Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're correct, it's very, very, very "simple", which explains why it and puerile artifacts like it have so much appeal to you and those who share your lack of objectivity and perception.You'd think that graphic I posted in the OP is simple enough that it wouldn't need to be explained to you.
Given the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces in Syria and the fact that the Dems are not supporting airstrikes against them to preclude further war crimes, one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all. Easy to see why Obama wouldn't take action back then when his own red line was crossed; his own political base as against it and he knew it. So he did the politically wise thing, and did nothing. And you guys say Repubs have no compassion.
Bad attempt at spin. Why would Republicans NOT support bombings in 2013 (after 1400 were gassed) and then suddenly support it by a 64 point margin when 70 are gassed?
There aren't many in politics these days that can talk about principles with clean hands, given the actions taken over the years by both parties. Nor in the media either IMHO. Arguing about who is worse is a fool's errand.
one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all.
Given the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces in Syria and the fact that the Dems are not supporting airstrikes against them to preclude further war crimes, one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all. Easy to see why Obama wouldn't take action back then when his own red line was crossed; his own political base as against it and he knew it. So he did the politically wise thing, and did nothing. And you guys say Repubs have no compassion.
What a difference a president makes to the partisan right. Party over country.
No, Dems. have no brains. Circumstances have changed and additionally, this is an MSNBC poll. You know, the kind of poll fixed for Democrats? Explain why you didn't learn anything being played the first few times.
one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all.
How about when we are actually threatened or at least have legitimate interests?
Assad is evil and is committing horrific atrocities, but unfortunately there's a lot of that on this planet, and we lack the power and the resources to police it all.
Here's the kicker. The liberals would present this poll as evidence of republican inconsistency. Consider this cause and effect in simple terms even a leftist should understand:
A. Syrians gas people in 2013 & 38% of Democrats prefer airstrikes.
B. But shucks, the Dems. work it out w/o airstrikes, because the Syrian govt. pinky finger promises they'll never do it again, cuz they're going to destroy this shit. Thanks Syrians, you're the best. Diplomacy rocks.
C. Syrians break pinky finger promise and what do liberals do? A smaller percentage prefer airstrikes.
In summary, they reward people for bad behavior. Gee, what a surprise. Thanks MSNBC
We didn't have refugees by the thousands coming into the US then, without the accompanying risk of future terrorist attacks. That could be a reason why Repubs a somewhat more supportive of airstrikes today than they were in 2013.
Given the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces in Syria and the fact that the Dems are not supporting airstrikes against them to preclude further war crimes, one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all. Easy to see why Obama wouldn't take action back then when his own red line was crossed; his own political base as against it and he knew it. So he did the politically wise thing, and did nothing. And you guys say Repubs have no compassion.
What a difference a president makes to the partisan right. Party over country.
Point taken. But you ignored the thrust of my post: why didn't the Dems support airstrikes in Syria when Obama was in office, and why didn't he take any meaningful action? And does that not indicate a lack of compassion from the Dmes?
We didn't have refugees by the thousands coming into the US then, without the accompanying risk of future terrorist attacks. That could be a reason why Repubs a somewhat more supportive of airstrikes today than they were in 2013.
Wow ...
I guess if we fire enough munitions into Syria there won't be any refugees.
Hard to argue with the kinda "logic".
I love those straw men.
I love those straw men.
I've never, ever, ever said I "see no difference between the two sides".
What I actually HAVE said, is that the two sides share many behaviors.
So, ya wanna try again, or do ya wanna toss out another straw man?
.
