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

[Revoltingest]

I notice many Trump apologists have extremely sensitive antennae that can pick up the slightest misstatement or exaggeration by Trump’s critics. But those same antennae seem unable to pick up Trump’s frequencies.

Correspondingly, Trump's critic's are able to latch onto anything
negative said of him, with or without evidence. Yet when I posted
a survey thread to see if they could see anything positive he'd
done, very few could admit to anything, ie, that which might
soften their views towards him is invisible.

Similarly, when his critics put everyone into simplistic boxes,
either pro or anti trump, they cannot see posts criticizing
Trump when it comes from the "pro" box. (It would wreck
the box, which is unacceptable.)

It all reminds me of the SEP cloaking device in The Heart Of Gold.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You're not giving me much to argue about.
So let me say something incendiary.
I do think that draftees who go along with
government, giving up their freedom to
do the bidding of foolish war mongers are
indeed suckers.
(I'm still considering whether they're losers
or not. They have different traits.)

Of course, I'm not advocating that anyone
do anything illegal. Rules, ya know.

Yes and I can respect that view coming from a thinking person who has used logic and empathy in a unique, critical way to come to a contrarian point of view.

That’s not what happens with Trump. He comes to his conclusions based on instinct and his overriding instinct is selfishness.

He may accidentally be right about WWI being a pointless war for example, just as he is accidentally wrong about looking directly into the sun during a solar eclipse. It’s the mentality that is dangerous. That’s what his supporters don’t get - they back-fill his conclusions with mental acrobatics to justify the conclusion, without recognizing the dangerous instincts driving all his conclusions (example: “Patton said the object in war isn’t to die for your country! See, General Trump was onto something!”)

Sooner or later his instincts will be at odds with his own supporters’ interests and those of our country, and when that happens, he will screw us all. As happens with all autocrats - or in this case, a wannabe autocrat. I would argue we’ve already seen it happen (case in point: Herman Cain buying into the anti-mask nonsense drummed up by Trump, and dying of COVID; trying to sabotage our own postal service to disrupt voting; Lafayette Square; etc)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Correspondingly, Trump's critic's are able to latch onto anything
negative said of him, with or without evidence. Yet when I posted
a survey thread to see if they could see anything positive he'd
done, very few could admit to anything, ie, that which might
soften their views towards him is invisible.

Similarly, when his critics put everyone into simplistic boxes,
either pro or anti trump, they cannot see posts criticizing
Trump when it comes from the "pro" box. (It would wreck
the box, which is unacceptable.)

It all reminds me of the SEP cloaking device in The Heart Of Gold.

I agree it’s important not to latch onto everything negative said of him.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suspect that it would be decried as callous.
And with regard to a non-western country, racist.

Of course, I recognize that your question is digression,
& not about the Trump vs dead vets issue.

Its nothing new. Once again as expected, the illustrious left is still making mountains out of what essentially is a molehill.

Go to any VFW post and see how Trump is viewed. If the view is negative, then I stand corrected.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not even close to the same thing, and it's pathetic that you would even try.
Is it only "the left" that respect veterans now? Particularly those wounded or fallen?

Get up off your knees, son.

I can see Patton slapping around a few people right about now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its nothing new. Once again as expected, the illustrious left is still making mountains out of what essentially is a molehill.

It distracts from larger issues. What he's alleged to have said
about dead veterans gets more attention than military policies.
It appears that their focus is more upon him as a person to
be liked or disliked, than what he actually effects in office.

 

[Cooky]

Why would you show it to an 8 year old?

She snuck up on me and looked at my phone.

 

[Cooky]

If only daddy thought so, too.

She's very outspoken. At least with your asterisks, she doesn't know what that means.

 

[Cooky]

I agree it’s important not to latch onto everything negative said of him.

Really, the media could do the same things about Joe Biden that they're doing with Trump... Probably many will focus on his blunders, and begin adding them up if he becomes president. It's unfortunate for someone giving constant speeches -something I couldn't really even bring myself to do to begin with.

(A back guy did not invent the light bulb)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can see Patton slapping around a few people right about now.

Why do you reference Patton - because there’s a movie about him, and he’s not here so you can imagine whatever response to the current situation fits your view?

Why not cite the known, expressed attitudes of US generals who are alive today? Like General Mattis, McMaster, Kelly ... Mattis slapped around Fleet Commander Trump pretty hard in the article he wrote denouncing him.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Really, the media could do the same things about Joe Biden that they're doing with Trump... Probably many will focus on his blunders, and begin adding them up if he becomes president. It's unfortunate for someone giving constant speeches -something I couldn't really even bring myself to do to begin with.

(A back guy did not invent the light bulb)

Joe Biden has had many gaffes. If he lives much longer, he’ll have many more.

Joe Biden was wrong that a black man invented the light bulb.

When Trump calls our vets suckers, he’s not wrong. That’s really what he thinks of them. He didn’t make a mistake except that he said out loud what he really thinks, to the wrong person.

There is a difference.

 

[Father Heathen]

I can see Patton slapping around a few people right about now.

I can see him punching Trump in the throat. He certainly wouldn't be on the bootlick bandwagon.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can see him punching Trump in the throat. He certainly wouldn't be on the bootlick bandwagon.

He might had. You never know.

 

[Father Heathen]

She's very outspoken. At least with your asterisks, she doesn't know what that means.

What are you referring to specifically?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you reference Patton - because there’s a movie about him, and he’s not here so you can imagine whatever response to the current situation fits your view?

Why not cite the known, expressed attitudes of US generals who are alive today? Like General Mattis, McMaster, Kelly ... Mattis slapped around Fleet Commander Trump pretty hard in the article he wrote denouncing him.

Its because Patton was decried for lambasting a soldier with shell shock.

I could just imagine what would have been said about him now had he were alive with this generation.

I'm not saying Trump is on par with Patton, I'm saying I suspect Trump is being taken out of context with these continuous allegations that seemingly never end.

I would prefer to view Trump quoting that in context rather than rely on third party references on what he said and what he meant beforehand and afterwards before making judgements.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It distracts from larger issues. What he's alleged to have said
about dead veterans gets more attention than military policies.
It appears that their focus is more upon him as a person to
be liked or disliked, than what he actually effects in office.

I understand your view, but I disagree. It doesn’t distract from larger issues, it explains and predicts them. What Trump did at Lafayette square is a large issue. Trump’s attitudes explain it, and predict he will do it again. General Mattis seems to agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand your view, but I disagree. It doesn’t distract from larger issues, it explains and predicts them. What Trump did at Lafayette square is a large issue. Trump’s attitudes explain it, and predict he will do it again. General Mattis seems to agree.

It's very difficult to discuss issues with anti-Trumpers because
of the strong tendency for it to become personal (about him).
They're about the person more than the issues, even though
I too see them related.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Its because Patton was decried for lambasting a soldier with shell shock.

I could just imagine what would have been said about him now had he were alive with this generation.

I'm not saying Trump is on par with Patton, I'm saying I suspect Trump is being taken out of context with these continuous allegations that seemingly never end.

I would prefer to view Trump quoting that in context rather than rely on third party references on what he said and what he meant beforehand and afterwards before making judgements.

Well we have the full context of Trump disrespecting McCains service record. McCain was a POW for several years and I believe, refused to be released early until his fellow American POWs were released. Trump regraded McCain as a political opponent and instead of engaging McCain on actual issues - which Trump is not equipped to do - he personally attacked McCain in a petty childish way, as is his custom, and attacked the man’s service record. This was a totally unnecessary, petty attack by Trump and it demonstrated the President’s “Trump First” policy that is unconcerned with things like hitting an opponent above the belt, and respecting military service.

Surely you agree with that episode where we have Trump’s words in full context and public view, right?

 

[Fool]

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.

"Almost all 200 of our stories about Watergate were based on anonymous sourcing," he said.
When it comes to the current presidency, Bernstein said, "We have to recognize that almost everything we know about the truth of Donald Trump and his presidency comes from reporting," adding, "The fake news is the president's news," and journalists are "doing the real reporting."

 

[Fool]

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.

"We all have to use anonymous sources, especially in a climate where the president of the United States tries to actively intimidate," Goldberg said of his editorial decision to cite nameless people. "These are not people who are anonymous to me."
Carl Bernstein, the investigate reporter known for breaking the Watergate story that took down President Richard Nixon, told Stelter on Reliable Sources Sunday that anonymous sourcing is often a crucial tool for reporters.