Trump on defensive as critics seize on reports he insulted U.S. veterans

[shdmn]

6 hours ago, swineninety9 said:

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. 

Like the time he called McCain a loser for getting captured?  Is that a good example of praising the military at every opportunity?  Or the time he skipped Armistice day because it was raining?  But he did find time to pilfer a bunch of art from the US amabassadors house in Paris to take home with him.

 

Speaking of unnamed sources.  Got any links for that rebuilding the military and straightening out the VA fairytale?

 

There is absolutely no doubt that he thinks a lot of his supporters are losers and suckers.  What does that say about the people who still still support him?

Edited September 8, 2020 by shdmn

[shdmn]

37 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Like the time he called McCain a loser for getting captured?  Is that a good example of praising the military at every opportunity?  Or the time he skipped Armistice day because it was raining?  But he did find time to pilfer a bunch of art from the US amabassadors house in Paris to take home with him.

 

Speaking of unnamed sources.  Got any links for that rebuilding the military and straightening out the VA fairytale?

 

There is absolutely no doubt that he thinks a lot of his supporters are losers and suckers.  What does that say about the people who still still support him?

Or the time in 2017 when he threw a fit in a meeting with the Joint Chiefs including then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a retired four-star Marine general) calling them "a bunch of dopes and babies" and saying he "wouldn't go to war with you people".  Is that a good example of praising the military at every opportunity?

Edited September 8, 2020 by shdmn

[shdmn]

9 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

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

Even fox news confirmed the story is true.  Is there no limit your denial of any facts you don't like?

Edited September 8, 2020 by shdmn

[Morch]

11 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

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

Otherwise its just unconfirmed rumours  

 

You're dodging the point. I doubt you could claim with a straight face that Trump supporters, especially what is known as the "base", would accept comments as verified even so, or that it would cause them to change their minds/votes. Such things were demonstrated over and over again during the last few years.

 

These are not "unconfirmed rumors". There are accepted practices regarding usage of unnamed sources in reporting. Granted, the case would be more solid with names attached, but lacking these is still not enough to completely dismiss it the way Trump and his supporters wish. Ignoring that past instances ("Deep Throat" being a notable example) were accepted, is a choice. Same goes for making an issue out of this but giving Trump a free pass whenever he alleges something based on I've-heard, someone-told-me, Many-people-say.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, swineninety9 said:

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. 

 

Obviously many people think it is true, or at least in sync with Trump's character and style. Enough posters commenting on this forum would give an indication, and the same goes for other media venues (including Fox) confirming the story.

 

As for the VA thing....

 

Fact check: Trump says he's done more for veterans than John McCain did -- while taking credit for McCain's veterans bill

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/fact-check-trump-mccain-loser-veterans-choice/index.html

 

VA health care bill named after John McCain

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/veterans-health-bill-john-mccain/index.html

 

Trump’s untruths about Veterans Choice illustrate the sheer audaciousness of his lies

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/21/18275624/trump-mccain-veterans-choice-ohio

 

AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s dig at McCain skews facts on vet care

https://apnews.com/0ab53d01b17041638b1b4e2db4f706a2

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You're dodging the point. I doubt you could claim with a straight face that Trump supporters, especially what is known as the "base", would accept comments as verified even so, or that it would cause them to change their minds/votes. Such things were demonstrated over and over again during the last few years.

 

These are not "unconfirmed rumors". There are accepted practices regarding usage of unnamed sources in reporting. Granted, the case would be more solid with names attached, but lacking these is still not enough to completely dismiss it the way Trump and his supporters wish. Ignoring that past instances ("Deep Throat" being a notable example) were accepted, is a choice. Same goes for making an issue out of this but giving Trump a free pass whenever he alleges something based on I've-heard, someone-told-me, Many-people-say.

 

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark reacts to trump.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/08/trump-attack-military-leadership-wesley-clark-intv-nr-sciutto-vpx.cnn

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by simple1

[riclag]

6 hours ago, shdmn said:

Like the time he called McCain a loser for getting captured?  Is that a good example of praising the military at every opportunity?  Or the time he skipped Armistice day because it was raining?  But he did find time to pilfer a bunch of art from the US amabassadors house in Paris to take home with him.

 

Speaking of unnamed sources.  Got any links for that rebuilding the military and straightening out the VA fairytale?

 

There is absolutely no doubt that he thinks a lot of his supporters are losers and suckers.  What does that say about the people who still still support him?

You are misinformed, It would be greatly appreciated during your ranting that you provide credible sources before you use these ridiculous unsubstantiated claims   !  

   "but he did find time to pilfer"

Edited September 9, 2020 by riclag

[riclag]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark reacts to trump.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/08/trump-attack-military-leadership-wesley-clark-intv-nr-sciutto-vpx.cnn

 

 

Impeccable career as a soldier, He even  studied politics.

He once almost became his party nominee for POTUS. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Edited September 9, 2020 by riclag

[simple1]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

Impeccable career as a soldier, He even  studied politics. He once almost became his party nominee for POTUS. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Same spitefulness as trump, in your case unsubtle attempt to smear the creditability of a four-star general and a holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. People from the 'right' speculate why members of the military wish to stay anonymous - the answer stares you right in the face - trump and his supporters M.O.

[RJRS1301]

39 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Same spitefulness as trump, in your case unsubtle attempt to smear the creditability of a four-star general and a holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. People from the 'right' speculate why members of the military wish to stay anonymous - the answer stares you right in the face - trump and his supporters M.O.

Clark appears to be better credentialed than most for high office and able be strategic as well as admit mistakes he may be perceived to have made.

He appears to not only have the ability to lead, but is intelligent, understands international relations and has ethics. 

[riclag]

45 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Same spitefulness as trump, in your case unsubtle attempt to smear the creditability of a four-star general and a holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. People from the 'right' speculate why members of the military wish to stay anonymous - the answer stares you right in the face - trump and his supporters M.O.

I'm not from the right I'm a independent  voter,swing voter,have been all my life!

There is no speculation here  about  clarke,as I stated in my previous post in quotes !  Credibility is on you,you brought it up!

"Impeccable career as a soldier, He even  studied politics. He once almost became his party nominee for POTUS". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

 

It's  all about politics, he is a dem ,he carries the banner for his party,wanted to be POTUS its documented in  wiki

 

 Now speaking of credibility ! Its no big surprise that CNN has issues with the POTUS,stands to reason they would bring in a former military expert( CNN military analyst during the Iraq War ) that worked for CNN before !

https://www.thewrap.com/retired-gen-wesley-clark-throws-phone-across-cnn-set-after-it-rings-during-segment-video/

You should of just quit before  you incited credibility and came to the conclusion like most rational people,its just politics!

 

As NATO commander, Wesley Clark had problems with the Pentagon’s chain of command. When Clark’s bosses didn’t agree with him, he just went around them.

 In the artilce below another General called him a liar years ago!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/02/army-one/

See my point its just politics! Just like these reports, with no substantiated sources imop

 

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Same spitefulness as trump, in your case unsubtle attempt to smear the creditability of a four-star general and a holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. People from the 'right' speculate why members of the military wish to stay anonymous - the answer stares you right in the face - trump and his supporters M.O.

 

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, riclag said:

See my point its just politics! Just like these reports, with no substantiated sources imop

 

 

No, IMO you're seeking to denigrate in the same manner as trump. I seriously doubt, for the majority, trump's M.O. is 'just politics', rather meanness of spirit and unnecessarily divisive.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by simple1

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

I'm not from the right I'm a independent  voter,swing voter,have been all my life!

There is no speculation here  about  clarke,as I stated in my previous post in quotes !  Credibility is on you,you brought it up!

"Impeccable career as a soldier, He even  studied politics. He once almost became his party nominee for POTUS". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

 

It's  all about politics, he is a dem ,he carries the banner for his party,wanted to be POTUS its documented in  wiki

 

 Now speaking of credibility ! Its no big surprise that CNN has issues with the POTUS,stands to reason they would bring in a former military expert( CNN military analyst during the Iraq War ) that worked for CNN before !

https://www.thewrap.com/retired-gen-wesley-clark-throws-phone-across-cnn-set-after-it-rings-during-segment-video/

You should of just quit before  you incited credibility and came to the conclusion like most rational people,its just politics!

 

As NATO commander, Wesley Clark had problems with the Pentagon’s chain of command. When Clark’s bosses didn’t agree with him, he just went around them.

 In the artilce below another General called him a liar years ago!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/02/army-one/

See my point its just politics! Just like these reports, with no substantiated sources imop

 

 

 

 

 

You lost my interest to read any further  before your first apostrophe.

[PattayaJames]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Obviously many people think it is true, or at least in sync with Trump's character and style. Enough posters commenting on this forum would give an indication.

That's not saying much to be honest going by some of the ridiculous comments made here.

We definitely got Orange Man Bad this time. LOL

Edited September 9, 2020 by PattayaJames

[Chomper Higgot]

I’m sure Trump would be very pleased for the numerous news providers to release the names of the people who have provided these accounts of Trump’s words and behaviors.

 

They are clearly people who are regularly in his presence, most likely members of his own administration.

 

Perhaps he could give Murdoch a call or, do as he has in the past and get USAG Barr  to have a word in Murdoch’s ‘shell like’.

 

Then again, Murdoch might have twigged there are more ratings for Fox News in exposing Trump than there are in running point for him.

 

Trump needs to do something about the news bringers, while ever Fox News is confirming The reports of Trump’s disgraceful comments, neither he nor his illiberal supporters can claim this all a ‘left wing’ plot.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

That's not saying much to be honest going by some of the ridiculous comments made here.

We definitely got Orange Man Bad this time. LOL

Well Fox News clearly think it’s true and you’re going to have a hard time pinning your ‘Orange Man Bad’ on them.

[Jingthing]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well Fox News clearly think it’s true and you’re going to have a hard time pinning your ‘Orange Man Bad’ on them.

OAN is the future of 45 propaganda media. Assuming 45 loses I reckon he'll take that over. Fox is so 2016.

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, bluehippie said:

There is no proof of this claim, it's unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and refuted by numerous witness's present at the time and now the Atlantic editor admits he may have his facts incorrect and is recanting now.

Meanwhile in breaking news overnight, Trump, nominated for Nobel, that should look good on his CV especially when he walks from the oval office in 2025, writes a book and makes another billion bucks.

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-admits-key-detail-of-anti-trump-hit-piece-may-be-untrue-n903238#comment-5063410710

 

Your link is from a garbage far right wing source. The recant spin they claim isn't true as viewers can see for themselves here.

 

 

As far as the Nobel prize anyone can be nominated but that's far from winning.

 

That said even though 45 is clearly the worst president in history that doesn't mean that has no accomplishments.

 

 

 

[CorpusChristie]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well Fox News clearly think it’s true and you’re going to have a hard time pinning your ‘Orange Man Bad’ on them.

Fox news havent stated that its true , they just reported on the ongoing story

[CorpusChristie]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m sure Trump would be very pleased for the numerous news providers to release the names of the people who have provided these accounts of Trump’s words and behaviors.

 

They are clearly people who are regularly in his presence, most likely members of his own administration.

 

Perhaps he could give Murdoch a call or, do as he has in the past and get USAG Barr  to have a word in Murdoch’s ‘shell like’.

 

Then again, Murdoch might have twigged there are more ratings for Fox News in exposing Trump than there are in running point for him.

 

Trump needs to do something about the news bringers, while ever Fox News is confirming The reports of Trump’s disgraceful comments, neither he nor his illiberal supporters can claim this all a ‘left wing’ plot.

 

Could be that he didnt say what he is alleged to have said and the whole story is a smear campaign ? 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

I'm not from the right I'm a independent  voter,swing voter,have been all my life!

There is no speculation here  about  clarke,as I stated in my previous post in quotes !  Credibility is on you,you brought it up!

"Impeccable career as a soldier, He even  studied politics. He once almost became his party nominee for POTUS". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

 

It's  all about politics, he is a dem ,he carries the banner for his party,wanted to be POTUS its documented in  wiki

 

 Now speaking of credibility ! Its no big surprise that CNN has issues with the POTUS,stands to reason they would bring in a former military expert( CNN military analyst during the Iraq War ) that worked for CNN before !

https://www.thewrap.com/retired-gen-wesley-clark-throws-phone-across-cnn-set-after-it-rings-during-segment-video/

You should of just quit before  you incited credibility and came to the conclusion like most rational people,its just politics!

 

As NATO commander, Wesley Clark had problems with the Pentagon’s chain of command. When Clark’s bosses didn’t agree with him, he just went around them.

 In the artilce below another General called him a liar years ago!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/02/army-one/

See my point its just politics! Just like these reports, with no substantiated sources imop

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if once upon a time you were "independent", or a "swing voter", little of what you've posted on these topic the last few years fails to shout Trump supporter!

 

I'm not about to "defend" Clark. Not exactly a fan. But there is this - from your post it is obvious that in you consider political affiliations as taking precedence to anything - morals, truth, facts. If someone has identified with one side, he is totally committed and would say anything to further the goals of that side. It's kinda sad, not being able to imagine people who put country first, morals first, decency first. But then again, it also echos Trump's reported sentiments regarding service to the nation or greater ideals, rather than doing things for profit.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

That's not saying much to be honest going by some of the ridiculous comments made here.

We definitely got Orange Man Bad this time. LOL

 

Not much of a deflection, and please don't mutilate my posts.

Your original comment was "no one thinks it's true". That you choose to be dismissive of posts and posters here still doesn't go toward supporting your words. Cutting out the part about other media venues running the same story or confirming it, just shows you can't handle facts. Same goes for glossing over the VA claim made.

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Fox news havent stated that its true , they just reported on the ongoing story

 

Fox News reporter defends confirming Atlantic piece despite Trump backlash: 'I feel very confident'

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/515274-fox-news-reporter-defends-confirming-atlantic-piece-i-feel-very-confident

 

Fox News Denies Own Reporter Confirmed Trump Used ‘Suckers and Losers’ After Airing Interview of Her Confirming It

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-denies-own-reporter-confirmed-trump-used-suckers-and-losers-1055782/

 

Fox News reported Trump never said that dead US troops were 'suckers,' but the network's national security correspondent said ex-officials confirmed he did

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-correspondent-confirms-trump-said-dead-us-troops-losers-2020-9

 

Try harder.

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Fox News reporter defends confirming Atlantic piece despite Trump backlash: 'I feel very confident'

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/515274-fox-news-reporter-defends-confirming-atlantic-piece-i-feel-very-confident

 

Fox News Denies Own Reporter Confirmed Trump Used ‘Suckers and Losers’ After Airing Interview of Her Confirming It

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-denies-own-reporter-confirmed-trump-used-suckers-and-losers-1055782/

 

Fox News reported Trump never said that dead US troops were 'suckers,' but the network's national security correspondent said ex-officials confirmed he did

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-correspondent-confirms-trump-said-dead-us-troops-losers-2020-9

 

Try harder.

None of those links link to any Fox news reports , not sure why you posted them 

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

None of those links link to any Fox news reports , not sure why you posted them 

 

All these links refer to the issue of the story being confirmed. Apparently, there's some confusion within Fox regarding how to go about it. You want to split hair? Play semantic games? Go right ahead. Spin it however you like, there are various media venues confirming the report, or parts of it. Some adding extra details on top of that. You're welcome to ignore it all, question it all or whatever. Doesn't change the facts - the report if being confirmed.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed. 

 

[shdmn]

8 hours ago, riclag said:

You are misinformed, It would be greatly appreciated during your ranting that you provide credible sources before you use these ridiculous unsubstantiated claims   !  

   "but he did find time to pilfer"

Sure, since you asked so nicely or what passes for nice around here.  What's it like still supporting a president that thinks his supporters are losers and suckers?

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-took-art-us-ambassador-france-home-canceling-wwi-event-2020-9

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-06/trump-ended-2018-france-trip-having-art-loaded-on-air-force-one

 

https://people.com/politics/trump-picked-out-art-for-white-house-after-canceled-military-visit-on-2018-france-trip-report/

 

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/blog/the-art-of-the-steal-trump-swipes-usd750-000-worth-of-art-from-the-us-embassy-in-france-but-none-of-it-is-the-real-deal

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-trump-had-air-force-one-loaded-with-art-from-paris-envoys-residence/#gs.f43ygz

Edited September 9, 2020 by shdmn

[CorpusChristie]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

All these links refer to the issue of the story being confirmed. Apparently, there's some confusion within Fox regarding how to go about it. You want to split hair? Play semantic games? Go right ahead. Spin it however you like, there are various media venues confirming the report, or parts of it. Some adding extra details on top of that. You're welcome to ignore it all, question it all or whatever. Doesn't change the facts - the report if being confirmed.

I havent been following this story closely , has therte been any media outlet that has confirmed that Trump said it, or have they 

 

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

Fox News reported Trump never said that dead US troops were 'suckers,' but the network's national security correspondent said ex-officials confirmed he did

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-correspondent-confirms-trump-said-dead-us-troops-losers-2020-9

 

Try harder.

This link contains the sentence and you are stating that the sentence below is stating that Trump said it ?

  (It says the complete opposite)

 

• Fox News on Friday said the report was fabricated and criticized The Atlantic's use of anonymous sources."

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Even if once upon a time you were "independent", or a "swing voter", little of what you've posted on these topic the last few years fails to shout Trump supporter!

 

I'm not about to "defend" Clark. Not exactly a fan. But there is this - from your post it is obvious that in you consider political affiliations as taking precedence to anything - morals, truth, facts. If someone has identified with one side, he is totally committed and would say anything to further the goals of that side. It's kinda sad, not being able to imagine people who put country first, morals first, decency first. But then again, it also echos Trump's reported sentiments regarding service to the nation or greater ideals, rather than doing things for profit.

He is well applauded  and respected as a  commander and chief by vets and grunts, that's a fact , despite what 4 unsubstantiated nobody's presumably said ! Thank you

[shdmn]

16 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I havent been following this story closely , has therte been any media outlet that has confirmed that Trump said it, or have they 

 

This link contains the sentence and you are stating that the sentence below is stating that Trump said it ?

  (It says the complete opposite)

 

• Fox News on Friday said the report was fabricated and criticized The Atlantic's use of anonymous sources."

What's it like living with that kind of denial?  Unless of course you are just a Russian sockpuppet here to try create more confusion.  I just can't imagine what kind of person would still support a president that thinks his supporters are loser and suckers.

 

Not ever in the military?  Ok how about religion?  He's got insults you those people too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-evangelical-christians-michael-cohen-book-b404828.html

 

Quote

In his memoir Disloyal, excerpts of which have emerged in the last few days, Mr Cohen calls Mr Trump “a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, a con man” – and describes him tearing into one of his most loyal constituencies after a group of Christian leaders prayed over him.

According to Mr Cohen, the president emerged from the session with contempt. “Can you believe that bulls**t?” he allegedly said. “Can you believe people believe that bulls**t?”

https://www.dcreport.org/2020/09/08/what-he-really-thinks-trump-mocks-christians-calls-them-fools-and-schmucks/

Quote

In Disloyal, published today, Cohen shows how Trump is a master deceiver. He quotes Trump calling Christianity and its religious practices “<deleted>,” soon after he masterfully posed as a fervent believer. In truth, Cohen writes, Trump’s religion is unbridled lust for money and power at any cost to others.

Cohen’s insider stories add significant depth to my own documenting of Trump’s repeated and public denouncements of Christians as “fools,” “idiots,” and “schmucks.”

What kind of a person still supports a president like that?  What can possibly be floating around your brain to still think to yourself, "someone who has no respect for me is just the sort of person I want to vote for"?

Edited September 9, 2020 by shdmn