Sup Forums cannot justify the Republicans' actions

Republicans actually care about the values they espouse? I don't think so. At least some people here admit without hesitation that they hate minorities for no other reason than that they're not white, but for those of you that think "states rights" was the reason for the Civil War, how do you explain this?

Another image in case this isn't crystal clear.

This time around Repubs were smart enough to know that Trump was firing off a paper tiger to appease whiny liberals who were pearl clutching about "muh chilluns"

Nearly all of them magically became smarter in 3 years?

How would you address my hypothesis that they did it simply because they would do anything their party told them?

>How would you address my hypothesis that they did it simply because they would do anything their party told them?
I would say that it's a statement in absolution, and does not account for the increased amount of coverage Trump's actions were receiving
Viewers were more inclined to accept the news as given to them, but the rise of hyperpartisan media in this last election has caused a wave of independently informed voters

These Trump voters are smart enough to know Trump did the right thing

Surprise surprise: Republican voters trust the decisions of a Republican leader more than a Democrat leader.

It's almost as if people elect leaders to make decisions about difficult and abstracted situations and tend to trust leader whose views align with their own!

Say it with me
FAKE NEWS
A
K
E
N
E
W
S

>statement in absolution
What does this mean?

>Viewers were more inclined to accept the news as given to them, but the rise of hyperpartisan media in this last election has caused a wave of independently informed voters
I disagree. Both information from the TV and from sites like Breitbart experienced the rise in hyperpartisanship. How are Republicans today any less inclined to accept news given to them by Republican sources?

Why would the Democratic percentage not change then?

King nigger didn't even bomb syria
He just acted like a little yellowbellied pussy
You can't claim its the same action when the same result didn't even happen

News that makes me look stupid is fake u guyz

>You can't claim its the same action when the same result didn't even happen
Can't argue against that, but does it mean that this data is worthless?

>experiment was flawed
>B-B-BUT THE DATA MIGHT STILL BE GOOD

no

Right wing retards are neocons at heart. They also obey authority and do as they're told. In other words, they're cucks.

Statement in aboslution means you're trying to apply a label to a lot of different people
The voter breakdown for Trump is different than from 4 years ago

Hell, I voted for King Nigger... twice.

>How are Republicans today any less inclined to accept news given to them by Republican sources?
Mistrust in the media-at-large
Fox News weren't exactly stalwart advocates for Trump, oftentimes straying pretty far away from the party base to edge out Trump

The only way to avoid the crazy spin being applied to news today is to do your own sourcing, which more people have been doing than I can ever recall

>he thinks a president can do whatever the fuck he wants without the approval of congress when it comes to military action

All of us evil white nationalist nazis were fully against attacking Assad. We have no business fucking over strong stable secular Arab leaders just because they happen to be near Israel.

Did king nigger threaten to bomb syria? sure
Did he do it? no

Did the donald threaten to bomb syria? no
Did he do it? yes

Either these two things are the same, or they're different. Which one is it, jew

Is your ideal Republican base people that show unwavering support for Trump's actions? Do you think that he's always right?

Congress? Are you sure there isn't some judge in Hawaii he was supposed to ask permission from first too?

I thought everyone knows republicans' criticism wasn't in good faith.
>muh game of drones
no one gave a shit about those shitskins

I hate niggers for lots of reasons. Their skin tone is not one of them.

Trump has been fucking up a lot lately. He had two jobs, deport José and don't fight Jew wars. Now we are keeping dreamers and fighting for Israel yet again. I mean, at least he isn't actively trying to replace all whites like Hillary but always right? Not even close.

My ideal Republican base is people who can be pragmatic
Knee-jerk reactionaries who will condemn Trump for a reasonably well-executed bombing need to slow down and think things through

Or did you think Trump made the wrong move?

i definitely dont support it.

no idea where you get this 84% number from.

>Or did you think Trump made the wrong move?
I can't fucking tell anymore, everyone tells me that the other side are exaggerators and liars and manipulators and that I have to find my own truth, but when I look for it all I find is more people telling me that they're right and the other side is wrong.

obama did bomb syria

>reasonably well-executed bombing

Then why does the OP say "Obama didn't do it"

Did exactly what it needed to do senpai
>Assad allegedly drops alleged sarin gas on his own population
>"""relief workers""" prop up some dead childern for juicy TV shots
>Liberals bitch and moan about dead children to force Trump into action
>Trump launches some bombs on a Syrian base
>No Russian casualties == no WWIII
>Limited Syrian casualties
>Liberals can't whine about Trump not doing anything

What do you propose would've been better?

Sorry, guess that part of the image is wrong. Does it change anything except for giving this guy less credence?

How bout not listen to the incessant ramblings of a woman and her first experience with the internet and gore. But alas, daddy's little girl has to have a say on American Foreign policy. Many such cases. Sad. Keep pushing the "muh liberals" angle, though, you're just as bad as those faggots who scream "muh russia"

yeah, it gives you, the OP, less credence, since clearly there's wrong info being thrown around in the study. A study based on wrong info is wrong, plain and simple.

That was a sentence that the person who made that post said, not part of any study. What does it have to do with the point of my original post?

I cannot speak on the methodology of this poll, but it was the democratic institutions that ceaselessly shilled for the strike around the time of the civilian gassing. It was the wrong call, and old school Republicans are as discussing as Democrats. But it was the CNNs and and CBCs who interrupted their 24 hour #TrumpResistance to air erdogan hate documentaries and news.

All I can say is that the entire Alt-right and everyone associated with them was anti airstrike before and anti airstrike after.

>He thinks the Syrian bombings a literally because Ivanka wanted them
>OP genuinely believes Ivanka lucked Trump into making the correct decision

Holy shit nigger, read a book before you say something so retarded

+Trump gets to drop an old bomb he had laying around
+some random durkas die
+Doesn't impede based Assad
+Millitairy thinks he's great

-Liberals screaming DRUMPF IS FINISHED

I'd say it's a good move.