Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Can you be a little more specific about the things "pro-Bideners" have supposedly denied? Or is that unimportant?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mr. Trump Calls Fallen Servicemen "Suckers" and "Losers"
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I appreciate the cite. But it's an opinion piece not the results of an actual poll. I distrust opinion pieces - they're not facts but opinions.
So I went on a hunt and found an actual poll: https://vfworg-cdn.azureedge.net/-/...r-Care-2019.pdf?&la=en&v=1&d=20190927T135726Z
When asked if they have noticed an improvement, 74 percent of respondents reported that they have seen improvements at their VA medical center within the past year or that no improvements were needed. This is a 10 percentage point increase from the 2018 survey where 64 percent of veterans reported seeking improvements or that non are needed. Twenty-six percent reported that they had not seen any improvements, but improvements are needed.
So the bottom line is that the act did make things better. Of course there's an obvious contradiction between what Trump has said and what the administration has done.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5173324002
Even the worst of people can, sometimes, do good things -- especially when it feeds their own self-interest. The changes you mention probably don't cost Trump a thing, and yet may well provide much-needed votes.
Now, I do not know if that is true, just as I don't know that the remarks under discussion in this thread are true. But should we not at least try to see where the evidence takes us? Or is it just better to worship the Orange on the basis of pure faith alone?
The point is that this fits with any number of other things Trump has said and done.
From criticizing McCain for having been a prisoner, to not laying a wreath for the people who died in WWI (because of a little rain), to belittling a Gold Star family, to not wanting wounded vets to parade, Trump has consistently shown scorn for those people who have died or suffered during war.
Why anyone in the military would vote for this man without honor is beyond me.
From criticizing McCain for having been a prisoner, to not laying a wreath for the people who died in WWI (because of a little rain), to belittling a Gold Star family, to not wanting wounded vets to parade, Trump has consistently shown scorn for those people who have died or suffered during war.
Why anyone in the military would vote for this man without honor is beyond me.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's called pandering.
Yeah, no it has not been confirmed. This is sheer broken thinking on display, but let me fix it for you.
Who would deny it? Me. The article doesn't contain citations worthy of a passing grade on a 4th grade book report. He dislikes McCain? Yeah, no secret and it was vice-versa.
Re: the "they know what they signed up for" comment:
https://nypost.com/2017/10/17/trump-to-slain-soldiers-widow-he-knew-what-he-signed-up-for/
They key fact is:
“I wanted to curse him out,” Wilson said of Trump. “I asked the family to give me the phone so that I could, but they wouldn’t.”
This means the person wasn't the one on the call (third party), and secondly likely received the interpretation of the conversation rather than the actual content. This means, if we were in court, they wouldn't have the information required to be a witness. They're a receiver of a witnesses translation of a conversation which may or may to be fact. This is the type of absurdity the media is printing. It's deceitful. The only thing that is proven by this article is that the person who was upset was upset by the way someone else told them a story about the dialogue of the phone call. The quintessential 'Chinese Telephone Game'... This is not news.
But, that notwithstanding, witness testimony even from the perspective of someone being the first party in the conversation is generally not considered reliable information and without supporting facts is typically disregarded because it depends on someone's recollection of the event. That standard even applies in our lives, especially with people we shouldn't automatically trust.
'
So, my question is: Why would you trust these people on what they say? Or, does it just suit the narrative you'd like to hear?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I.E. "My orange godking is infallible and beyond reproach. Scrrreeeeeeeeee!"Yeah, no it has not been confirmed. This is sheer broken thinking on display, but let me fix it for you.
Who would deny it? Me. The article doesn't contain citations worthy of a passing grade on a 4th grade book report. He dislikes McCain? Yeah, no secret and it was vice-versa.
Re: the "they know what they signed up for" comment:
https://nypost.com/2017/10/17/trump-to-slain-soldiers-widow-he-knew-what-he-signed-up-for/
They key fact is:
“I wanted to curse him out,” Wilson said of Trump. “I asked the family to give me the phone so that I could, but they wouldn’t.”
This means the person wasn't the one on the call (third party), and secondly likely received the interpretation of the conversation rather than the actual content. This means, if we were in court, they wouldn't have the information required to be a witness. They're a receiver of a witnesses translation of a conversation which may or may to be fact. This is the type of absurdity the media is printing. It's deceitful. The only thing that is proven by this article is that the person who was upset was upset by the way someone else told them a story about the dialogue of the phone call. The quintessential 'Chinese Telephone Game'... This is not news.
But, that notwithstanding, witness testimony even from the perspective of someone being the first party in the conversation is generally not considered reliable information and without supporting facts is typically disregarded because it depends on someone's recollection of the event. That standard even applies in our lives, especially with people we shouldn't automatically trust.
'
So, my question is: Why would you trust these people on what they say? Or, does it just suit the narrative you'd like to hear?
Another political created hoax that can be added to a litany of others.
So, my question is: Why would you trust these people on what they say? Or, does it just suit the narrative you'd like to hear?
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Multiple award winning reporters have confirmed the recent story of president Chump dissing veterans and other soldiers.
Furthermore, biased right-wing sources such as Fox News itself have confirmed his slander.
As for “his” improvements at the VA. Hah!!
Those have been in the works for years before Chump ever came along.
So you and all vets at the VA can correctly thank the Obama administration for the improvements.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump takes credit for Obama's gains for vets
Sorry Rumpies, your dude thinks financial victory is the only measure of a man in this life. He is amoral, and utterly without honor.
Too bad. But on the bright side, we will be voting him out of office in 2 months. Yay!!
Furthermore, biased right-wing sources such as Fox News itself have confirmed his slander.
As for “his” improvements at the VA. Hah!!
Those have been in the works for years before Chump ever came along.
So you and all vets at the VA can correctly thank the Obama administration for the improvements.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump takes credit for Obama's gains for vets
Sorry Rumpies, your dude thinks financial victory is the only measure of a man in this life. He is amoral, and utterly without honor.
Too bad. But on the bright side, we will be voting him out of office in 2 months. Yay!!
Last edited:
Cooky
Veteran Member
Of course they confirmed the story... We can also confirm the story of Moby Dick as an actual written story.
This is where I disagree.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That and historically, Patton was quoted/paraphrased that dead soldiers don't win wars by giving their life for their country. You win wars by making the other ******* give his.
It makes me wonder what the left would say today if someone went along those lines?
Hmmm... This doesn't help your point. Not only are the events of Moby Dick based on true events, but the true story is far more interesting and brutal than the actual book (cannibalism, for starters).
The man can't seem to think before he speaks.
Two former senior Trump administration officials confirm key details of Atlantic article
Two former senior Trump administration officials confirm key details of Atlantic article
patton didn't call them losers though.
McCain as an indicator has one problem....
He wasn't just any soldier, he was a strong political foe.
Trump treats all foes badly, & having been a soldier
would confer McCain no immunity to Trump's hostility.
It's just not evidence.
Without a recording or trustworthy witnesses, it all seems
timely too-good-to-be-true plausible news, & handed to
Biden by The Atlantic, which is very friendly to him.
Last edited:
I don't think I quite understand what you are saying. It is a certainty that Trump said the following on July 18, 2015 because it's on video:
"He's not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."
I'm saying that attacking McCain isn't an indicator
that he attacked soldiers unknown to him who
aren't political foes.
Trump could've said it.
Or he could've said something similar.
Or he could've said nothing of the sort.
I like recordings &/or identified reliable witnesses.
Reminds me of the huge debate over changing the Canadian flag in 1963/64. My personal favourite entry (for those of you who understand that we have 10 provinces, only 1 of which is essentially French) was 9 beavers pissing on a frog.