Debate Now Donald Trump's Flip Flops

[usmbguest5318]

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.
​