Mr. Trump Calls Fallen Servicemen "Suckers" and "Losers"

[Shaul]

Only some of the claims in the article were based on anonymous sources. Other parts of the article are just reiterating verifiable facts: Trump lied about why he wouldn't go to a US veterans cemetary in Paris, didn't want to lower flags for McCain, suggested McCain isn't a hero, insulted a gold star family, dodged the draft due to bone spurs and then lied about that, etc. These are the parts of the article that were just factual.

Specifically calling vets "suckers" was based on anonymous sources. But many anonymous sources, saying the same thing. Even Fox News confirmed it.

Did Trump really say it? The fact that it's even a possibility speaks volumes of the man.

Again here's what Trump's own former Nat. Security Advisor, a longtime conservative, said:



Source: Bolton Says Trump Remarks on Military ‘Despicable’ If Accurate

So, nothing new in this Atlantic article except unsubstantiated claims from unknown anonymous sources. The rest is just rehash of previous unfounded spin.

The Atlantic is worthless. No wonder it’s circulation is abysmal and it changes ownership more often than a lemon of a used car. It’s a joke. This article is a pathetic and transparent attempt to get attention while jabbing at Trump. It’s sad really.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually you're wrong there... Obama passed "Veteran's Choice" while Trump passed the more comprehensive "VA Mission Act", which is more flexible than Obama's.

Which part of what I said was wrong? If we are going to split hairs, no, "Trump" did not pass the VA Mission Act ... Presidents don't pass legislation all by themselves, Congress does and Presidents sign, veto or do nothing. And the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed this bill on a bipartisan basis.

It's great that Trump signed it and, I will assume for the sake of argument, helped push it through Congress - along with many others in Congress who voted for it.

Could he do things like that without slandering our vets behind their backs?

And if the VA Mission Act was so great, why does Trump need to keep incorrectly taking credit for Veteran's Choice? Does he need to lie about that, or does he not even know the actual names of the legislation - can he not be bothered to learn it?

Again, if you think the answers to any of these questions are "no", maybe your standards are too low.

 

[Cooky]

Which part of what I said was wrong? If we are going to split hairs, no, "Trump" did not pass the VA Mission Act ... President's don't pass legislation, Congress does. And the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed this bill on a bipartisan basis.

It's great that Trump signed it and, I will assume for the sake of argument, helped push it through Congress - along with many others in Congress who voted for it.

Could he do things like that without slandering our vets behind their backs? Again, if you don't think so, maybe your standards are too low.

...It sounded like you were trying to say the previous administration did it.

Anyways, Trump was very enthusiastic about signing it.

"This is a very big day," said Trump, who made veterans care one of the signature issues of his run for the White House. "All during the campaign, I'd say, 'Why can't they just go out and see a doctor instead of standing on line?"

"They put everything on the line for us," he said and, like all veterans, "when they come home, we must do everything that we can possibly do for them, and that's what we're doing."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think spending $55,000,000,000.00 on Healthcare for veterans would be a pretty big sacrifice for a bunch of alleged "suckers" and "losers".

I think so too. It's great that Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly passed that legislation and Trump signed it and then heaped praise on himself for it.

 

[Cooky]

I think so too. It's great that Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly passed that legislation and Trump signed it and then heaped praise on himself for it.

But the Democrats were unhappy with it! Thinking ideologically rather than compassionately:

Critics of the bill have warned that over-reliance on private-care options could lead to the "privatization" of VA health care, but Trump said, "If the VA can't meet the needs of the veteran in a timely manner, that veteran will have the right to go right outside to a private doctor. It's so simple and yet so complicated."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was only focusing on the numbers Fact Check provided.

So under Biden's watch as VP, the US spent :

• 2 billion on VA Healthcare
• 4.5 billion on Syrian migrants

...That's a disgrace.

Fact Check: Did Obama allow funds to be shifted from the VA to Syrian refugees?

Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 - Wikipedia

Where in your article does it say that $2 billion in total was spent on VA healthcare under Obama/Biden's administration? Please quote the relevant part. Sorry if I am being dense here but I am not getting that from your article. And total VA spending in one single year of the Obama/Biden administration alone was $125 billion (in 2012), so your claim doesn't ring true. But maybe I'm missing something.

Source for the $125bn: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf

 

[Cooky]

Where in your article does it say that $2 billion in total was spent on VA healthcare under Obama/Biden's administration? Please quote the relevant part. Sorry if I am being dense here but I am not getting that from your article. And total VA spending in one single year of the Obama/Biden administration alone was $125 billion (in 2012), so your claim doesn't ring true. But maybe I'm missing something.

Source for the $125bn: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf

Under Provisions of the Bill

Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 - Wikipedia

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, nothing new in this Atlantic article except unsubstantiated claims from unknown anonymous sources.

They are indeed anonymous sources. That does not mean unsubstantiated. It does mean anonymous and therefore less reliable than on the record.

Unsubstantiated would be anonymous sources who were not witness to the events described; or, a single source with no independent corroboration by other sources; or, a single journalist claiming to have these anonymous sources. None of those are true here.

The rest is just rehash of previous unfounded spin.

The rest is rehash - but not of unfounded spin. How is it unfounded spin to say that Trump said McCain is not a hero, he likes people who aren't captured? It was literally on video.

The Atlantic is worthless. No wonder it’s circulation is abysmal and it changes ownership more often than a lemon of a used car. It’s a joke. This article is a pathetic and transparent attempt to get attention while jabbing at Trump. It’s sad really.

Fox News is the most watched primetime network. Their Pentagon correspondent says her sources corroborate the claims. John Bolton said Trump could certainly have said these things.

Maybe he didn't though. Let me ask: in your opinion, is it conceivable Trump could have made the comments attributed to him? Or would that be too far out of character? Just curious if you truly will defend the man, or employ the usual tactic of his Personality Cult and criticize his critics without actually defending him.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Under Provisions of the Bill

Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 - Wikipedia

View attachment 42616

This says that bill costs $2 billion. That does not mean that only $2 billion was spent on VA healthcare under the Obama/Biden administration. It appears your claim was incorrect.

 

[Cooky]

This says that bill costs $2 billion. That does not mean that only $2 billion was spent on VA healthcare under the Obama/Biden administration. It appears your claim was incorrect.

Your article was written in 2012. I also see no indication of 125 billion being spent on the VA there.

...Over how many decades would that amount include? I'm pretty sure it includes WW2 and Vietnam. Which would not be part of Biden's term as VP.

THE FACT IS, under Biden, the U.S. payed billions more dollars to Syrian refugees than it did it's own Veterans who were dying in VA hospitals due to a scandal involving extended wait times.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But the Democrats were unhappy with it! Thinking ideologically rather than compassionately:

Critics of the bill have warned that over-reliance on private-care options could lead to the "privatization" of VA health care, but Trump said, "If the VA can't meet the needs of the veteran in a timely manner, that veteran will have the right to go right outside to a private doctor. It's so simple and yet so complicated."

Uh, you need to do better than this. The "critics" of the bill are engaging in a legitimate debate about ensuring appropriate support for our veterans, not slandering them behind their backs.

To wit, the article notes a Democrat was a key sponsor of the bill:

"The more veterans and their caregivers who are eligible for support, the closer we are to fulfilling our promise to care for those who've sacrificed so much on our behalf," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, a chief sponsor, said in a statement.

In the Senate, three Republicans voted nay or abstained, and only two Democrats. Source: S. 2372: VA MISSION Act of 2018 -- Senate Vote #106 -- May 23, 2018

In the House, co-sponsors of the bill included Republicans and Democrats, and it passed on a bipartisan basis by 374-70. Nancy Pelosi had the following to say applauding passage of the bill - while bemoaning its lack of a funding source. She might be wrong, she might be right - reasonable minds can disagree. But she applauded the goals and passage of the bill, while worrying that it lacks the surety of funding to actually deliver on helping veterans. Even the Republican in the article you cited acknowledged this was a drawback. That is very different from, say, refusing to honor our war dead because you don't like how your hair looks in the rain.

The bill rightly expands caregiver benefits to all eras, replaces the flawed Veterans Choice Program and consolidates the many community care initiatives – but this bill is far from perfect. Without a sustainable source of funding, this bill is fiscally irresponsible and fails to provide a long-term solution to avoid the risk of triggering devastating sequestration and potential budget cuts to critical VA initiatives.​

Source: Pelosi Statement on Passage of VA MISSION Act

 

[Cooky]

Uh, you need to do better than this. The "critics" of the bill are engaging in a legitimate debate about ensuring appropriate support for our veterans, not slandering them behind their backs.

To wit, the article notes a Democrat was a key sponsor of the bill:

"The more veterans and their caregivers who are eligible for support, the closer we are to fulfilling our promise to care for those who've sacrificed so much on our behalf," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, a chief sponsor, said in a statement.

In the Senate, three Republicans voted nay or abstained, and only two Democrats. Source: S. 2372: VA MISSION Act of 2018 -- Senate Vote #106 -- May 23, 2018

In the House, co-sponsors of the bill included Republicans and Democrats, and it passed on a bipartisan basis by 374-70. Nancy Pelosi had the following to say applauding passage of the bill - while bemoaning its lack of a funding source. She might be wrong, she might be right - reasonable minds can disagree. But she applauded the goals and passage of the bill, while worrying that it lacks the surety of funding to actually deliver on helping veterans. Even the Republican in the article you cited acknowledged this was a drawback. That is very different from, say, refusing to honor our war dead because you don't like how your hair looks in the rain.

The bill rightly expands caregiver benefits to all eras, replaces the flawed Veterans Choice Program and consolidates the many community care initiatives – but this bill is far from perfect. Without a sustainable source of funding, this bill is fiscally irresponsible and fails to provide a long-term solution to avoid the risk of triggering devastating sequestration and potential budget cuts to critical VA initiatives.​

Source: Pelosi Statement on Passage of VA MISSION Act

If anything, it only represents the callousness of the super-far left, who prefer ideology over veterans lives... 70 of them opposed it.

...But that's another story.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your article was written in 2012. I also see no indication of 125 billion being spent on the VA there.

Right here buddy, look at year 2012:

Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf

So you were wrong, right?

THE FACT IS, under Biden, the U.S. payed billions more dollars to Syrian refugees than it did it's own Veterans who were dying in VA hospitals due to a scandal involving extended wait times.

You have yet to demonstrate this. Again: you were wrong about $2 billion being the amount spent under Obama/Biden on VA health. As your own source showed, that was the cost of the bill that was passed under Obama in 2014, not the total amount spent during Obama's term. You were wrong about that too, right?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If anything, it only represents the callousness of the super-far left, who prefer ideology over veterans lives... 70 of them opposed it.

...But that's another story.

Your partisan colors are showing. This was a bipartisan bill with three Democratic co-sponsors in the House. A minority voted against it not due to ideology or not valuing veterans' lives, but because the bill included spending without a way to pay for it - that is a legitimate criticism of the effectiveness of the bill. The article you cited includes a Republican Senator admitting that is a problem with the bill and will necessitate some spending cuts elsewhere to pay for it - including at the VA.

You make it sound like 70 Democrats skipped a memorial for our vets because of a bad hair day or called them suckers.

 

[Cooky]

Right here buddy, look at year 2012:

View attachment 42618


View attachment 42619

Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf

So you were wrong, right?

You have yet to demonstrate this. Again: you were wrong about $2 billion being the amount spent under Obama/Biden on VA health. As your own source showed, that was the cost of the bill that was passed under Obama in 2014, not the total amount spent during Obama's term. You were wrong about that too, right?

You got me, Mr. Spinkles... I was wrong about Biden spending more money on Syrian refugees than Veterans.

But I still don't believe that Trump called fallen Veterans "suckers" after campaigning for Vets, and being so happy with the VA Mission Act.

It's just too ridiculous for me to believe.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

...It sounded like you were trying to say the previous administration did it.

They passed Veterans Choice. My point was that it's possible to pass landmark legislation to help vets and not disparage them behind their backs. Surely, you agree with this?

Anyways, Trump was very enthusiastic about signing it.

"This is a very big day," said Trump, who made veterans care one of the signature issues of his run for the White House. "All during the campaign, I'd say, 'Why can't they just go out and see a doctor instead of standing on line?"

"They put everything on the line for us," he said and, like all veterans, "when they come home, we must do everything that we can possibly do for them, and that's what we're doing."

That's great that he was enthusiastic. I note as usual he has also heaped praise on himself. Nancy Pelosi praised our veterans too, when the Democrat-controlled House passed that same bill. But she didn't call American vets suckers and losers behind their backs either, as far as I know. So it is possible to pass this kind of legislation without doing that kind of thing.

Again, if you don't agree - maybe your standards are too low?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You got me, Mr. Spinkles... I was wrong about Biden spending more money on Syrian refugees than Veterans.

But I still don't believe that Trump called fallen Veterans "suckers" after campaigning for Vets, and being so happy with the VA Mission Act.

It's just too ridiculous for me to believe.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong about that. Heck, I was wrong about something once, too!

I have to say, I have visited this forum off and on for 16 years (can you believe it?) And I have almost never seen people admit when they were wrong. You have my respect for that.

For what it's worth: John Bolton doesn't think it's too ridiculous to believe. And he was Trump's National Security Advisor and is a lifelong conservative. That doesn't mean it's true ... but it's not a great look for the The Chosen One that everyone who knows him best but is no longer in his orbit, doesn't come running to defend how implausible the comment would be, based on his character.

Question for you: is there anything Trump has verifiably said, that if it wasn't on the record, you would think it was too ridiculous to believe? For me, there have been many.

 

[Harel13]

Your sources are flawed. While John Bolton did not hear Trump say the specific things mentioned in the Atlantic article, he said it rings true and it's absolutely possible Trump said those things. Source: Bolton Says Trump Remarks on Military ‘Despicable’ If Accurate

It is remarkable that a man like John Bolton, whose conservative credentials are unquestionable and served President Trump, cannot and will not say "Donald would never say such a thing".

Amazing how the personality cult of Trump has been so quick to dismiss and abandon their own if they turn against The Chosen One.

I find it somewhat telling that though claiming that my sources are "flawed" you are unable to actually provide evidence for that.
What we know:
a. There's evidence (official documents and witnesses, including Bolton himself) that the trip was canceled because of bad weather.
b. Bolton hates Trump, so would of course say that if x is true, then it's not surprising.
c. Based on the above, Bolton himself has no evidence himself that Trump ever said such a thing.
d. To my knowledge, all news outlets that claim that Trump said this cite anonymous sources. Real convenient.

I'm not super-knowledgeable about everything in the politics realm, but was there ever a time in which Bolton was so popular with conservatives that he can be regarded as one who was "abandon[ed] by [his] own"?

 

[Fool]

I find it somewhat telling that though claiming that my sources are "flawed" you are unable to actually provide evidence for that.
What we know:
a. There's evidence (official documents and witnesses, including Bolton himself) that the trip was canceled because of bad weather.
b. Bolton hates Trump, so would of course say that if x is true, then it's not surprising.
c. Based on the above, Bolton himself has no evidence himself that Trump ever said such a thing.
d. To my knowledge, all news outlets that claim that Trump said this cite anonymous sources. Real convenient.

I'm not super-knowledgeable about everything in the politics realm, but was there ever a time in which Bolton was so popular with conservatives that he can be regarded as one who was "abandon[ed] by [his] own"?

I don't believe I would tell anything on the record about Donald Trump. To much of a mob mentality surrounds his cult of personality and his cronies. I wouldn't put my family at risk unless I could afford a large security detail.

I still can't believe the hypocrisy of the right when they found out about russian bounties on american troops and the way they behaved over benghazi.

FYI most periodicals are in trouble. That doesn't discredit their reporting.

Fox news isn't even posting anything at all now on the situation.

It's almost as if news isn't important. Trump is but negative news on him isn't.

I watch and read multiple sources but most fox news viewers are loyal only to faux news.

That in itself is telling. Shows how small and closed minded some have become.

 

[Harel13]

I don't believe I would tell anything on the record about Donald Trump. To much of a mob mentality surrounds his cult of personality and his cronies. I wouldn't put my family at risk unless I could afford a large security detail.

That makes sense (though likewise on the mob mentality stuff with speaking out against the left). However, it most certainly does not strengthen these anonymous individuals' case against Trump.