Liberals must avoid the destructive syndrome of trump

I do not believe that there is such a thing as a destructive syndrome trump is an incredibly strong hatred of President Trump, undermining the ability of discernment. It is not that I did not notice criticism (I spoke quite sharply), but throughout the whole campaign, trump did what justified this criticism. And after winning the election, rather than to calm down and start acting like a President, he continued the flow of small tricks, exaggerations and lies. His administration was the very embodiment of chaos and incompetence.

Then came the air strikes on Syria. On this issue, trump seems to have listened carefully to senior professionals in the field of national security, declined from the previous views, has chosen a calibrated response and act quickly. I supported the missile strike and pointed out — in print and on the air — that trump finally became President because of what is happening “seems to reflect a belated recognition of the trump that he can’t just put the US in the first place, the President of the United States must act, given the broader range of interests.” In General, I criticized trump in Syria, calling it “incoherent”.

However, the reaction to my words was like I offered to do trump the Pope. Reviewers, my opinion is “stupid”, seeing in this situation, the signs of flexing media before trump. Former speech writers Obama even called my comments “most recent” of everything made on this topic.

That White house speechwriters probably wrote the words spoken by Barack Obama on 27 September 2013, when he announced the deal under which the Syrian regime agreed to abandon its chemical weapons stockpiles. “This resolution ensures that the Assad regime must fulfil their obligations. We remain vigilant and continue to monitor the implementation of conditions”. In other words, the administration of the tramp watched the violation of the deal Obama’s 2013 and acted exactly as intended by Obama. That’s why almost all the principal officers of his foreign policy — Hillary Clinton, Thomas Donilon, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, supported the administration’s actions trump as U.S. allies in the region and beyond.

The strokes were careful, measured and served as the first definite signal. In other words, it was very similar to Obama. Two high-ranking Obama official said to me that if Obama remained President, he would order to strike, perhaps even identical scale. These former Obama speechwriters probably would have used other wording to describe those air strikes.

The conservatives seem to understand liberals better decisions trump. Many of the strongest supporters of trump, Ann Coulter, Michael savage, Laura Ingraham is upset with the use of trump Obama’s policies. Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review: “When it was about foreign policy, I was worried that the elections of 2016 will bring us Clinton embodies the third term of Obama. Instead, we have trump, while embodying a third term of Clinton”.

Liberals must avoid the destructive syndrome of trump. Personally, I was pretty hard on him. Criticized almost all the ideas proposed during the campaign. Right before the election I called it the “cancer of American democracy” and urged voters not to vote for him. But they acted differently. Now he’s President. I believe that my job is to impartially evaluate its policies and to explain why, in my opinion, his actions were correct or not.

Many pre-election promises trump’s idiotic and unworkable. It could be assumed that he will abandon them, that happens lately on several fronts.

Those of us who opposed him, were now faced with a serious problem. We need to ask ourselves what we would prefer to see: trump, changed his opinion, or trump political decision makers on the basis of the campaign? The first option can bring much benefit to the country and the world as a whole, but to save trump from a humiliating defeat. The second would be disastrous for all. A complicated question arises: we want the best for US or worse for Donald trump?