Was this a good thing or a bad thing for Trump to do?

I say good... on many levels.

That doesn't look like a lot of damage. They destroyed ~6 planes out of how many? They just recently used the airfield too, so.....

I think that's a good question to be asking, but one that only time can answer.
Not involving congress in an act of war though, definitely not good, no matter who does it or why or how good it turns out. You don't want that precedent set when President Kanye West wants to bomb Paris over fashion beef in 2021, do you?

First of all I do not think America should have any involvement there except for humanitarian reasons.

This counter strike a tit for tat jab at Assad in Syria.

More importantly it sends a message to the world that there is a new sheriff in town. One that may not capitulate and falter if action is needed.

On the down side is that America still does not know how Trump will react to a real crisis.

This Assad strike was a measured response. I just hope all future responses will be as such.

Well, bombing planes is not humanitarian, it's retaliatory. Humanitarian would be offering the citizens medical help, food, and protection, things we aren't doing in Syria. (Before you say this is protection, note the airport was operating the day after the missiles hit them).

It's only tit for tat if Assad actually gassed his people, which is still in question. Remember, there's a propaganda war happening there too, where both sides are liars and the 'truth' is hidden in a field of lies. Initial appearances are more often than not just propaganda.

It does send a message, that Trump is reactionary and inpatient and won't wait around for proof before acting unilaterally....and unconstitutionally. Attacking another sovereign nation clearly, unequivocally REQUIRES congressional approval by law, he didn't even seek it, much less get it. Don't ignore that, address it please.

EDIT: Another good question to ask, did this cost as much or more for us to bomb as it destroyed? Tomahawks are expensive, about $1.4 million each + the cost to deploy them (at least another $100 million +-), and 30 year old planes, a cafeteria, and above ground gas tanks, not so much....the Russians claim only $9 million in damage with fresh video evidence that they probably aren't far off with that estimate. That's a terrible return on investment coming from the deal maker in chief.

Some people seem to think this was a false flag operation (the supposed chemical attack and the reasoning behind the US response)
Apparently its a very complicated sunni -shia - iran - saudi- yemen situation about an oil pipeline that will cut russia out of the loop. They also say Trump is more concerned about drawing attention away from his Russian treason and recklessly provoking the russians for his own domestic survival. A total all round shit show in other words.

I've been wondering about the pipeline theory, it would be much easier for them to tie into Iraq's pipeline systems and just go through Turkey, wouldn't it? Who would think a pipeline through non friendly territory would work? The Syrians could sever it at will.
As a distraction, it could work temporarily, but it opens Trump up to more, new, constitutional issues on top of international ones and only distracts from the Russian debacle temporarily.
No matter what, you're correct, it's a total shit show.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.