5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Trump's absence and the presence of European leaders, after they all met together, was widely reported on at the time.

Yes, but we are talking about whether he said what he was alleged to have said .

Trump not attending the ceremony isnt being questioned 

I think the discussion at hand may have been interpreted differently by the persons discussing.

 

Btw, I also don't recall hearing 2 years ago  him calling the fallen soldiers losers and suckers.

Pretty much every news outlet, including Fox News has confirmed the story. Then Trump goes out yesterday and insults the military brass. 
 

Quote

 

Speaking at a combative White House news conference, Trump said leaders at the Pentagon probably weren’t “in love with me” because “they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

“Some people don’t like to come home, some people like to continue to spend money,” Trump said. “One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, that’s what it was.”

 

Source:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/07/trump-disparages-pentagon-chiefs-409528
 

And from the Military Times in January (for those saying why does this come out now)... 
 

Quote

“I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” the book quotes Trump as saying to the military officials. “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/01/17/trump-blasted-top-military-generals-as-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-according-to-new-book/

 

And honestly, why would anyone even have a hard time believing this after he said this about John McCain years ago..
 

Quote

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

 

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317

 

I really don't see why these comments would surprise anybody. But that won't stop them from finding some way to defend them or to pretend that these statements were out of character for him. These statements are completely in-character for Trump. It's who he is. The better question is how can you support a guy like that?

2 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Pretty much every news outlet, including Fox News has confirmed the story. Then Trump goes out yesterday and insults the military brass. 
 

 

They may have had a report on the story, but none of them have confirmed whether its true or not .

Has anyone actually proved he dud say what he is alleged to have said ?

Or are we all still talking about what four anonymous people claim that he said ?

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

They may have had a report on the story, but none of them have confirmed whether its true or not .

Has anyone actually proved he dud say what he is alleged to have said ?

Or are we all still talking about what four anonymous people claim that he said ?

Reporting on Watergate included hundreds of stories involving anonymous sources.  And they all turned out to be true.  Just like pretty much every story involving Trump.

 

["The people who are on the scene who know Donald Trump, who are participants in his presidency, and are telling us the truth about this man, his actions, and his real words as in this case. The same thing happened in Watergate. We used anonymous sourcing at the Washington Post — Deep Throat — almost all 200 of our stories about Watergate were based on anonymous sourcing. That’s the only way to do this. And we must continue in the press to do our reporting day by day by day because that’s how we know who this president — what this presidency really is. The fake news is the president’s news. We’re doing the real reporting."]

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-defends-atlantic-editor-almost-all-200-of-our-stories-about-watergate-were-based-on-anonymous-sourcing

 

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

They may have had a report on the story, but none of them have confirmed whether its true or not .

Has anyone actually proved he dud say what he is alleged to have said ?

Or are we all still talking about what four anonymous people claim that he said ?

 

 

 

Considering trump tries and does destroy the career of anyone criticising him, why do you think they stay anonymous?

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

Whether one was "dissing" another does not preclude them from citing that person as a source. There are nine other sources BY NAME that state the four anonymous accusations are true. Would logic dictate people believe the ten named sources over four anonymous sources? I can't imagine an answer other than yes with regards to this logic and topic.

 

How many people were actually present? How many of the names sources (which, unless mistaken, no Trump supporter here actually named) were present? That you can't imagine people believing Trump said such things is an indication of how far you'll go defending Trump. Keep ignoring other media venues are confirming the story.

15 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

They may have had a report on the story, but none of them have confirmed whether its true or not .

Has anyone actually proved he dud say what he is alleged to have said ?

Or are we all still talking about what four anonymous people claim that he said ?

 

What sort of "proof" would satisfy? Do you expect a recording? Would you accept this if someone came out, exposed his identity and retell the story? Given past instances, it's unlikely Trump supporters would accept it even if the President was to repeat it in public. All this "proof" thing is covfefe, you do not routinely care about "proof" when Trump makes bogus statements.

 

In case you've missed how it works - the sources are known to the reporter, and usually editor as well. Perhaps some higher up the food chain if it's a serious matter. By your logic "Deep Throat"'s information  ought to have been ignored and dismissed.

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Considering trump tries and does destroy the career of anyone criticising him, why do you think they stay anonymous?

Could be because Trump could then prove that they were not there at the time ?

The timing of this story coincides with the forthcoming election , it was published now to discredit Trump with the aim of not getting him re elected .

  That is a reason as to why this could be a completely bogus story 

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

Could be because Trump could then prove that they were not there at the time ?

The timing of this story coincides with the forthcoming election , it was published now to discredit Trump with the aim of not getting him re elected .

  That is a reason as to why this could be a completely bogus story 

 

Could be this. Could be that. It's near the elections so it's suspect. Only of interest when story is might damage Trump, otherwise not much care or reservations expressed. The "concern" is dully noted.

 

Given Trump many other offensive statements, and Trump's vindictive nature toward those who cross him, far more likely people are just protecting themselves.

 

 

Bickering posts removed.

 

The topic is the topic, not other posters.

 

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

Pretty much every news outlet, including Fox News has confirmed the story. Then Trump goes out yesterday and insults the military brass. 
 

Source:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/07/trump-disparages-pentagon-chiefs-409528
 

And from the Military Times in January (for those saying why does this come out now)... 
 

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/01/17/trump-blasted-top-military-generals-as-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-according-to-new-book/

 

And honestly, why would anyone even have a hard time believing this after he said this about John McCain years ago..
 

 

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317

 

I really don't see why these comments would surprise anybody. But that won't stop them from finding some way to defend them or to pretend that these statements were out of character for him. These statements are completely in-character for Trump. It's who he is. The better question is how can you support a guy like that?

Lots of reasons one would support Trump.  One is that he has appointed 203 federal judges that have been confirmed by the Senate. These judges will be on the bench for decades.  Presumably these are conservative justices and Trump will do the same for the next four years.

 

I have had people tell me they don't like Trump, but they like what he is doing for the country and will vote for him in November.

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

Could be because Trump could then prove that they were not there at the time ?

The timing of this story coincides with the forthcoming election , it was published now to discredit Trump with the aim of not getting him re elected .

  That is a reason as to why this could be a completely bogus story 

Here’s a thing.

 

Imagine for a moment Fox News were able to prove these allegations were untrue, what a scoop that would be.

 

Unfortunately for Trump and his supporters  Fox News were only able to confirm the reports.

 

So either the reports are credible or there’s a conspiracy between all news services, including Fox.

 

Meanwhile, the comments attributed to Trump are entirely consistent with the derogatory remarks he made towards the military service of S. John McCain, comments which are a matter of public record.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s a thing.

 

Imagine for a moment Fox News were able to prove these allegations were untrue, what a scoop that would be.

 

Unfortunately for Trump and his supporters  Fox News were only able to confirm the reports.

 

So either the reports are credible or there’s a conspiracy between all news services, including Fox.

 

Meanwhile, the comments attributed to Trump are entirely consistent with the derogatory remarks he made towards the military service of S. John McCain, comments which are a matter of public record.

Its practically impossible to prove a negative .

How would it be possible to prove that a person didnt say something, especially when the people whom supposedly heard it remained anonymous ?

4 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Its practically impossible to prove a negative .

How would it be possible to prove that a person didnt say something, especially when the people whom supposedly heard it remained anonymous ?

 

If the source reveal themselves - what recourse would they have against Trump's vengeful nature? Would they be safe from harassment by him and his supporter? Further, say they come forth and confirm their report - what then? Would Trump accept it? Would Trump supporters accept it? Going by past instances, seems far more likely that won't be the outcome.

 

What sort of "proof" would be acceptable? And does the same requirement arise when Trump makes one of his many BS comments?

3 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

So, how could the nine named sources state the four unamed people were telling the truth ?

What is their evidence ?

 

The named sources DENY the claims of the four anonymous sources. My bad if I didn't word that clearly.

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

The named sources DENY the claims of the four anonymous sources. My bad if I didn't word that clearly.

 

Who are the named sources?

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Who are the named sources?

John Bolton for one.

Just now, Kelsall said:

John Bolton for one.

 

Bolton said on one occasion that he did not hear it, not that it wasn't said.

On a later interview he said the report was untrue, but did not have a good answer as to whether it could have been said when he wasn't around. He did confirm Trump's habit of degrading and disparaging anyone who isn't Trump.

 

Who are the others?

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Whether one was "dissing" another does not preclude them from citing that person as a source. There are nine other sources BY NAME that state the four anonymous accusations are true. Would logic dictate people believe the ten named sources over four anonymous sources? I can't imagine an answer other than yes with regards to this logic and topic.

 

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

The named sources DENY the claims of the four anonymous sources. My bad if I didn't word that clearly.

Don't know why you'd call that 'not clearly formulated'. "There are nine other sources by name that state the four anonymous accusations are true", which is very clearly formulated.

On 9/7/2020 at 4:11 AM, nobodysfriend said:

Especially now , at this time , just before the elections , everything Trump says will be closely analyzed and used against him if possible ...

The best would be he just stops talking and ' twittering ' ...

If we want to get rid of the guy we should encourage him to keep talking, twittering and BS-ing.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If the source reveal themselves - what recourse would they have against Trump's vengeful nature? Would they be safe from harassment by him and his supporter? Further, say they come forth and confirm their report - what then? Would Trump accept it? Would Trump supporters accept it? Going by past instances, seems far more likely that won't be the outcome.

 

What sort of "proof" would be acceptable? And does the same requirement arise when Trump makes one of his many BS comments?

It would verify the claims and could probably lead to him not getting reelected .

Otherwise its just unconfirmed rumours  

9 minutes ago, wabothai said:

If we want to get rid of the guy we should encourage him to keep talking, twittering and BS-ing.

...............and keep Biden quiet as well 

He spent the last 5 years rebuilding the military and straightening out the VA healthcare system. He praises the military at every opportunity. 
 

This is like if Fox News reported in 2012 “unnamed sources inside the White House say Barrack Obama told colleagues he “hates black people.”  
 

no one thinks it’s true. 

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Bolton said on one occasion that he did not hear it, not that it wasn't said.

On a later interview he said the report was untrue, but did not have a good answer as to whether it could have been said when he wasn't around. He did confirm Trump's habit of degrading and disparaging anyone who isn't Trump.

 

Who are the others?

Good question. This claim that there are "9 sources by name" has been parroted over and over, but no one seems to be able to tell who these people are.

Just need to make it official in Nov.

11 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Whether one was "dissing" another does not preclude them from citing that person as a source. There are nine other sources BY NAME that state the four anonymous accusations are true. Would logic dictate people believe the ten named sources over four anonymous sources? I can't imagine an answer other than yes with regards to this logic and topic.

Depends if the 9 or so sources work for trump. Can you name them?

10 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

So, how could the nine named sources state the four unamed people were telling the truth ?

What is their evidence ?

 

How could they say they werent. The 4 sources may also be part of the 9. 

Have you hears mcmaster, kelly, mattis deny saying it? That speaks volumes.

9 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

Could be because Trump could then prove that they were not there at the time ?

The timing of this story coincides with the forthcoming election , it was published now to discredit Trump with the aim of not getting him re elected .

  That is a reason as to why this could be a completely bogus story 

Well he didnt even know his wife was there, he said he called her in washington when she was with him in france at the time. Yet you believe him.

 

You will probably start with saying you arent a trump supporter but...

Trolling meme removed.