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

[laylalex 7,282]

8 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Well, it's apparent that posting anything controversial about the President triggers arbitrary responses. Lesson learned, only Trump rainbows and unicorns to keep everyone here pacified.

 

Anonymous sources are of course less reliable than "many people" you know.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Anonymous sources are of course less reliable than "many people" you know.  

By "anonymous", you mean democratic experts, right?

 

  🤣

 

[Dashinka 24,108]

9 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

You find this posting funny?

 

 

 

Do you find it credible?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Do you find it credible?

credible ?Yes: 

1. We have seen the president make off the cuff  statements in the past.

2. I truly believe he does not know the history of WW I, the man is definitely not a history bookworm.

3. We have seen him use similar language re John McCain. 

4. The sources (plural) are not anonymous, just in unpublished. I have no way to evaluate the sources credibility or recall of course. 

. 

I don't know the sources or the complete context so it is impossible to fully understand the intent behind the statements.

 

I suppose now that I have stated that I believe that it is probable that the article is true, I will get the "deranged" label.  So be it.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,108]

7 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Well, it's apparent that posting anything controversial about the President triggers arbitrary responses. Lesson learned, only Trump rainbows and unicorns to keep everyone here pacified.

 

No, it is just more of the same.  We have been seeing these "sourced" stories for so long and with the activist state of journalism today it could all be made up.  

[Dashinka 24,108]

25 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

credible ?Yes: 

1. We have seen the president make off the cuff  statements in the past.

2. I truly believe he does not know the history of WW I, the man is definitely not a history bookworm.

3. We have seen him use similar language re John McCain. 

4. The sources (plural) are not anonymous, just in unpublished. I have no way to evaluate the sources credibility or recall of course. 

. 

I don't know the sources or the complete context so it is impossible to fully understand the intent behind the statements.

 

I suppose now that I have stated that I believe that it is probable that the article is true, I will get the "deranged" label.  So be it.

 

 

Doesn't make it any more credible.  I can say President Obama is responsible for all the racial tension and cop hating because of the poor choice of words he had used and I would be ridiculed by the Left.  As to anonymous, or unpublished, how can you say for sure they are one or the other?  There could be a third category, "made up".  Here is someone who did identify themselves to say the OP story was false.

 

“The Atlantic story on @realDonaldTrump is total BS,” Sarah Sanders said in a tweet. The former White House press secretary said she was “one of the people part of the discussion” on Trump’s canceled visit to Aisne-Marne and that Trump’s comments on the war dead “never happened."

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/trump-responds-to-insults-us-service-members-408750

 

As the McCain remarks, like Kamala Harris, it was just politics, when the time came and the family asked, no one, not even Trump objected to the State Funeral John McCain received even though McCain was an ardent "Never Trumper".

 

I really don't go by words as actions always speak louder, and the actions by this president as outlined in your other thread are many.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

credible ?Yes: 

1. We have seen the president make off the cuff  statements in the past.

2. I truly believe he does not know the history of WW I, the man is definitely not a history bookworm.

3. We have seen him use similar language re John McCain. 

4. The sources (plural) are not anonymous, just in unpublished. I have no way to evaluate the sources credibility or recall of course. 

. 

I don't know the sources or the complete context so it is impossible to fully understand the intent behind the statements.

 

I suppose now that I have stated that I believe that it is probable that the article is true, I will get the "deranged" label.  So be it.

 

 

They say anonymous in the article, and if they aren't cited, they're anonymous, despite the mental gymnastics. 

 

Regardless, the "sources" are entirely what this accusation hinges on, the rest are biases and assumptions, and clearly all this are leaps you're willing to take despite countless smear efforts just like this being completely wrong. 

 

Don't worry though this piece will have zero effect on his presidency and the election. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 hours ago, laylalex said:

Anonymous sources are of course less reliable than "many people" you know.  

 

   The whole forum is full of unsourced, hyperbolic and/or  made up articles and the reactions to them. If this was about Biden, it would be the inane runaway megathread of the day. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

 

I don't know the sources or the complete context so it is impossible to fully understand the intent behind the statements.

 

Of course we don't know the sources, that's why it's hard to put any faith in the claims.

 

As to the intent, it is far from impossible to understand.  Even Biden can tell what the intent is.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

No, it is just more of the same.  We have been seeing these "sourced" stories for so long and with the activist state of journalism today it could all be made up.  

They should impeach Trump for this!!  Didn't they ALMOST get him last time, when someone "thought it sounded like something Trump would say, and my sources say he said it"??

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

12 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Of course we don't know the sources, that's why it's hard to put any faith in the claims.

 

As to the intent, it is far from impossible to understand.  Even Biden can tell what the intent is.

Thankfully the average voter can tell, too. 

 

Best of luck, Goldberg and the Atlantic! 😃

 

10 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

They should impeach Trump for this!!  Didn't they ALMOST get him last time, when someone "thought it sounded like something Trump would say, and my sources say he said it"??

It's always them trying to convince others, as if these efforts of trying to force outrage are going to have even remotely the small impact they once had. It's no secret they try the same thing over and over until it stops working, they're just a bit slow on the cues that it's stopped working.

 

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

No, it is just more of the same.  We have been seeing these "sourced" stories for so long and with the activist state of journalism today it could all be made up.  

And there are some assumptions to make about this that turn out to be far more correct than otherwise based on the last few years of this type of tripe:

- It's a source of someone who is anti-Trump

- It's based on someone's feelings, not on facts

- Or it's all completely made up

 

Unfortunately they've played the same hand I don't know how many times in the last 4 years and they've unraveled in precisely this very way just about every circumstance. Time to try something different.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,108]

16 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Thankfully the average voter can tell, too. 

 

Best of luck, Goldberg and the Atlantic! 😃

 

It's always them trying to convince others, as if these efforts of trying to force outrage are going to have even remotely the small impact they once had. It's no secret they try the same thing over and over until it stops working, they're just a bit slow on the cues that it's stopped working.

 

And there are some assumptions to make about this that turn out to be far more correct than otherwise based on the last few years of this type of tripe:

- It's a source of someone who is anti-Trump

- It's based on someone's feelings, not on facts

- Or it's all completely made up

 

Unfortunately they've played the same hand I don't know how many times in the last 4 years and they've unraveled in precisely this very way just about every circumstance. Time to try something different.

I have heard of at least three other sources (apart from Sarah H-S) not afraid of identifying themselves that have come out and stated they were present and verified the "Atlantic" story is false.  The other suspicious thing about the OP story is why not come out with it in 2018 when it supposedly occurred, and why is there a Democrat ad already produced referencing this dubious story.  Then we get the assertion that President Trump did not want to go as it would mess up his hair when the very next day he gave a speech in the rain without the aid of an umbrella.

 

You are right about Goldberg.  Enough said. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

42 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I have heard of at least three other sources (apart from Sarah H-S) not afraid of identifying themselves that have come out and stated they were present and verified the "Atlantic" story is false.  The other suspicious thing about the OP story is why not come out with it in 2018 when it supposedly occurred, and why is there a Democrat ad already produced referencing this dubious story.  Then we get the assertion that President Trump did not want to go as it would mess up his hair when the very next day he gave a speech in the rain without the aid of an umbrella.

 

You are right about Goldberg.  Enough said. 

Even people on the left can see what Goldberg is, pointing back to the Glenn Greenwald tweets in the prior page. 

 

While the masses in politics tend to have a disturbingly short term (selective) memory, I distinctly remember teaming with liberals and people on the left not only against globalism but against the pathetic warmongering neocons in the Bush administration and the neocons/neoliberals in the media who were Bush's mouthpieces and to this day continue advocating for conflict everywhere. Only a special kind of self-unawareness has them ignore how and why these people came to the Democrats (with open arms), ignore the methodology behind their smearing (e.g. the "feelings" and hearsay based committee hearings), and just regurgitate pieces because orange man bad. 

[Dashinka 24,108]

22 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Even people on the left can see what Goldberg is, pointing back to the Glenn Greenwald tweets in the prior page. 

 

While the masses in politics tend to have a disturbingly short term (selective) memory, I distinctly remember teaming with liberals and people on the left not only against globalism but against the pathetic warmongering neocons in the Bush administration and the neocons/neoliberals in the media who were Bush's mouthpieces and to this day continue advocating for conflict everywhere. Only a special kind of self-unawareness has them ignore how and why these people came to the Democrats (with open arms), ignore the methodology behind their smearing (e.g. the "feelings" and hearsay based committee hearings), and just regurgitate pieces because orange man bad. 

Some folks are opining that one of the unnamed sources is John Bolton.  Yes that's right, the top dog neocon himself.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,365]

Trump didn't cancel visit to American military cemetery in France over disdain for slain veterans, sources say

The sources said they had never heard Trump call war dead 'losers' or 'suckers'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-didnt-cancel-visit-to-american-military-cemetery-in-france-over-disdain-for-slain-veterans-sources-say

 

"

The White House had said at the time the decision was made because of poor weather for flying Marine One and the fact that the cemetery was too far a distance for a motorcade to drive.

One of the sources who refuted the Atlantic's reporting is not a fan of Trump. Both sources said that Trump was upset about not being able to go to Aisne-Marne and said they had never heard Trump refer to war dead at Aisne-Marne or in the battle of Bellau Wood as "losers" or "suckers."

 

Former national security adviser John Bolton, who has openly opposed Trump, saying he will vote for neither the president nor Joe Biden in November, wrote a scathing memoir about his time in the White House. In a passage in that memoir, Bolton actually defends Trump over the decision not to go to the Aisne-Marne.

 

Pompeo: I never heard the president speak ill of service members

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responds to report President Trump called fallen soldiers 'losers' and 'suckers.'

"Marine One's crew was saying that bad visibility could make it imprudent to chopper to the cemetery," Bolton wrote. "The ceiling was not too low for Marines to fly in combat, but flying POTUS was obviously something very different. If a motorcade were necessary, it could take between ninety and a hundred and twenty minutes each way, along roads that were not exactly freeways, posing an unacceptable risk that we could not get the President out of France quickly enough in case of an emergency. It was a straightforward decision to cancel the visit..."

Bolton later added: "The press turned canceling the cemetery visit into a story that Trump was afraid of the rain and took glee in pointing out that other world leaders traveled around during the day. Of course, none of them were the President of the United States, but the press didn't understand that rules for US Presidents are different from rules for 190 other leaders who don't command the world's greatest military forces."