last time Trump actively talked Syria pullout there was a false flag chemical attack in Idlib, compelling hims to commit to remaining and endorse a blatant false flag.
The wall is needed. There may be extra time gained during the solar minimum and the Earth’s own carbon ablation mechanisms, but once things pick up again we’re going to have major population dislocations due to global warming.
52%-48% is actually substantial considering the hysteria of ALL the news media and the Elites, including the war mongering think tanks etc, against withdrawing from Syria…and drawing down from endless war in Afghanistan
don’t kid yourself, if there were reasonable and rational discussion about any of these great issues of war and peace, and people were given clear alternatives, like, what DO YOU want to do with $1 Trillion??? (about the current military-intelligence-war debt budgets), like make war/have troops in and active operations in a dozen or more countries, OR restore the country/green the national Economy/fund health care and Education etc etc, say….that figure would easily be 70%-30%
that’s where we need to head this discussion
The real question is whether Trump backs Trump’s drawdowns. Will he finally MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN, or will Deepstate continue standard operations and ignore this blogger named Trump?
Time will tell, Trump may end up seeing that unedited version of the JFK assassination the CIA has on reserve for just such occasions.
Approximate US voting age figures shows a large pool ready to monkey wrench a very strange relationship with Earth;
50% of voting age people boycott or are disenfranchised
25% are registered independents
The trick is to engage those who boycott and encourage those who have been disenfranchised. Tens of millions register as non partisan ecological socialists. Define it using few words. Will you argue against balanced budgets for democracy efficiency reasons having nothing to do with economics?
That would be some trick.
Every election an influential minority comes out to encourage non-voting as a form of protest. This leaves the political field to partisans, who benefit from having a far less diverse audience to be held accountable to.
Active abstainers never seem to realize, there is no quorum requirement. Also, not voting is apparently a right, and actively encouraged to the point where Ohio has been actively purging infrequent voters from the rolls via ‘Supplemental Process’.
Not voting is, ironically, also endorsement of the system as well as effectively a vote for whomever wins.
Many recognize that voting has close to zero impact on policy and have logically decided not to vote.
I urge boycotters to swamp the capitalist war government by registering to vote and voting for candidates and policies that support peace.
If one has no candidate for peace leave that position blank or write in None of the Above.
Logical how? Dubya happened. Hilary almost happened. Trump happened. He’s the outcome of a process that prioritizes partisan emotion as reason, who can wield that at an intuitive level better than any of the manufactured GMO politicians.
Had the process need answer to a more politically diverse and astute polity, the partisans would have had to be more astute themselves instead of pushing the same old buttons by rote.
There wasn’t any comparable level of emotion for Jill Stein. Obama got elected twice on emotion;sounding rational and logical was an affectation that was a fashionable break from Dubya’s ‘plausible denial of real malice’ stupidity.
Trump is still the only logical choice for President, if one supports peace or at the very least wants to stick it to the establishment and deny any known establishment player the top prize.
Look past the emotional reasoning, and its still a reasonable conclusion.
My point was much smaller; It is, for many, logical to look at financial totalitarianism destroying the ability of Earth to support life and to withdraw from personal participation with such a system, no matter what it is called.
To support Trump or the D candidate in the last election was to support financial totalitarianism at war with Earth.
Those who are so dismayed by destruction of Earth for a few secret bank accounts on secret islands have the opportunity to come back into the voting system and theow a monkey wrench into the system by leaving blanks and writing in None of the Above.
Why not throw a monkey wrench in the gears of a system designed to destroy Earth?
My point is far simpler; destroy the duopoly. The Democrats cannot be reformed and are totally divorced from genuine Progressivism.
Only then can a true Resistance arise against ‘financial totalitarianism’, which seems like the fancier way of saying ‘crony capitalism’.
As is, the U.S. inefficiently operates as a one party state with two factions pretending to be two parties.
The first-past-the-post, winner take all electoral system guarantees there can only be a binary choice. At this time, that choice is, as Harris accurately calls out, this evil or the other evil.
So yes, Libertarians should work to build their cause. Greens should build up their cause. Progressives should build their cause. But when it comes time to vote, vote for Trump.
The natural party of the U.S. is the Republicans; the expectations gap between the Republican ideal and the RINO is far smaller than the expectations gap between faux progressives and progressives. Social justice either is, or simply an acronymic pejorative.
The duopoly must die, and the Democrats have well earned the ticket off the stage.
Trump is too dumb and weird for me.
… Well, kind of the point of a protest vote is to choose someone the establishment cannot stand while still passing enough popular scrutiny to get elected.
Jill Stein seemed a natural, but whatever.
Yes. You are pointing at some kind of fact or axiom.
I convinced a friend who hadn’t voted in forty tears to register and vote for Bernie. Bernie quit without asking my friend for permission so he voted for Trump.
I voted for Jill. We’re still friends even though my friend canceled out my vote and Trump won.
Narrow majority? The hate from the left over Trump has made them not only stupid, but highly unstable thanks to Obama. Where is Code Pink? Where are all the anti wars liberals that called W a war criminal for faking an excuse to invade Iraq?
So only about one-half of Americans are sane. That’s more than I thought.
Comments are closed.