Trump flip-flops on Libyan intervention

[Mesaclone]

We're talking LIBYA in the quote you cited.  So, he was FOR intervention in 2011, was against intervention since then, now is, all of a sudden,for it again.

And, he did NOT oppose intervention in Iraq BEFORE the Iraq War started.  Do I need to post the Howard Stern interview again, in 2002, when he agreed we should go into Iraq?

You're beginning to not make sense.  Too many mimosas at brunch?

That was a typo which I fixed...meant Libya.

Though I've listened to the Stern interview and you are completely wrong...at the time of the interview, as a non-politician, he said he thought it was a good idea...but a day or two later having put some thought in it as to just speaking off the cuff, he made clear that he was against the Iraq intervention. So now that that is settled, moving on.

As for LIbya, he was always against intervention and still is. He mentioned in 2011 that he if he had to intervene he would do so surgically in taking out Qaddafi...he in no way suggested that his poicy approach to Libya was one of intervention...and it wasn't.

[Mesaclone]

Another example of Mesaclone applying Saul Alinsky's  "Ethics of means and Ends" Rule No. 4:

4. “[J]udgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

IOWs, it's the blueprint of how to tap-dance out of being caught in a lie or changing position.

I've never read Alinsky, though I've seen many summations of his work. But that particular quote is so obviously true that it could have been expressed by anyone from Abraham Lincoln to Mahatma Gandhi. Of COURSE judgements must be made in the context of their times in which the action occurred...that is the golden rule of Historical analysis 101.

Personally, I have no problem with politicians changing positons to meet new facts or changing cirumcstances...its a sign of intellect and character...but in THIS case the position has not changed.

[INVAR]

Personally, I have no problem with politicians changing positons to meet new facts or changing cirumcstances...its a sign of intellect and character...but in THIS case the position has not changed.

That's ridiculous.  All that means is that you have no problem with someone who has absolutely no core and you chalk it up to intellect and character.

At times, reading you is no different than reading the Marxist crazies at DU who apologize for Obama with almost the same religious fervency and ridiculous spins of logic that you do for Trump.

[Mesaclone]

That's ridiculous.  All that means is that you have no problem with someone who has absolutely no core and you chalk it up to intellect and character.

At times, reading you is no different than reading the Marxist crazies at DU who apologize for Obama with almost the same religious fervency and ridiculous spins of logic that you do for Trump.

You must be joking, it like I'm in here arguing with Hillary Clinton supporters every day...right down to re-spouting the Dem talking points of the day regarding Mr. Trump and the GOP. And again, I have every problem in the world with someone who has no core beliefs, likewise for someone who's core beliefs blind them to new facts and evidence. What is needed in the White House is someone with values supporting the constitution, but with the flexibility and practicality of a business mind that can actually make deals across the aisle and get positive conservative issues turned into action. I'm tired of moral victories and the moralizers who believe only they have core values...and so should never compromise, change or adjust their own views based on what is actually in front of them.

What we need is common sense practical victories that result in concrete steps to fix government and turn the economy around...Mr. Trump will push forward conservative economic ideals but will know when he must bend enough to gain the votes needed for real legislation. The Ted Cruz, I'm going to lose a vote 99-1 but feel good about myself approach...aint gonna work.

[libertybele]

You must be joking, it like I'm in here arguing with Hillary Clinton supporters every day...right down to re-spouting the Dem talking points of the day regarding Mr. Trump and the GOP. And again, I have every problem in the world with someone who has no core beliefs, likewise for someone who's core beliefs blind them to new facts and evidence. What is needed in the White House is someone with values supporting the constitution, but with the flexibility and practicality of a business mind that can actually make deals across the aisle and get positive conservative issues turned into action. I'm tired of moral victories and the moralizers who believe only they have core values...and so should never compromise, change or adjust their own views based on what is actually in front of them.

What we need is common sense practical victories that result in concrete steps to fix government and turn the economy around...Mr. Trump will push forward conservative economic ideals but will know when he must bend enough to gain the votes needed for real legislation. The Ted Cruz, I'm going to lose a vote 99-1 but feel good about myself approach...aint gonna work.

So, exactly, what are Trump's core beliefs??  I haven't really been able to pinpoint anything specifically as he continues to change his mind on his "suggestions".  All indications are that his core beliefs (statements/actions) tend to lean very liberal. You mention that you feel we need someone in the White House with values supporting the Constitution.  I fully agree; however Trump doesn't have a clue about the Constitution and his 'business mind' will only accomplish what is in the best interest of Trump. Compromising on conservative values and principles and bending in order to push through legislation is why we are in the mess that we're in.  What isn't going to work is liberalism.  It obviously isn't working now, hasn't worked in the past and sure as heck isn't going to work in the future.  Oh, by the way, not sure what Cruz has to do with this as he didn't flp-flop on Libya nor does this have anything at all to do with him.

[Oceander]

You must be joking, it like I'm in here arguing with Hillary Clinton supporters every day...right down to re-spouting the Dem talking points of the day regarding Mr. Trump and the GOP. And again, I have every problem in the world with someone who has no core beliefs, likewise for someone who's core beliefs blind them to new facts and evidence. What is needed in the White House is someone with values supporting the constitution, but with the flexibility and practicality of a business mind that can actually make deals across the aisle and get positive conservative issues turned into action. I'm tired of moral victories and the moralizers who believe only they have core values...and so should never compromise, change or adjust their own views based on what is actually in front of them.

What we need is common sense practical victories that result in concrete steps to fix government and turn the economy around...Mr. Trump will push forward conservative economic ideals but will know when he must bend enough to gain the votes needed for real legislation. The Ted Cruz, I'm going to lose a vote 99-1 but feel good about myself approach...aint gonna work.

No Clinton supporters here.

[sinkspur]

That was a typo which I fixed...meant Libya.

Though I've listened to the Stern interview and you are completely wrong...at the time of the interview, as a non-politician, he said he thought it was a good idea...but a day or two later having put some thought in it as to just speaking off the cuff, he made clear that he was against the Iraq intervention. So now that that is settled, moving on.

As for LIbya, he was always against intervention and still is. He mentioned in 2011 that he if he had to intervene he would do so surgically in taking out Qaddafi...he in no way suggested that his poicy approach to Libya was one of intervention...and it wasn't.

That's completely false.  I quoted up thread what he said in 2011, and he complained that nothing was being done. He was in favor of intervention then, wasn't last year, and now is again.  And I never saw that he contradicted the Stern interview until after the Iraq war began.