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

[Fool]

Or an Atlantic.
Yes, the problem afflicts all fervent partisans.

no it actually afflicts all humans; especially those who want to know and then question their belief.


we're dealing with humans. the problem now is that multiple sources have also come forth attributing to the original story. its like science. one group checking another groups work. hannity, carlson, and pirro are not journalists. they are opinionators, commentators,


it isn't just the atlantic, nor is it necessarily partisan.

 

[Revoltingest]

no it actually afflicts all humans; especially those who want to know and then question their belief.

My point was that fervent partisanship makes one more vulnerable
to eagerly embracing news with less than appropriate skepticism.

I've been trying to cultivate an attitude such that when I
see news that appeals to me, I react with "Uh oh....slow
down....might be inaccurate. Check other sources".
Sure enuf...things aren't always as the first seem.

 

[Harel13]

This is really good progress, Harel. The next step is to apply that same rigorous, uncompromising critical thinking power to what our Fleet Commander of Space Force, Donald Trump said - that his political opponent McCain isn’t a hero, and he “likes people who weren’t captured”.

Are you really minimizing my post about military service to being the "first step" towards joining the ranks of the Trump-haters?
I specifically said "Trump or not".
You may as well join the Lincoln Project for all they know about serving, which appears to be zero, based on that ad. They also did a good job on minimizing service.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you really minimizing my post about military service to being the "first step" towards joining the ranks of the Trump-haters?
I specifically said "Trump or not".
You may as well join the Lincoln Project for all they know about serving, which appears to be zero, based on that ad. They also did a good job on minimizing service.

I didn’t intentionally minimize anything you said. I don’t know what you mean by “Trump or not”. Why don’t you elaborate and clear it up for me?

Given you think those who serve are heroes “because they served” (and not “because they were captured”), what is your response to Trump’s attack on McCain that he’s not a hero? You criticized Trump’s critics, now I’m wondering what happens if you simply apply that same level of rigor to Trump’s comments which inspired the criticism to begin with. Maybe it’s obvious to you - I apologize, to me it’s not (or maybe I missed one of your previous posts).

 

[Harel13]

I didn’t intentionally minimize anything you said. I don’t know what you mean by “Trump or not”. Why don’t you elaborate and clear it up for me?

Whether the thread was about Trump or not, whether the ad was about Trump or not, The Lincoln Project's ad is stupid and ridiculous and in a sense actually does more to minimize what soldiers and other servicemen give to their countries than a baseless article claiming the president said the opposite.
What TLP are saying is: soldiers rock because they were captured and became POWs.
No one with two brain cells and any knowledge of anything that has to do with the military thinks this. POWs aren't commemorated simply for being POWs. There's a reason for this. Being a POW is not heroic. Some POWs are commemorated - but for specific acts they did: say, taking care of other POWs during the imprisonment or hiding valuable documents as the bunker was being stormed. Being taken into captivity is not heroic. I'm not necessarily advocating for anyone to give their life instead of being taken prisoner, but becoming a captive does not equal getting a medal later on. Whoever says otherwise, is pushing for soldiers to be do-nothing snowflake soldiers. Harsh, but that's war for you.

Now, I'm ending this post here and will address the rest of your post later, in a separate post because that was minimizing my point: having clearly specified that it's not about Trump, you brought it back to Trump with your sheer anti-Trumpness.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whether the thread was about Trump or not, whether the ad was about Trump or not, The Lincoln Project's ad is stupid and ridiculous and in a sense actually does more to minimize what soldiers and other servicemen give to their countries than a baseless article claiming the president said the opposite.
What TLP are saying is: soldiers rock because they were captured and became POWs.
No one with two brain cells and any knowledge of anything that has to do with the military thinks this. POWs aren't commemorated simply for being POWs. There's a reason for this. Being a POW is not heroic. Some POWs are commemorated - but for specific acts they did: say, taking care of other POWs during the imprisonment or hiding valuable documents as the bunker was being stormed. Being taken into captivity is not heroic. I'm not necessarily advocating for anyone to give their life instead of being taken prisoner, but becoming a captive does not equal getting a medal later on. Whoever says otherwise, is pushing for soldiers to be do-nothing snowflake soldiers. Harsh, but that's war for you.

Now, I'm ending this post here and will address the rest of your post later, in a separate post because that was minimizing my point: having clearly specified that it's not about Trump, you brought it back to Trump with your sheer anti-Trumpness.

It’s reasonable to bring it back to Trump’s comment on McCain, since that’s what the OP is about (in part), that’s what caused the TLP video to be posted on this thread, and that’s what the video was a response to. If you don’t like the TLP video because it’s wrong about *why* those we call heroes are such, then I’m naturally curious to hear your response to Trump asserting *that* McCain is not a hero and whether you think that stems from his pettiness or his military acumen.

 

[Harel13]

It’s reasonable to bring it back to Trump’s comment on McCain, since that’s what the OP is about (in part), that’s what caused the TLP video to be posted on this thread, and that’s what the video was a response to

You've done it again. Are you happy? Slow clap for you.





As for Trump v McCain, I haven't personally looked into the story, but I'll give the fine people on this thread the benefit of the doubt (though none have really earned it on this specific thread) and assume Trump really did say that.
My opinion? We know Trump has a basically no-holds-barred policy when it comes to political opponents. Obviously he called him a loser to dim the glow from McCain's military service. You hear a man served and your ears tingle, even if the man did nothing useful during his service. That's the same reason he calls Joe Biden "sleepy" and called Jeb Bush "low-energy". It's a tactic he uses for dimming any possible advantage his opponent may have in the eyes of the public. Would I do it? No, but then again, I don't want to get into politics; I wouldn't be able to stomach it all.
I wouldn't call POWs losers. But they sure aren't "winners", either. They aren't heroes for being taken captive. There's no proper word for it, but it would be roughly "neutral". In-betweeners. If they didn't do anything of military/national importance during their imprisonment, then their imprisonment was simply a consequence of war, nothing more and nothing less. In other words, I disagree with what Trump said to McCain, but I'm not such an idiot like TLP to simply take what Trump said and claim that the exact opposite is true, because it simply is not. McCain is not a loser for being a POW. He's simply an unwanted consequence of war.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You've done it again. Are you happy? Slow clap for you.





As for Trump v McCain, I haven't personally looked into the story, but I'll give the fine people on this thread the benefit of the doubt (though none have really earned it on this specific thread) and assume Trump really did say that.
My opinion? We know Trump has a basically no-holds-barred policy when it comes to political opponents. Obviously he called him a loser to dim the glow from McCain's military service. You hear a man served and your ears tingle, even if the man did nothing useful during his service. That's the same reason he calls Joe Biden "sleepy" and called Jeb Bush "low-energy". It's a tactic he uses for dimming any possible advantage his opponent may have in the eyes of the public. Would I do it? No, but then again, I don't want to get into politics; I wouldn't be able to stomach it all.
I wouldn't call POWs losers. But they sure aren't "winners", either. They aren't heroes for being taken captive. There's no proper word for it, but it would be roughly "neutral". In-betweeners. If they didn't do anything of military/national importance during their imprisonment, then their imprisonment was simply a consequence of war, nothing more and nothing less. In other words, I disagree with what Trump said to McCain, but I'm not such an idiot like TLP to simply take what Trump said and claim that the exact opposite is true, because it simply is not. McCain is not a loser for being a POW. He's simply an unwanted consequence of war.

Hmm. That’s great to hear you wouldn’t have said that. Do you know about what happened to McCain when he was a POW? Or like Trump ... do you not care to know?

McCain spent six weeks in the hospital, where he received marginal care. He had lost 50 pounds (23 kg), he was in a chest cast, and his gray hair had turned white.[36] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi.[42] In December 1967, McCain was placed in a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live more than a week.[43] In March 1968, McCain was placed into solitary confinement, where he remained for two years.[44]

In mid-1968, his father John S. McCain Jr.was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and the North Vietnamese offered McCain early release[45] because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes[46] and also to show other POWs that elite prisoners were willing to be treated preferentially.[45] McCain refused repatriation unless every man taken in before him was also released. Such early release was prohibited by the POWs' interpretation of the military Code of Conduct which states in Article III: "I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy".[47] To prevent the enemy from using prisoners for propaganda, officers were to agree to be released in the order in which they were captured.[36]

Beginning in August 1968, McCain was subjected to a program of severe torture.[48] He was bound and beaten every two hours; this punishment occurred at the same time that he was suffering from heat and dysentery.[36][48] Further injuries brought McCain to "the point of suicide", but his preparations were interrupted by guards. Eventually, McCain made an anti-U.S. propaganda "confession".[36] He had always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[49][50]Many U.S. POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements;[51] virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.[52] McCain received two to three beatings weekly because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[53]

Do McCain’s actions while a POW impact your view at all?

Emphasis added. Source: John McCain - Wikipedia

The point here is not to debate the fine academic points of what constitutes heroism. The point is Trump does not care about that stuff - whether McCain served or not, was a hero or not, deserves respect or not - none of that matters to Trump. All he cares about is his petty, personal vendettas against those who cross him because he is incapable of engaging people like McCain in actual debates on real policy issues. It’s Trump First, not America First. If you can’t see this, you can’t see.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The story was based on anonymous sources plus documented facts.

Certain parts of the story, like Trump using the word “suckers”, are based on anonymous sources. But multiple sources, independently corroborating each other.

That’s not as reliable as on the record sources, and should be considered in that context. But, it is legitimate journalism and should be considered. Trump is a man who personally attacks those who cross him up to and including federally protected whistleblowers, so naturally if the story is true, the sources are afraid to go on the record.

What are those documented facts?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay. But again, why would we imagine what General Patton said, and not listen to what General Mattis said?

Good point. Imagination vs directness.

Still it would be better if this directly came out of the horses mouth than third party allegations that may or may not be true.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What are those documented facts?

Wow I really have to spoon feed it to you? Okay, happy to do that ... but before I take the time to do that, you need to confirm you took the time to read the article.

Just as an example: Trump being a no-show to a WWI memorial “because of rain” while his Chief of Staff and multiple other world leaders showed up is a fact. Trump attacking McCain’s service record and the WH not putting flags at half-mast for two days after his death, when the rest of Washington had already done so, is a fact. Trump going with General Kelly to visit the grave of his son is a fact. Etc., etc.

I can elaborate but first: you read the Atlantic article, right? There’s no sense in me listing which parts of the article are facts if you haven’t even read it. Happy to do that for you if you have, though.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Good point. Imagination vs directness.

Still it would be better if this directly came out of the horses mouth than third party allegations that may or may not be true.

Agree, if the sources were on the record that would be more reliable.

I also think if Trump’s own former generals and top advisors came out of the woodwork to defend his character ... that would look much better for Trump. Instead, Trump’s own former National Security Advisor said this:

“These comments are despicable. If he made them, they are despicable,” Bolton said in a Bloomberg Radio interview on Friday.
...
But Bolton, who published a book earlier this year that was heavily critical of his former boss, said the alleged remarks sounded accurate.

“I have not heard anybody say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t sound like the Donald Trump I know,’” Bolton said in the interview. Bolton said the remarks may have stemmed from Trump’s skepticism of U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“He was prone to say from time to time: ‘What did they get out of it? What was the worth of the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan?’” Bolton said. “That is a kind of insensitivity that Trump does have, there’s no doubt about it.”

“I didn’t hear him say those things,” he said, adding later he probably would have included the remarks in his book if he had. “Now, did he say those things to other people later in the day? It’s certainly possible.”

Asked whether Trump has high regard for the military, Bolton said, “I don’t think he really holds anybody in high regard except his family.”
​

... Ouch. His own former National Security Advisor can’t say the Atlantic article is absurd on its face because the man I know, the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, would never, ever call US veterans “suckers” and “losers”? Really? And no one else will come to Trump’s defense that way, either? Wow. Let that sink in. That alone ought to be shocking.

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

 

[Shaul]

well given the fact that you have already disparaged the Atlantic, i don't think you would seriously consider that source reliable either.


you're going from one extreme to another. seriously just go vote for Trump and stop trying to make excuses for him.

I didn’t vote for Trump last time. So now you want me to vote him this time?

It isn’t a matter of making excuses for Trump. It is a matter of doing the right thing. And one right thing is to not take anonymous sources without corroboration as logical evidence. That is true no matter who is the object of such.

Authoritarians love to convict people based on secret anonymous sources. Americans espouse something different. Re-read the sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Fool]

I didn’t vote for Trump last time. So now you want me to vote him this time?

It isn’t a matter of making excuses for Trump. It is a matter of doing the right thing. And one right thing is to not take anonymous sources without corroboration as logical evidence. That is true no matter who is the object of such.

Authoritarians love to convict people based on secret anonymous sources. Americans espouse something different. Re-read the sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

this isn't a crime.

 

[Shaul]

this isn't a crime.

So you haven’t heard of libel.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Each stories stands on its own.

No. You're probably familiar with the word consilience. The collection of assorted stories about Trump's depravity and indifference is legion. Why take them individually when each tends to support the next, as is the case with these anonymous sources? Trump stole money from a cancer charity for children, locks children in cages, sends children back to school in the middle of a pandemic that claims a thousand deaths a day. Others have catalogued his offenses against the military already.

Let me illustrate using the example of a loaded coin that comes up tails every time it is flipped. After the first flip, tails. What do we know about the coin? Nothing, really. One thousand flips later, all tails, what do we know? We're very likely dealing with a loaded coin. But no, says the defender of the coin. You must consider each flip independently like you did the first one. That advice would redirect us from an accurate conclusion that accurately predicts future behavior to a state of unknowing of what is otherwise clear.

So no, I'll consider Trump's entire catalog of public expressions of his values to decide what each individual one most likely represents.

Is it difficult to believe that Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson might have tortured animals, even if all we have are anonymous sources? Trump has no moral principles. He is bereft of generosity, compassion, and human kindness. How is it surprising that such a person holds these opinions or voiced them out loud?

REAL journalists don’t publish stories sourced solely from anonymous sources. Bernstein didn’t do that about Watergate.

Sure they do in an age of a lawless, vengeful president. This president lusts for revenge. Those criticising him are well-advised to remain under the cloak of anonymity.

This is the character of the man you are defending:

"When someone crosses you, my advice is ‘Get Even!' That is not typical advice, but it is real life advice. If you do not get even, you are just a schmuck! When people wrong you, go after those people because it is a good feeling" - Donald Trump

Schmuck is Yiddish for loser and sucker.

Sorry, but if you won't reject the character of this man, then your other moral judgments should be afforded no weight. Really? This guy deserves your conservative apologetics? You have/had some good people (McCain, Romney). Defend them.

Second, this about using uncorroborated anonymous sources. There is a world of difference. The Atlantic has prostituted their journalist integrity by publishing a story based only on anonymous sources. That’s not journalism.

The Atlantic is coming off as the modern Washington Post. If you're a president who is so toxic a bully that those who would otherwise confront you openly prefer to remain unnamed, then you will see fair-minded people understanding and accepting that. In an era of transparancy and unfettered free speech, why remain anonymous?

In Trump's America, given the imbalance of power between the president and everybody else except Putin, and Trump's vicious nature, we are more understanding of anonymity.

Yeah, and others have outright lied claiming anonymous sources.

The story is credible, even to Trump supporters. It's out there, it's believable, it is damaging him, and some say it's just the beginning - the tip of the iceberg. Trumps defenders are his base, not the brass or the rank and file. Their opinions are not useful to those who judge Trump to be unfit.

This loser and sucker thing could very well be just beginning of this scandal. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/06/media/jeffrey-goldberg-atlantic-trump-reliable-sources/index.html?utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_content=2020-09-06T16%3A42%3A14&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

 

[Fool]

So you haven’t heard of libel.

@Mr Spinkles and @It Aint Necessarily So evidently the 2018 trip wasn't his first rodeo into maligning the fallen and disabled troops.


Lindsey Graham’s warning about Trump re-surfaces after report on president slurring fallen troops


Lindsey Graham Getty/Chip Somodevilla

A five-year-old tweet from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is getting renewed attention amid reports that President Donald Trump once disparaged dead American soldiers as "losers" and "suckers."

The tweet in question came shortly after Trump attacked the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for getting captured and tortured by enemy forces during the Vietnam War, and it slammed the future president for showing no appreciation for the sacrifices made by service members.

"At the heart of [Trump's] statement is a lack of respect for those who have served," he wrote. "A disqualifying characteristic to be president."


In the years since the tweet, however, Graham has evolved to become one of Trump's most loyal defenders, despite the fact that the president has continued attacking McCain even after his passing in 2018.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No. You're probably familiar with the word consilience. The collection of assorted stories about Trump's depravity and indifference is legion. Why take them individually when each tends to support the next, as is the case with these anonymous sources? Trump stole money from a cancer charity for children, locks children in cages, sends children back to school in the middle of a pandemic that claims a thousand deaths a day. Others have catalogued his offenses against the military already.

Let me illustrate using the example of a loaded coin that comes up tails every time it is flipped. After the first flip, tails. What do we know about the con? Nothing, really. One thousand flips later, all tails, what do we know? We're very likely dealing with a loaded coin. But no, says the defender of the coin. You must consider each flip independently like you did the first one. That advice would redirect us from an accurate conclusion that accurately predicts future behavior to a state of unknowing of what is otherwise clear.

So no, I'll consider Trump's entire catalog of public expressions of his values to decide what each individual one most likely represents.

Is it difficult to believe that Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson might have tortured animals, even if all we have are anonymous sources? Trump has no moral principles. He is bereft of generosity, compassion, and human kindness. How is it surprising that such a person holds these opinions or voiced them out loud?



Sure they do in an age of a lawless, vengeful president. This president lusts for revenge. Those delivering it to him are well-advised to remain under the cloak of anonymity.

This is the character of the man you are defending:

"When someone crosses you, my advice is ‘Get Even!' That is not typical advice, but it is real life advice. If you do not get even, you are just a schmuck! When people wrong you, go after those people because it is a good feeling" - Donald Trump on turning the other cheek." - Trump

Scmuck is Yiddish for loser and sucker.

Sorry, but if you won't reject the character of this man, then your other moral judgments should be afforded no weight. Really? This guy deserves your conservative apologetics? You have/had some good people (McCain, Romney). Defend them.



The Atlantic is coming off as the modern Washington Post. If you're a president who is so toxic a bully that those who would otherwise confront you openly prefer to remain unnamed, then you will see fair-minded people understanding and accepting that. In an era of transparancy and unfettered free speech, why remain anonymous?

In Trump's America, given the imbalance of power between the president and everybody else except Putin, and Trump's vicious nature, we are more understanding of anonymity.



The story is credible, even to Trump supporters. It's out there, it's believable, it is damaging him, and some say it's just the beginning - the tip of the iceberg. Trumps defenders are his base, not the brass or the rank and file. Their opinions are not useful to those who judge Trump to be unfit.

This loser and sucker thing could very well be just beginning of this scandal. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/06/media/jeffrey-goldberg-atlantic-trump-reliable-sources/index.html?utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_content=2020-09-06T16%3A42%3A14&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

Brilliantly written. *slow clap*

 

[Revoltingest]

No. You're probably familiar with the word consilience. The collection of assorted stories about Trump's depravity and indifference is legion. Why take them individually when each tends to support the next, as is the case with these anonymous sources? Trump stole money from a cancer charity for children, locks children in cages, sends children back to school in the middle of a pandemic that claims a thousand deaths a day. Others have catalogued his offenses against the military already.

Let me illustrate using the example of a loaded coin that comes up tails every time it is flipped. After the first flip, tails. What do we know about the con? Nothing, really. One thousand flips later, all tails, what do we know? We're very likely dealing with a loaded coin. But no, says the defender of the coin. You must consider each flip independently like you did the first one. That advice would redirect us from an accurate conclusion that accurately predicts future behavior to a state of unknowing of what is otherwise clear.

So no, I'll consider Trump's entire catalog of public expressions of his values to decide what each individual one most likely represents.

Is it difficult to believe that Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson might have tortured animals, even if all we have are anonymous sources? Trump has no moral principles. He is bereft of generosity, compassion, and human kindness. How is it surprising that such a person holds these opinions or voiced them out loud?



Sure they do in an age of a lawless, vengeful president. This president lusts for revenge. Those delivering it to him are well-advised to remain under the cloak of anonymity.

This is the character of the man you are defending:

"When someone crosses you, my advice is ‘Get Even!' That is not typical advice, but it is real life advice. If you do not get even, you are just a schmuck! When people wrong you, go after those people because it is a good feeling" - Donald Trump on turning the other cheek." - Trump

Scmuck is Yiddish for loser and sucker.

Sorry, but if you won't reject the character of this man, then your other moral judgments should be afforded no weight. Really? This guy deserves your conservative apologetics? You have/had some good people (McCain, Romney). Defend them.



The Atlantic is coming off as the modern Washington Post. If you're a president who is so toxic a bully that those who would otherwise confront you openly prefer to remain unnamed, then you will see fair-minded people understanding and accepting that. In an era of transparancy and unfettered free speech, why remain anonymous?

In Trump's America, given the imbalance of power between the president and everybody else except Putin, and Trump's vicious nature, we are more understanding of anonymity.



The story is credible, even to Trump supporters. It's out there, it's believable, it is damaging him, and some say it's just the beginning - the tip of the iceberg. Trumps defenders are his base, not the brass or the rank and file. Their opinions are not useful to those who judge Trump to be unfit.

This loser and sucker thing could very well be just beginning of this scandal. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/06/media/jeffrey-goldberg-atlantic-trump-reliable-sources/index.html?utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_content=2020-09-06T16%3A42%3A14&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

This is essentially an argument that Trump would say such a
a thing. But it's not evidence that he did...just that he could've.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

@Mr Spinkles and @It Aint Necessarily So evidently the 2018 trip wasn't his first rodeo into maligning the fallen and disabled troops.


Lindsey Graham’s warning about Trump re-surfaces after report on president slurring fallen troops


Lindsey Graham Getty/Chip Somodevilla

A five-year-old tweet from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is getting renewed attention amid reports that President Donald Trump once disparaged dead American soldiers as "losers" and "suckers."

The tweet in question came shortly after Trump attacked the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for getting captured and tortured by enemy forces during the Vietnam War, and it slammed the future president for showing no appreciation for the sacrifices made by service members.

"At the heart of [Trump's] statement is a lack of respect for those who have served," he wrote. "A disqualifying characteristic to be president."


In the years since the tweet, however, Graham has evolved to become one of Trump's most loyal defenders, despite the fact that the president has continued attacking McCain even after his passing in 2018.

I agree with the 2015 version of Senator Lindsay Graham.