Diehard Trump Fans Revolt Over Syria Missile Strikes

[brummelben]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

 

[martybegan]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

 

[brummelben]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

You and your kind have always supported the racists

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Virginia Dare was born in 1587, I doubt she is posting anything.

 

[martybegan]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

You and your kind have always supported the racists

nope.

 

[Dragonlady]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

 

[brummelben]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

Trump is so concerned about Syrian babies, but he won't allow them to come to the US. After all, babies can be terrorists

 

[Preacher]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

No source and seeing how it calls EVERY one of them a "white nationalist" its no doubt some libtard site...no doubt we are pissed off but Vdare is not a WN site,Alt Right is not WN etc etc.

 

[Eaglewings]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

Well it got the focus off of Russia for a while...lol

But.. they blew up the area where they launched the chemical weapons , which will stop the chemical weapons for a while..I heard last night..


.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Buyer's Remorse:

"Regret a buyer may feel, especially after making a major purchase. The buyer may feel like he/she was pressured, spent too much, and/or purchased an inferior product. Some laws or policies may allow a buyer to return a product within a certain number of days and to receive a refund, but usually there is very little one can do about buyer's remorse."

 

[pismoe]

hopefully the Russians understand but yeah TRUMP attacking 'syria' , i'm miffed though , was a diehard Trump supporter , still am . I don't mind the attack but was hoping against this kinda emotional reason for the attack . Course this is a good attack even though i am annoyed by it . I figure that its a NOTICE to the 'norks' , iran , china and others that the President Trump has got some balls BBen !!

 

[KeiserC]

It's very likely that Bannon was a lone voice against this action but marginalized by the "Generals" he's still attending the briefings (just behind trump's seat today) his seat not at the actual table...

 

[pismoe]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

Trump is so concerned about Syrian babies, but he won't allow them to come to the US. After all, babies can be terrorists

-------------------------------------------------------- not only that but the babies [if living] are likely to be muslim and might end up in the USA and going to school with my Grandkids BBen !!

 

[Preacher]

Buyer's Remorse:

"Regret a buyer may feel, especially after making a major purchase. The buyer may feel like he/she was pressured, spent too much, and/or purchased an inferior product. Some laws or policies may allow a buyer to return a product within a certain number of days and to receive a refund, but usually there is very little one can do about buyer's remorse."

Nope. Just have to look at who he was up against....not a chance in hell.

 

[Preacher]

It's very likely that Bannon was a lone voice against this action but marginalized by the "Generals" he's still attending the briefings (just behind trump's seat today) his seat not at the actual table...

The Generals didn't censor Bannon....2nd from left nearest the wall is who is controlling things. That Jew zionist bastard Kushner.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It's very likely that Bannon was a lone voice against this action but marginalized by the "Generals" he's still attending the briefings (just behind trump's seat today) his seat not at the actual table...

WTF are they in a closet?

 

[OldLady]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

Really? You don't think Assad used chemical weapons or you don't think Trump's bombing run did any good?
Putin is pissed, btw. He suspended the deconfliction agreement, and that is step #1 toward retaliation.

 

[martybegan]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

When the left decides they can lump everyone to the right of Mitt Romney as an "alt-right white nationalist" I can ask them to choose between some Trump-love and and some alt-right dick sucking.

And the post strike results aren't really in yet, so any of your assumptions are just that.

 

[martybegan]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

Trump is so concerned about Syrian babies, but he won't allow them to come to the US. After all, babies can be terrorists

Why do they need to come here?

Are you willing to keep 5-10 in your house, at your expense?

 

[pismoe]

Some of President Donald Trump’s most diehard supporters are turning against him over his sudden move Thursday night to launch missile strikes in Syria.

Conservative pundits and members of the white nationalist-friendly alt-right, who triumphantly boosted Trump’s “America First,” anti-interventionist campaign message, found themselves at a loss. The Breitbart News commentariat was outraged by support for the attack from “neo-conservatives” like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Brexit orchestrator and Trump ally Nigel Farage said the President’s voters were likely “worried” about the implications of the military intervention, while Jim Hoff, the editor of the far-right blog Gateway Pundit, retweeted a 2013 Trump post in which the real estate mogul warned “many very bad things will happen” if the U.S. attacks Syria.

Backers of Trump’s anti-immigration, anti-refugee policies were similarly put out.

“All I want once in my life, is a President who simply enforces immigration laws and doesn’t start pointless wars. Too much to ask,” Virginia Dare, a white nationalist website, wrote on Twitter.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter mocked Trump for making this significant foreign policy shift after seeing photographs on cable news of Syrian children killed in a chemical attack, which U.S. officials believe was carried out by Bashar al-Assad's regime:

So the question is do you support Trump in this case, or do you support alt-right white nationalists.

Binary question, troll-tard.

Lord but you people are stupid. This isn't an either or situation. If you disagree with Trump attacking Syria, it doesn't mean you support white nationalists. It means you think that attacking Syria was wrong for any number of reasons.

It appears the whole attack was bullshit, designed to boost an unpopular President's street cred. No planes were destroyed, no Syrians were killed, and the US spent $100 million propping up Trump's puplic opinion poll numbers. And he told the Russians he was going to do it so as not to piss off Putin.

What isn't clear is what Trump's Syrian policy is, other than to ban immigration from Syria. Last week he said Assad should stay and the Syrian people decide his future. Yesterday he said Assad was evil and something had to be done, although he didn't say what.

Not that he's done anything that can be deciphered, bombing someone is not the place to start.

Really? You don't think Assad used chemical weapons or you don't think Trump's bombing run did any good?
Putin is pissed, btw. He suspended the deconfliction agreement, and that is step #1 toward retaliation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
concerning chemical weapons being used , --- OK, I'll Weigh In (Syria) --- when was 'susan rice' lying OldLady ??