Thread discussion topic: Donald Trump's inconsistent statements, his "flip flops" for which he didn't offer a sound/cogent explanation for his change of position, opinion, direction, tenor, tone, etc. One may defend a flip-flop if and only if one does so on the intrinsic (not situational) merits of the flopped-to position(s) over the intrinsic (not situational) demerits of the flipped-from position(s). One may chide a flip-flop if and only if one does so on the on the the intrinsic demerits of the flopped-to position(s) over those of the flipped-from position(s). Nothing other than and nobody's other than Donald Trump's inconsistent statements, his "flip flops," are fodder for discussion in this thread. Thread discussion structure: Minimally: Identify a flip-flop'd position by identifying the following: Trump's original position, his flipped-from position Trump's ending position, his flopped-to position Maximally: In accordance with the guidelines above, defend or chide the flopped-to position. Posting structure example: Notice that there is no defense or chiding; I merely identify what Trump said and did. Donald Trump flip's positions more than iHop cooks flip pancakes, and he does so with far less good reason. Here's one: Use of force in Syria: Fact: In 2013, in the wake of Syria having used chemical weapons, Trump tweeted: "President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!" Fact: And he felt that to attack Syria, the POTUS must obtain Congressional approval, tweeting: What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval. Fact: In 2018, Trump attacked Syria and obtained no Congressional approval, and the mere fact that he attacked Syrian targets indicates that he no longer cares about whatever debt and long-term conflict portents doing so carries.