Most people are not willing to sacrifice any semblance of normal life by angering the online mobs.  Cancel culture is a harsh mistress.

-----

Does anyone seriously give a shit about virtue signaling on a John Byrne Message Board? "Must pretend to hate Trump or else the other 40-50 year old dudes will stop reading my posts!"

Literally?  Yes, they do care.  I know of more than one person who doesn't care to take on the outspoken Byrne victims.  I've experienced it myself in political discussions on the rare occasion I participate in one.

I know a lot of people here are more well read and smarter than me but there is a definite vibe that if one doesn't passionately denounce and hate Trump, they're just an inbred, mouth breathing, simpleton that's just too stupid to see the(ir) truth.

I agreed with his response to the bombing of our embassy.  I agreed with his reasoning behind removing the troops from Syria.  I agreed with him enforcing and modifying the laws related to illegal immigration.  I agree with him not wanting to defund/dismantle police forces.  I even agreed with his decision to show that looting and rioting hadn't destroyed the landmark church in DC.  I agree with him about the media.

I think there are plenty of redeemable acts by him as the President.  He isn't perfect.  He isn't likable.  He is very polarizing.  But he was elected to be something other than a politician and to do things a little differently.  Some of it's worked, some of it hasn't.  

Some complain that he is too divisive as the President and while I've seen him play to his base in immature and inappropriate ways at times, I think the Democrats have been far worse.  Granted, this is me playing catch-up.  I don't follow most of this stuff at all, much less closely.  I'm reliant on online sources to find out anything at all, which I know is a dubious method.

I thought Obama was pretty good overall but there are some really terrible things out there about him.  

Give me one  Just one.  Please. 

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

You "liked" how he put kids in cages, held immigrants against the wishes of several federal judges and imposed his will on people seeking asylum.

Seriously.

Fuck.

You.

Trump didn't put kids in cages  Temporary fenced in areas were erected at facilities where there weren't enough holding cells.  For all ages, with benches.

I'm all for criticizing the administration(s) that failed to properly document families and have been unable to reunite them.  But overall, illegal immigration has decreased under Trump and he didn't even have to build his stupid wall. 

Do you think abandoning the Kurds, which signals to all current and future allies that the US might be an unreliable partner in future military operations, is a good thing? Do you think the Kurds subsequently allying with Russian-supported forces is a good thing? Do you think overriding the concerns of the military is a good thing?

Do you think doing so without contacting the bishop of the church was a good thing? Do you think firing pepper balls to clear the peaceful protest in the area was a good thing? Do you think firing pepper balls at the clergy who were in the area was a good thing?

C'mon, man. You admit that you don't follow this closely. You admit that you might be a little bit more sheltered and less well-read than some of the people in this discussion. You admit that you rely on dubious sources. But you seem to want to dismiss other arguments as false media narratives. If you know that there is room to learn, how about listening? To something that is not YouTube.

Do you think abandoning(or staying) with the Kurds would really change anyone's worldwide opinion of the US?  Would anyone care about the Kurds if Trump wasn't involved?  Do I think the US should focus more on the US and stay out of conflicts that don't involve them?  The current Syrian conflict has been going on for over 9 years.  When would be a good time for the US to walk away?  Was there any mention at all about any kind of time frame?

I couldn't really care less about notifying the bishop.  As far as the pepper balls, according to the AG, it was decided a day before that the perimeter around the White House had to be expanded a block further back.  Considering the Church had been on fire, I can't say that that was a bad idea.  Also considering that, I don't know that I can agree that the protesters were indeed peaceful.

Yes.

Yes.

I don't know. You never answered the questions I asked, and you didn't bother answering your own question. As for me, I think the US should strive to avoid conflicts. But they should also clean up their own messes, and not stir shit up then leave someone else to deal with it.

I don't know when would be a good time to walk away. I do know that instantly with no notice is a bit chaotic and leaves everyone in a lurch.

How does any of that speak to whether the protesters were being peaceful? Do you think it was OK to spray pepper balls on clergy? Do you think the clergy were lying when they said that the people were peaceful and did not need to be sprayed?

No they didn't. Lots of people saying they were fucktards and idiots. It's possible someone called for them to be arrested. But "the media" didn't demand anything.

Which is funny, because from where I sit, the media has been conflating the protestors and the rioters/looters too much. It's clear that in many cases, they are separate groups. I mean where I am, we have the police engaging in scare tactics with curfews and asking business to board up in case of looting, for what is ultimately a few hundred high school students holding signs. The BLM movement has gained broad support, with protests even showing up in areas that have been traditionally very white and areas considered full of racist. Businesses and corporations who in the past have sat on the fence and spouted off equivocal admonitions against racism designed to be inoffensive to all sides are actually taking a stand. That's not media disinformation, it's the media reflecting what's happening.