Is it possible to argue against this?

What trump does is called 'post truth reasoning' which means, he asserts something, then he waits for facts which substantiate his assertion, then he says those facts prove he was right, claiming he knew them all along.

Good point. Am I correct to think that you are positioning, that if Trump says he will withdraw troops from Syria and then does so it then creates the logic to support the premise?

In this case, he said he was going to do it and then he did it - isn't that an example of a true statement?

he creates a new scenario in which events subsequently can be considered as directly influenced by him, for good or bad he doesnt care, he just wants attention. Then whatever particular events occur which happen to support his thesis, he claims to have known that would happen and boasts how right he was and how wrong others were. And thats about as much as I can say and stay coherent myself today, good night )

Not sure it is possible to use the word truth and trump in the same sentence. Fairly sure neither has met the other.

Reply to Rank Amateur

:lol:

Reply to ernestm :up:

Many were taken by surprise and are arguing against his position but to be fair why are people so surprised and angry when he is doing what he said he was going to do?

I don't even understand exactly what you're referring to by an argument.

Reply to Blubarb you can definitely not blame a president for trying to make good on his commitments. Still, you can argue against the convenience of the decision itself; I do not have arguments for or against as I lack the privileged information required. I simply do not know what is better for American foreign policy or the world´s safety. Syria was a Christian country; some of the texts in the New Testament were written there, and it has a great past of civilization, culture, and endless contributions to Humanity. It´s not a Barbaric nation and should never be; it should be reclaimed for civilization, freedom and peace. The strategy to achieve that I do not know.

Reply to Terrapin Station

Yes, you are right. It is not an argument it is a statement. Trump said he would withdraw and that's what he is intent on doing. However, it seems that those who agree with Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria use this statement as a way to diminish any argument that doesn't support his position. It's as though I tell you I am going to punch you in the nose and next week I do just that and then bystanders tell you well you can't be surprised or shocked about it because he did what he said he was going to do. It appears that the act is separate from the announcement.

Reply to Blubarb
I think you have not accurately described the location of the surprise. It is not about gaining a particular end but acting in such a way that those who were hired to make stuff happen are not a part of the plan.

For the purposes of discussion, let us say the plan is stupid or the beginning of something smart. Let us presume that discussion is underway trying to sort that kind of thing out.

But wait, none of that matters anymore. If you wanted to do something and all the people you hired to do it thought you were not talking about a real thing, what then?

When do problems with objects turn into problems with process?

"However, it seems that those who agree with Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria use this statement as a way to diminish any argument that doesn't support his position." I don´t think that is the case. I find more plausible that supporters of the decision aren´t complaining about the opposition to the measure, which is totally democratic and reasonable as different citizens have different standpoints or should. What they are upset about, I suspect, is the fact that opposition is so loaded with anger and outrage; not mere voiced disagreement, but wrath and emotions, emotions, emotions out of control.

I do not have a position on the Syria issue, which I admit is rather beyond my comprehension. But I do sympathise with Trump´s foreign policy supporters, when all they get is a screenshot from The planet of the Apes day after day after day. It must be annoying. If there is a better way to deal with Syria, is lost in the yelling like tears in the rain.

If you get this kind of response whatever Trump says, does or refrains from doing, it is understandable that you complain that there is no alternative proposals or rational critics to dialogue with. Just yelling and hurt feelings and banners that can be re-used a hundred times. And Democrat leaders are just yelling with words; repeating slogans and showing angry faces. Annoying:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161111191123-18-trump-protest-super-tease.jpg

Quoting Blubarb

As many are aware, Donald Trump has declared a withdrawal from Syria. Many people are arguing against his position but the talking point (and I think it's a talking point) coming from the right side of the Republican Party in defence of this position is: "why are you surprised? The president told you that is what he would do and that's what he has done". It is correct that he did say this, but that somehow doesn't seem to negate the consequences of the decision that seem to extend beyond the talking point. My question is, how is the argument countered? Or is it an attempt to fuse two points of political argument? If I, for example, say that I intend to steal from my neighbour and then I do exactly that, should you not be surprised that I did it? It seems that many are surprised and their anger is mixed with this surprise - maybe even General Mattis. However, the President of the USA stated that this is what he was going to do, so how is that argument countered?

Not only is it possible, it's very easy. I can do it with just two words and a symbol: disagreement ? surprise.