Another difference is that Obama bombed five more countries (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan).
You are missing the point. There is debate about whether Obama's policies were right or wrong just like any politician. What is unique about Trump are all the horrible things he does that are pretty much
universally condemned by both parties ("grab them by the ****y" comment, refusing to acknowledge Russia interfered in our election, saying John McCain wasn't a war hero, imposing a stricter policy on children in jail cells at the border, trying to have the G-7 summit at a Trump hotel, pulling suddenly out of Syria without a proper plan, petty lies like lying about his inauguration size, etc., etc.).
It is not surprising that someone who agrees with Obama's policies supports Obama. What is surprising is people who ostensibly
do not agree with the way Trump behaves, who seem to completely disregard or rationalize away that behavior. Can you not see the difference?
The other way to say it is this: if you don't like Obama carrying out drone strikes, reducing or ending that
does not require a president like Donald Trump. But so many of the awful and unnecessary things Trump has said and done, such as threatening to “go after the families” of terrorists, needlessly attacking trans people who have served our country in the military - stuff like that
requires a president like Donald Trump.
I.e., you could support many of the policies within Trump's platform (like withdrawing from Syria for example) while opposing the man. Surely there are other politicians one could support who agree with that policy. But doing this would require thoughtfulness, and courage, and a willingness to put what is
right before blind opposition to the other side. Those are not traits that half the country appears to possess today.
Besides, When Obama was in his first term Twitter was not as big as it is now.
What does that have to do with anything? I mentioned Twitter, but Trump says all the same stuff, and worse, on TV.
Trump made it possible to meet Kim Jong-Un in North Korea thanks to his Twitter posting.
Again you are missing the point "bigly". Trump is entitled to all due credit for being the first to meet Kim, but Trump was not
required to be president for this to happen, not by a long shot. Especially considering it was South Korea that met with Kim first, it was Kim who asked for a meeting with the US, and it was South Korea that transmitted that desire to the US (incidentally, Trump had failed to appoint a South Korea ambassador so the US was a bit out of the loop at first).
Roosevelt met with Stalin. Nixon met with Mao. Reagan met with Gorbachev. And in fact, multiple US politicians have met with Kim Jong-Un, including former president Clinton. Dennis Rodman met with Kim too, that doesn't mean Rodman is worthy of being president (exciting as that would be). Maybe a US president would have met with Kim, maybe not, but we
certainly didn't need a giant orange infant in the WH for it to happen.
OTOH, a giant infant in the WH is exactly what you need to provoke nuclear war with comments like "fire and fury", etc. I doubt there will be a nuclear war because of Trump's comments. But why should our species have to risk everything because one Tweeter-in-Chief can't control his ego? Why have we lowered the standards for a president below the standards for a fifth grader?
And furthermore, how many times behind the scenes do you think the "adults in the room" have steered us away from Trump's worst instincts? Rex Tillerson has said Trump doesn't read briefing reports, asks his staff to do things that are illegal, and then gets angry when told those things are illegal. Several others have said Trump doesn't read, doesn't listen. McGahn refused to carry out Trump's order to fire Mueller, which would have ended Trump's presidency. How many other times have we narrowly avoided catastrophe with Trump at the helm?
Sooner or later our luck will run out. For +2,000 children jailed at the border, govt. workers who missed paychecks due to the longest govt. shutdown in history, travelers legally entering the country when doors were suddenly slammed due to Trump's unconstitutional "bans" on Muslims, the victims of hate crimes exacerbated by a president who winks at racism, the journalists who will be threatened and murdered because he won't stand up to tyrants, and many other senseless victims of his knee-jerk decision making, their luck already has run out.
These victims are too weak to fight back - Trump's favorite. Yet the majority white Christian population that supports Trump looks the other way. How can this be? Do Christians no longer believe, "Blessed are the meek"?
I have typed too much already. But I do want to acknowledge one thing: we are all
extremely fortunate that he is not a war monger. You alluded to that and I agree with you there.
