Reports (w/ multiple sources) detail Trump's pattern of disrespecting military casualties (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

Do you know how those sources can seem more credible...go on record. Otherwise don't expect many people to believe it with it so close to the election. Just because it sounds like something Trump could have said doesn't mean anything.

 

[CoolBrees]

Deep throat didn’t go on record. We didn’t know who that was until he died. Like 40 years later.

Did he make it up?

Anonymous sources are a staple of the 4th branch of government. The gestapo was great at forcing out informants. The only reason you care about who it is is so you can tear down their credibility. Like Lt Col Vindman.

And I love how you have gone from saying “it’s possible that they are the same 4 sources” to “they are the same 4 sources.” As if you have any proof of anything. Unless techno fog or undercover Huber reports it of course.

 

[SaintForLife]

Deep throat didn’t go on record. We didn’t know who that was until he died. Like 40 years later.

Did he make it up?

Anonymous sources are a staple of the 4th branch of government. The gestapo was great at forcing out informants. The only reason you care about who it is is so you can tear down their credibility. Like Lt Col Vindman.

And I love how you have gone from saying “it’s possible that they are the same 4 sources” to “they are the same 4 sources.” As if you have any proof of anything. Unless techno fog or undercover Huber reports it of course.

Considering the record of the anonymous sources during the last 4 years on Russiagate I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical.

Did you get those illegal chemical tested yet that you found by the black helicopters?

 

[Nebaghead]

Considering the record of the anonymous sources during the last 4 years on Russiagate I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical.

Did you get those illegal chemical tested yet that you found by the black helicopters?

You have an excuse for everything. A majority of what was reported was true, but the lack of willingness to give a through fair investigation was the problem. Here, do an independent investigation of trump Mueller but we will block you at every opportunity then only release a redacted report with the findings after my lackey Attorney General has rewritten the results.
Now the DOJ is going to defend him against a sexual accuser from the 90s since the lawsuit started while he was president. That has never happened. He has slimed up the WH so much it will take years to clean up the wreckage. He makes Nixon look like a boyscout.

 

[SaintForLife]

You have an excuse for everything. A majority of what was reported was true, but the lack of willingness to give a through fair investigation was the problem. Here, do an independent investigation of trump Mueller but we will block you at every opportunity then only release a redacted report with the findings after my lackey Attorney General has rewritten the results.
Now the DOJ is going to defend him against a sexual accuser from the 90s since the lawsuit started while he was president. That has never happened. He has slimed up the WH so much it will take years to clean up the wreckage. He makes Nixon look like a boyscout.

I have an excuse for everything? Mueller had unlimited resources and funding to investigate Trump and Russia. But after he didn't find what the left expected the excuses started that the reason Mueller didn't find anything is because he was restricted. Give me a break. Couldn't we say that about any investigation that didn't produce what was expected?

Are you not aware that the Special Cousel worked with the DOJ on the redactions? Let me guess. The smoking gun that shows Trump colluded with Russia is behind those redactions. How convenient

 

[CoolBrees]

black helicopters? Nah

Expired tear gas? Yep. I am not going to post the articles for the fourth time. You didn’t read them the first three times.

And I appreciate you sticking to the topic of your “president” calling our veterans losers and suckers.

 

[Nebaghead]

I have an excuse for everything? Mueller had unlimited resources and funding to investigate Trump and Russia. But after he didn't find what the left expected the excuses started that the reason Mueller didn't find anything is because he was restricted. Give me a break. Couldn't we say that about any investigation that didn't produce what was expected?

Are you not aware that the Special Cousel worked with the DOJ on the redactions? Let me guess. The smoking gun that shows Trump colluded with Russia is behind those redactions. How convenient

Do you have a link about the redaction being assisted by the special counsel? What do you call the lack of WH cooperation for questioning. They stonewalled the investigation completely.
Even with what was released, you act like nothing was found by Mueller. You do realize he said if I didn’t think the president was involved, I would have stated that in the report. I don’t wa t to even get into this argument with you because it is pointless, you are not open minded to reason and debating with you is pointless. Go back to Mother Huber and techno cloud racer who are full of truth.

 

[not2rich]

Considering the record of the anonymous sources during the last 4 years on Russiagate I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical.

Did you get those illegal chemical tested yet that you found by the black helicopters?

"Russiagate" proved that the Russians tried to help Trump get elected, that the campaign welcomed that help, and that Trump obstructed the investigation into it. If you want to argue those conclusions, I'm happy to take you on,

But I guess if the goal was to prove a coordinated conspiracy between Russia and the campaign, it failed.

But for you to tout "Russiagate" as an exoneration is like someone claiming the coffin wasn't nailed shut because only 15 nails were used instead of 20.

 

[The moose]

Do you know how those sources can seem more credible...go on record. Otherwise don't expect many people to believe it with it so close to the election. Just because it sounds like something Trump could have said doesn't mean anything.

Well considering we have said this numerous times he will take it out on whom ever they are.

He has played with career government employees that he felt slighted by ever since he took office. Do you really need a list of names?

 

[brandon]

Do you know how those sources can seem more credible...go on record.

So I guess you believed Vindman?
Bolton?
Sondland?
Bill Taylor?
Yovanovitch?
Hill?

How about Cohen? Mattis? Kelly? Mullen? McMaster? Sims? Omarosa?

There’s a list a mile long of people on the record who have spoken out against Trump, and you haven’t believed a single one of them. So why should we think that if these sources were on the record it would be any different?

 

[LA - L.A.]

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:

And all of the people currently running the military and the Pentagon were appointed by Trump, he's the Commander in Chief after all. So what does it say about Trump that he's appointed these people who support endless wars?

Trump is actually belittling himself when he belittles military and Pentagon leadership and he's too foolish to be aware of it. It's like a CEO that says his executives don't like him because they're all a bunch of self-serving greedy jerks.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Do you know how those sources can seem more credible...go on record. Otherwise don't expect many people to believe it with it so close to the election. Just because it sounds like something Trump could have said doesn't mean anything.

The part I emphasized is the exact opposite of what is happening.

Most voters totally believe the story. Trump and his supporters know most people believe it and that's what's got them panicked and desperately trying to discredit and silence this story.

Their efforts are not working and their efforts are not going to work.

In fact, the harder and more desperately Trump and his supporters try to kill this story, the more the number of voters that believe the story increases and they all become even more convinced it's true.

The best thing Trump and his supporters could do is ignore the story and let it fade away. Fortunately for America, neither are capable of doing that. They will keep this story alive all the way up until the election by making futile efforts to discredit it.

 

[barbar]

Do you know how those sources can seem more credible...go on record. Otherwise don't expect many people to believe it with it so close to the election. Just because it sounds like something Trump could have said doesn't mean anything.

Last night I watched an episode of perfect strangers where Larry and Balki went to jail because they needed to protect their anonymous source on a story they broke in the newspaper.

That show was aired in 1988. This isn't anything new.. . Balki from Mepos easily understood why sources aren't outed.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If John Kelly comes out and says this this isn't true, if everyone mentioned in the article comes out and says this isn't true, if the reporter testifies in Congress that it isn't true and he made it all up, I'd concede and admit that it wasn't true

But that wouldn't change the fact that I believed that it COULD be true, because it sounds exactly like things he would say - many have said in this thread they can actually hear trump's voice saying this

Someone mentioned a Trump eats babies analogy; I'd dismiss that story immediately because it doesn't make sense and doesn't even sound true

If the story was that Trump spent over an hour sitting with and consoling a low level White House employee who's father just died I'd also dismiss because it doesn't even sound true

We know who Trump is very well at this point

We know what sounds plausible and what doesn't

And with Trump ANYTHING that is mean spirited, petty, childish, vindictive, or insulting sounds plausible

 

[wardorican]

If John Kelly comes out and says this this isn't true, if everyone mentioned in the article comes out and says this isn't true, if the reporter testifies in Congress that it isn't true and he made it all up, I'd concede and admit that it wasn't true

But that wouldn't change the fact that I believed that it COULD be true, because it sounds exactly like things he would say - many have said in this thread they can actually hear trump's voice saying this

Someone mentioned a Trump eats babies analogy; I'd dismiss it immediately because it doesn't make sense and doesn't sound true

If the story was that Trump spent over an hour sitting with and consoling a low level White House employee who's father just died I'd also dismiss because it doesn't sound true

We know who Trump is very well at this point

We know what sounds plausible and what doesn't

And with Trump ANYTHING that is mean spirited, petty, childish, vindictive, or insulting sounds plausible

Yes. And the reality is, he likely did say this. Is it a mountain? Not really. For some, it may be enough for them to note vote for him, if they needed another reason. For others, it doesn't move the needle (supporters or those fully supporting Biden).

To get caught up in the minutia for something that's somewhat of a petty topic. I mean, we all know he's generally a jerk in public, on twitter, etc. So, this just adds some breadth to his jerk'ness. And he's said things about generals before, and how he knows more, and yadda yadda. And look, some of that criticism is fair, but he's still a jerk.

So, did this change what we know about the man? No.

Actually, I think that's some of the problem we deal with.. it's like a Trump fatigue. He's such a jerk that there is a mountain of small things to be upset about. It's exhausting.

 

[superchuck500]

I have no idea if it's true or not, but considering one of the main claims in the story is false, it's 60 days out from the election, and it’s all anonymous sources I'm skeptical. Considering the horrible record of the unanmed sources for Russiagate, it's good to be skeptical unless there is proof.

What a coincidence that the Atlantic got the first question for Biden’s softball press conference. The vets group produced an ad in only 12 hours after the article broke. It sure seems like it was coordinated from those 2 things.

Is seeming like it's very much in Trump's character a good standard to believe a story that's only based on unanmed sources? What if Fox came out today with a blockbuster article saying that Biden molested some kids and grouped some women. That story was strictly based on anonymous sources, but it seems like Biden's character. It was also confirmed by other outlets using anonymous sources. Would you believe that story?

I'm guessing you are talking about Trump's horrible comments that he had made about McCain. I'm no fan of McCain because he never met a war he didn't support, but Trump's comments about him were inexcusable. I'm not surprised that Trump attacked McCain especially considering that McCain helped pass the discredited Steele Dossier to the FBI. That is not a defense of Trump's comments towards McCain, but that won't stop people from claiming it was.

Hey, sorry I'm just getting back to this- I checked out of politics for the Labor Day weekend.

I think you're right that "in character" is no standard for any legitimate purpose. I think that this story has gotten to the point where it needs the sources to go public, or provide some other evidence. There have been many denials, but they, too, are suspect.

(I don't think that 12 hours is an unusually short timeframe to turn around a political attack ad. These groups now have digital content specialists that are extremely nimble. It doesn't suggest coordination, not in and of itself, IMO).

 

[Yggdrasill]

I have an excuse for everything? Mueller had unlimited resources and funding to investigate Trump and Russia. But after he didn't find what the left expected the excuses started that the reason Mueller didn't find anything is because he was restricted. Give me a break. Couldn't we say that about any investigation that didn't produce what was expected?

Are you not aware that the Special Cousel worked with the DOJ on the redactions? Let me guess. The smoking gun that shows Trump colluded with Russia is behind those redactions. How convenient

Whoa now. I don't know whether you would consider me on "the left", but the Mueller Report found more or less exactly what I expected: numerous specific, unambiguous, and corroborated instances of obstruction of justice. They are there for all to see. The problem for "the left" was not that the Mueller Report found no wrongdoing, it was that the Democrats chose not to indict on those counts (that's a whole other story). Also, lets acknowledge that although Mueller did not find evidence of collusion, he did find conclusively that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, which is a big effing deal in my book.

 

[MT15]

And, worse than the Russian meddling was the Trump campaign welcoming, and aiding the interference.