Reports (w/ multiple sources) detail Trump's pattern of disrespecting military casualties (2 Viewers)

[nolaspe]

Another article about trumps slipping support with the military
=========================

The weekend warriors in their Army surplus battle rattle, their paintball weapons and gun show specials are getting lots of love from this clown show’s commander in chief.

“GREAT PATRIOTS!” President Trump tweeted, along with a video of the vigilantes flouting the law and causing disorder while cruising the streets of an American city.

Meanwhile, the real defenders of freedom — the men and women of the U.S. military — aren’t getting love from Trump. And they’re sure not giving it.

Unsurprising, given the way Trump didn’t even blink at reports that Russia was paying bounties to Afghan troops for American kills.

Or that he was impeached for withholding military aid to Ukraine, putting global trust in America’s military at risk.

Or that he keeps trying to take millions in military funding — gutting plenty of military projects right here in the D.C. region, including a day care for military kids — to build his wall.........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/support-for-trump-appears-to-be-slipping-in-the-military-and-no-wonder/2020/08/31/7748cf3e-ebb9-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html

VoteVets.org just posted this on fbook...

Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[MT15]

I dont know who the four sources are. But there are plenty of people who do know who these sources are. These articles are not published on a single person’s say so. There is no doubt that there are people in each news organization who also know who the multiple sources are and they have verified the story.

Your dislike for Goldberg seems partisan, or rather the people you are relying on for your opinion of Goldberg seem extremely partisan. He has a really good reputation for factual reporting. The anti-anti-Trump crowd (I just heard that term, and it fits almost all of the people you tend to quote) makes money by defending Trump. They have an incentive to throw cold water on this article, either from a financial standpoint or from an ideological one.

Nobody knows 100% whether the story is correct or not. But I would say it is much more likely to be mostly true than not. And I would say there’s a zero percent chance that Goldberg made it up. Absolutely zero.

 

[SaintForLife]

I dont know who the four sources are. But there are plenty of people who do know who these sources are. These articles are not published on a single person’s say so. There is no doubt that there are people in each news organization who also know who the multiple sources are and they have verified the story.

Your dislike for Goldberg seems partisan, or rather the people you are relying on for your opinion of Goldberg seem extremely partisan. He has a really good reputation for factual reporting. The anti-anti-Trump crowd (I just heard that term, and it fits almost all of the people you tend to quote) makes money by defending Trump. They have an incentive to throw cold water on this article, either from a financial standpoint or from an ideological one.

Nobody knows 100% whether the story is correct or not. But I would say it is much more likely to be mostly true than not. And I would say there’s a zero percent chance that Goldberg made it up. Absolutely zero.

Do you remember Goldberg pushing lies to help get us into the Iraq War? Goldberg was handpicked to push Obama’s Iran deal message in the media.

 

[MT15]

Do you remember how almost everyone in the entire country bought into the lies told to start the war? I remember it vividly. Almost everybody considered Iraq to be a legitimate threat at the time. Patriotism and fear mongering were used to great effect. But it’s convenient right now for people who have to find a way to discredit this story to blame the author of the story. Look at the possible motives for people to say what they are saying right now at this particular time.

I guarantee you that if Goldberg had written a story critical of Biden, not one of your group would have said a word about his credibility. Not one.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Do you remember Goldberg pushing lies to help get us into the Iraq War? Goldberg was handpicked to push Obama’s Iran deal message in the media.

The way any story, like the Iraq war and the Iran deal, works is that sources provide information to the reporters and the reporters then verify that information with other sources before reporting a story.

In both the Iraq war and Iran deal reporting, all of the sources told reporters the same thing, including Goldberg.

Any complaints about inaccurate reporting in those instances should be with the sources in the Bush and Obama administrations for providing inaccurate information to reporters.

The sources accusing Goldberg of pushing lies and being handpicked are from very partisan, ideological and biased sources that all have credibility issues of their own. If they were being honest, they would be questioning the honesty of Goldberg's sources and not of Goldberg himself. That's the fair and logically accurate argument to make. The fact that they are trying to discredit Goldberg himself tells me they are operating out of bias themselves.

The reason they are attacking the messenger, Goldberg, is because they don't like the message and they know that none of sources who sent the message are going to come out publicly to stand behind Goldberg's reporting. They won't come out publicly, because they don't want to be the target of these very same character attacks and also death threats to themselves and their families.

The most convincing evidence, that this story is much more true than it is not, is the almost complete silence from the military. Where is the public defense on this issue from members of the military? Surely, many of the highest ranking members would publicly step up and defend Trump if they thought he was being unfairly accused of disrespecting the troops.

So that it doesn't get lost I repeat, where is the public defense on this issue from members of the military?

The fact that Trump and his defenders are frantically trying to deny and kill this story shows how damaging they think this story is for Trump.

This story has Trump and his defenders running around like chickens with their heads cut off. One thing that we know for a fact about Trump, the harder he pushes back on a negative story, the more true it is.

All things considered, this story is most likely true and because it is we will continue to see a frantic effort to discredit it and make it go away. This story has Trump and his chucklehead defenders worried, by chucklehead defenders I mean the cronies that he surrounds himself with.

Trump needs the military vote and support to have any chance of winning the election. He could still lose with it, but he ain't winning without it.

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you remember how almost everyone in the entire country bought into the lies told to start the war? I remember it vividly. Almost everybody considered Iraq to be a legitimate threat at the time. Patriotism and fear mongering were used to great effect. But it’s convenient right now for people who have to find a way to discredit this story to blame the author of the story. Look at the possible motives for people to say what they are saying right now at this particular time.

I guarantee you that if Goldberg had written a story critical of Biden, not one of your group would have said a word about his credibility. Not one.

Did every single reporter get tricked by sources on the Iraq War? Shouldn't Goldberg have checked with other sources to verify his serious claim especially when it involved going to war?

Isn't it also possible that Goldberg and other reporters go with whatever their sources tell them to retain access to get future scoops?

You are big on criticizing the sources that I use when I post articles or tweets. Why is it not okay for me to do the same? I also show what parts of the article that might not be accurate whereas you usually just say my source isn't credible and don't point out what specifically is inaccurate.

 

[SaintForLife]

The way any story, like the Iraq war and the Iran deal, works is that sources provide information to the reporters and the reporters then verify that information with other sources before reporting a story.

In both the Iraq war and Iran deal reporting, all of the sources told reporters the same thing, including Goldberg.

Any complaints about inaccurate reporting in those instances should be with the sources in the Bush and Obama administrations for providing inaccurate information to reporters.

The sources accusing Goldberg of pushing lies and being handpicked are from very partisan, ideological and biased sources that all have credibility issues of their own. If they were being honest, they would be questioning the honesty of Goldberg's sources and not of Goldberg himself. That's the fair and logically accurate argument to make. The fact that they are trying to discredit Goldberg himself tells me they are operating out of bias themselves.

The reason they are attacking the messenger, Goldberg, is because they don't like the message and they know that none of sources who sent the message are going to come out publicly to stand behind Goldberg's reporting. They won't come out publicly, because they don't want to be the target of these very same character attacks and also death threats to themselves and their families.

The most convincing evidence, that this story is much more true than it is not, is the almost complete silence from the military. Where is the public defense on this issue from members of the military? Surely, many of the highest ranking members would publicly step up and defend Trump if they thought he was being unfairly accused of disrespecting the troops.

So that it doesn't get lost I repeat, where is the public defense on this issue from members of the military?

The fact that Trump and his defenders are frantically trying to deny and kill this story shows how damaging they think this story is for Trump.

This story has Trump and his defenders running around like chickens with their heads cut off. One thing that we know for a fact about Trump, the harder he pushes back on a negative story, the more true it is.

All things considered, this story is most likely true and because it is we will continue to see a frantic effort to discredit it and make it go away. This story has Trump and his chucklehead defenders worried, by chucklehead defenders I mean the cronies that he surrounds himself with.

Trump needs the military vote and support to have any chance of winning the election. He could still lose with it, but he ain't winning without it.

So a reporter is never responsible for writing an article that turns out not to be accurate?

The people who you say are biased who are questioning his reporting have taken issue with certain parts of the article in addition to showing his credibility problems from the past. You would have a point if the people who are criticizing Goldberg only said he isn't credible and never showed what parts of his article aren't credible.

Goldberg literally said that his sources wouldn't go on record because they didn't want to get a bunch of angry Tweets. That's a silly excuse.

The military doesn't get involved in political discussions or debates and that's why you haven't heard anything from them.

Of course the story could be damaging for Trump if it's true. It a horrible thing that's been alleged. If someome wrote an article saying Biden say handicapped people don't deserve any special treatment you know they would quickly respond to the story. Your argument on that doesn't mean what you think it does.

We all know that there will be more exaggeratedor manufactured"bombshells" since we are close to the election.

I cant wait to see how the media drools over the Strzok and Cohen books.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So a reporter is never responsible for writing an article that turns out not to be accurate?

Their credibility shouldn't be called into question if they did their due diligence by verifying the information they get with several sources.

The people who you say are biased who are questioning his reporting have taken issue with certain parts of the article in addition to showing his credibility problems from the past.

I know they have taken issue, but their reasoning is flawed. I've pointed this out, the Irag war reporting and the Iran deal reporting. The specific statements I've made showing how those people are wrong in those two instances hasn't been acknowledged, responded to or rebutted.

Repeating the same thing over and over is not a discussion, response or a rebuttal, it's avoidance.

You would have a point if the people who are criticizing Goldberg only said he isn't credible and never showed what parts of his article aren't credible.

There is only one factual claim from the story that they question. That factual point from the story can be incorrect while the rest of the facts in story are correct. Those facts are not mutually exclusive. Both can and are mostly likely true.

Goldberg literally said that his sources wouldn't go on record because they didn't want to get a bunch of angry Tweets. That's a silly excuse.

Since those angry tweets would be coming from the president and some of his lunatic followers it's a legitimate concern. It would damage their careers, their reputations and lead to constant harassment. There's nothing silly about any of that when it's a result of telling the truth.

The military doesn't get involved in political discussions or debates and that's why you haven't heard anything from them.

Setting the record straight is not getting involved in political discussion or debates. The military gets involved in setting the record straight all the time. Most recent example, they didn't hesitate to set the record straight on the story about Russian bounties on US soldiers.

Of course the story could be damaging for Trump if it's true. It a horrible thing that's been alleged.

It's no more horrible than things we've heard him say about American soldiers out loud in front of live cameras.

If someome wrote an article saying Biden say handicapped people don't deserve any special treatment you know they would quickly respond to the story. Your argument on that doesn't mean what you think it does.

My argument was that Trump pushes back harder on stories that are true than he does on things that aren't. The harder he pushes, the more truth there is to the story. Just because Biden would do the same thing, doesn't mean Trump's not doing it. It would just mean they both do it.

My argument means exactly what I and most of America knows it means. I have accepted that some people will never accept the truth about Trump. Just like some people will never accept that the Earth is round.

We all know that there will be more exaggeratedor manufactured"bombshells" since we are close to the election.

Most of us in America know that every negative story about the negative things Trump routinely does will be seen as "exaggerated manufactured 'bombshells'" by those who ardently support him. We all also know, that like Trump, the louder they scream and thump their chests, the more they know they are on a sinking ship.

I cant wait to see how the media drools over the Strzok and Cohen books.

Who's "the media" that keeps getting mentioned?

It's not whether or not the media drools over negative stories about Trump that's the problem for Trump.

The problem for Trump is not that negative stories are getting out. That's been happening his entire life, including his time as president. Think about that. Negative stories about Trumping doing negative things has followed him his entire life. Isn't it conventional wisdom that where there's smoke, there's fire?

The real problem for Trump is that as each day goes by, more and more people see these stories as true and/or care about these stories enough for it to influence their vote.

If Trump wasn't afraid most Americans would believe or care about the story, then neither would he. If he thought it wouldn't cost him the election, he wouldn't care. The fact this matters so much to him and he's told verifiable lies in trying to defend himself from this story, tells us how scared he his about this story costing him the election.

 

[FullMonte]

And...now there is this footnote to that whole trip. Trump bought a replica Franklin bust back from the Ambassador's house in France, along with two other pieces of "art."

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Nebaghead]

I didn’t realize the trip was to Belleau Woods. That’s where the Marines got their nick name Devil Dogs from the Germans. Not surprising some of the unnamed sources were senior marine officers. I’m guessing they didn’t take the insults lightly. It’s one of the first things we learned about in boot camp. That and Chesty Puller quotes. Pisses me off that he would say anything about fallen soldiers this way, especially coming from someone who cowardly ran away from his patriotic duty to serve.

 

[bdb13]

I didn’t realize the trip was to Belleau Woods. That’s where the Marines got their nick name Devil Dogs from the Germans. Not surprising some of the unnamed sources were senior marine officers. I’m guessing they didn’t take the insults lightly. It’s one of the first things we learned about in boot camp. That and Chesty Puller quotes. Pisses me off that he would say anything about fallen soldiers this way, especially coming from someone who cowardly ran away from his patriotic duty to serve.

He didn't run away though, had to fake limp away to sell the bone spurs.

 

[MT15]

Trump’s response yesterday was to malign the officers and try to drive a wedge between the soldiers and their commanders. Doesn’t seem like a great thing to do if you are Commander in Chief to me, but so “on brand”.

 

[coldseat]

Trump’s response yesterday was to malign the officers and try to drive a wedge between the soldiers and their commanders. Doesn’t seem like a great thing to do if you are Commander in Chief to me, but so “on brand”.

His argument (as with all his arguments) was nonsensical to boot. Claiming that they only wanted to fight wars to put billions into the pockets of contractors. When he, his administration and Republicans in Congress have constantly pushed for billions to go into the coffers of those very same military contractors. Always trying to push as much work as possible into the private sector military contractors. It's always the pot calling the kettle black with this guy.

 

[insidejob]

This tweet pretty accurately sums up Team Trump's latest defense claiming he didn't disparage soldiers. Like this is so much better.

 

[wardorican]

Man, what the heck did I just read trying to catch up? Looked like one of the longest arguments about what a meme or isn't.

It's not the important part. The important part is just not posting inflammatory garbage and, instead, debating the issue. It doesn't matter the form.

 

[MT15]

Did every single reporter get tricked by sources on the Iraq War? Shouldn't Goldberg have checked with other sources to verify his serious claim especially when it involved going to war?

Isn't it also possible that Goldberg and other reporters go with whatever their sources tell them to retain access to get future scoops?

You are big on criticizing the sources that I use when I post articles or tweets. Why is it not okay for me to do the same? I also show what parts of the article that might not be accurate whereas you usually just say my source isn't credible and don't point out what specifically is inaccurate.

Yes, pretty much every reporter was duped. This wasn’t a piece that was scooped by Goldberg, it wasn’t dependent on anonymous sources, it was announced by the Bush Administration.

Newspapers and outlets like the Atlantic have entire departments tasked with fact checking the articles before they are published, so no, I highly doubt that Goldberg just went with what his sources told him and even if he did, the piece wouldn’t have been published. Guaranteed he didn’t just make it up.

You have really only refuted the part about the helicopter, IIRC. And that part doesn’t matter, because we have said how it could have happened and still produced the document you have shown. The fact is that he didn’t want to go, or he would have gone. The fact is that he is currently smearing military officers now out in the open, the fact is he smeared McCain in the same manner on the record during the campaign.

This could turn out to be a conspiracy among 4 high ranking Administration or military officials where they all got together and made up a story, actually more likely former military, but it is extremely unlikely. Naw, I cant even pretend that might be what happened. Criminy. Who would believe that nonsense?

Or it could be that the man we know to be extremely crass and disrespectful to everyone was crass and disrespectful to people in the military. And now is desperate to lie his way out of the consequences.

 

[wardorican]

Yes, pretty much every reporter was duped. This wasn’t a piece that was scooped by Goldberg, it wasn’t dependent on anonymous sources, it was announced by the Bush Administration.

Newspapers and outlets like the Atlantic have entire departments tasked with fact checking the articles before they are published, so no, I highly doubt that Goldberg just went with what his sources told him and even if he did, the piece wouldn’t have been published. Guaranteed he didn’t just make it up.

You have really only refuted the part about the helicopter, IIRC. And that part doesn’t matter, because we have said how it could have happened and still produced the document you have shown. The fact is that he didn’t want to go, or he would have gone. The fact is that he is currently smearing military officers now out in the open, the fact is he smeared McCain in the same manner on the record during the campaign.

This could turn out to be a conspiracy among 4 high ranking Administration or military officials where they all got together and made up a story, actually more likely former military, but it is extremely unlikely. Naw, I cant even pretend that might be what happened. Criminy. Who would believe that nonsense?

Or it could be that the man we know to be extremely crass and disrespectful to everyone was crass and disrespectful to people in the military. And now is desperate to lie his way out of the consequences.

So, he reported what he heard from valid sources, and they really were saying it and thought it. It was a failure of the intel agencies, but they did in fact say it and think it.

Doesn't sound like an example of bad reporting. Just an example of bad government, or mistakes from government.

 

[insidejob]

Press: Trump gives military middle finger salute - NewsBreak

Since he floated down that golden escalator in June 2015, Donald Trump has said a lot of outrageous things. In fact, almost daily, if not hourly. But nothing as outrageous, shocking, or dangerous as what he’s reported to have said by Atlantic magazine. In November 2018, on a trip to...

www.newsbreakapp.com

Article of 10 reasons it's more believable than not that Trump doesn't respect our military and is the clown shoed liar he's always been.

 

[SaintForLife]

Trump’s response yesterday was to malign the officers and try to drive a wedge between the soldiers and their commanders. Doesn’t seem like a great thing to do if you are Commander in Chief to me, but so “on brand”.

I actually somewhat agree with what he said the people in the Pentagon who support the endless war movement. I doubt it's all the top people in the Pentagon, but there are some:

TRUMP: "I'm not saying the military's in love with me. The soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy"