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

[shdmn]

On 9/6/2020 at 5:18 PM, Mama Noodle said:

Im well aware, but that’s not evidence of trump insulting dead troops for no reason, as reported. 

I'll never understand how people can look at themselves in the mirror when they are in such denial.

 

This is not some big revelation to those of us living in reality.  This guy has a long history of hating military people.

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/08/trump-mocked-us-military-troops-losers-whole-life/

Edited September 9, 2020 by shdmn

[riclag]

48 minutes ago, shdmn said:

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

  "but he did find time to pilfer"

You might want to read your source(bloomberg) entirely before you make ridiculous claims ! 

 

"But after all the hand-wringing it was decided that the move was legal because the art is government property".

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-art-ambassador-home-paris-fakes-replicas.html

 

"Ultimately, because the art is U.S. government property, the move was deemed legal".

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-06/trump-ended-2018-france-trip-having-art-loaded-on-air-force-one?sref=C3P1bRLC

[shdmn]

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

  "but he did find time to pilfer"

You might want to read your source(bloomberg) entirely before you make ridiculous claims ! 

 

"But after all the hand-wringing it was decided that the move was legal because the art is government property".

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-art-ambassador-home-paris-fakes-replicas.html

 

"Ultimately, because the art is U.S. government property, the move was deemed legal".

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-06/trump-ended-2018-france-trip-having-art-loaded-on-air-force-one?sref=C3P1bRLC

Denial is all you people have left.  Even if it is fox news now after they confirmed the losers and suckers story. Everything is fake news now apparently.  Even when bunker boys tweets it or when it comes out of his own pie hole on camera.  ????

Edited September 9, 2020 by shdmn

[nattaya09]

Bolton and Kelly were there. Bolton would have featured it prominently in his book had it happened. Neither of these men are big Trump fans yet both know nothing of it. The "anonymous source", if they exist, should come forward and convince us that they were in a more credible position than the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser 

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Ahh yes, the ole if it isn't fox news it's not true response.  And even if it is fox news sometimes. They confirmed he called dead veterans "losers" and "suckers" and now you people are in denial about that.  Denial is all you have left.  Now everything is fake news even the fakiest news channel of them all.

Slate and bloomberg aren't  fox! I specifically called your misinformation out! You claimed the POTUS

"pilfered"

Please stop spreading this nonsense!

 

"Ultimately, because the art is U.S. government property, the move was deemed legal".

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-06/trump-ended-2018-france-trip-having-art-loaded-on-air-force-one?sref=C3P1bRLC

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-art-ambassador-home-paris-fakes-replicas.html

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by riclag

[PattayaJames]

20 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Everything is fake news now apparently.

Pretty much, news stories about news stories which are nothing more than made up tittle tattle attributed to anonymous sources.

 

It's not news, its political activism from the desperate left. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by PattayaJames

[shdmn]

21 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

Pretty much, news stories about news stories which are nothing more than made up tittle tattle attributed to anonymous sources.

 

It's not news, its political activism from the desperate left. 

 

Yes, it's pretty obvious that you people want to believe that everything that makes trump look bad is fake news because denial is all you people have left.  Even when he is on record saying/doing it you people still deny it.  Can't imagine what it's like living your life like that.  That must really rot your soul out.  I don't think you people will have much of anything left inside by the time this is over.

Edited September 9, 2020 by shdmn

[PattayaJames]

10 minutes ago, shdmn said:

Yes, it's pretty obvious that you people want to believe that everything that makes trump look bad is fake news because denial is all you people have left.  Even when he is on record saying/doing it you people still deny it.  Can't imagine what it's like living your life like that.  That must really rot your soul out.  I don't think you people will have much of anything left inside by the time this is over.

Right back at you.

I have really enjoyed the Trump Presidency so far, looking forward to the next 4 years and maybe the first Female President after that.

Imagine that 16 years of Trumps. 

[Scott]

Off-topic troll post removed. 

 

[jcsmith]

It's really easy to find Trump making these types of statements if you look. Here's him before the last election:

 

 

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, nattaya09 said:

Bolton and Kelly were there. Bolton would have featured it prominently in his book had it happened. Neither of these men are big Trump fans yet both know nothing of it. The "anonymous source", if they exist, should come forward and convince us that they were in a more credible position than the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser 

And the Artful Dodger in Chief.

[candide]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

  "but he did find time to pilfer"

You might want to read your source(bloomberg) entirely before you make ridiculous claims ! 

 

"But after all the hand-wringing it was decided that the move was legal because the art is government property".

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-art-ambassador-home-paris-fakes-replicas.html

 

"Ultimately, because the art is U.S. government property, the move was deemed legal".

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-06/trump-ended-2018-france-trip-having-art-loaded-on-air-force-one?sref=C3P1bRLC

On top of it, given Trump's <deleted> taste, the ambassador was probably happy to get rid of the art pieces Trump liked! ????

[MajarTheLion]

4 hours ago, shdmn said:

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

 

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

Perhaps the kind of person who observes the credibility of the accusations made against Trump. Would you believe a story that used four anonymous sources or the ten people who step forward by name to say the story is false?

[candide]

7 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Perhaps the kind of person who observes the credibility of the accusations made against Trump. Would you believe a story that used four anonymous sources or the ten people who step forward by name to say the story is false?

Who are these 10 people? What did they say, exactly?

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.   Directing people to unapproved sites will earn suspensions.  

 

[Morch]

22 hours ago, nattaya09 said:

Bolton and Kelly were there. Bolton would have featured it prominently in his book had it happened. Neither of these men are big Trump fans yet both know nothing of it. The "anonymous source", if they exist, should come forward and convince us that they were in a more credible position than the Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser 

 

Bolton said he did not hear the President say these things. Asked if the President might have said them when Bolton was not present did not result in much of an answer. On the other hand, Bolton did confirm that the President has a habit of denigrating pretty much anyone who's name isn't Trump. You mentioned Kelly - did he actually deny or refute the report? And if so, was it qualitatively different than Bolton's?

 

I understand people may be less trusting of anonymous sources. Trump supporters for sure. But then, was this sentiment ever raised by you guys when Trump made any of his many comments using alleged sources? How about "Deep Throat" - should the information he provided been disregarded?

[Morch]

22 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

Pretty much, news stories about news stories which are nothing more than made up tittle tattle attributed to anonymous sources.

 

It's not news, its political activism from the desperate left. 

 

 

 

 

 

It would have been, maybe, easier to take such comments seriously if they weren't so hyper partisan.  News are only "real" when adulating Trump? Aired or right wing aligned venues? Conveying right-wing ideas?

[Morch]

22 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

Right back at you.

I have really enjoyed the Trump Presidency so far, looking forward to the next 4 years and maybe the first Female President after that.

Imagine that 16 years of Trumps. 

 

16 years of Trumps, apparently (again) regardless of character or qualifications. Sounds more like some kind of hereditary monarchy, rather than a presidency.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Perhaps the kind of person who observes the credibility of the accusations made against Trump. Would you believe a story that used four anonymous sources or the ten people who step forward by name to say the story is false?

 

Who are the 10 people? What exactly did they say and how close to the President were they during the time frame discussed. There are some reports citing 5 such persons, others say 7, some 10. Without actual names and versions, it's not much of an improvement.

[onthedarkside]

Bickering posts removed. Tone it down, folks...

 

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  Continue and face a suspension. 

 

[CorpusChristie]

37 minutes ago, Yxng said:

Trump has always displayed such behavior since the beginning. The only people he hasn’t bad-mouthed are his supporters… of course ????
 

But there has been no evidence that he actually said it .

Trump has categorially denied having said it .

Now its time for the person who claims to have heard him saying it, to stand up and call Trump a liar .

But, if he didnt say it and no one heard it , there is no one to stand up and call Trump a liar 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

But there has been no evidence that he actually said it .

Trump has categorially denied having said it .

Now its time for the person who claims to have heard him saying it, to stand up and call Trump a liar .

But, if he didnt say it and no one heard it , there is no one to stand up and call Trump a liar 

 

And yet, you routinely give Trump a free pass on statements he makes without any clear source or support. That being so, its kinda hard to take your objections seriously.

 

Use of anonymous sources is an acceptable practice in journalism, and credible reporters/venues usually follow some basic ground rules. It's not on par with inventing sources, claiming to have heard someone say, or stuff like that. It is acknowledged that the commentary would have been more forceful if sources agreed to step up.

 

Trump denied things he did say on more than one occasion. By now, such denials do not necessarily carry much weight.

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And yet, you routinely give Trump a free pass on statements he makes without any clear source or support. That being so, its kinda hard to take your objections seriously.

 

Use of anonymous sources is an acceptable practice in journalism, and credible reporters/venues usually follow some basic ground rules. It's not on par with inventing sources, claiming to have heard someone say, or stuff like that. It is acknowledged that the commentary would have been more forceful if sources agreed to step up.

 

Trump denied things he did say on more than one occasion. By now, such denials do not necessarily carry much weight.

We are talking about this particular allegation , nothing else .

Unless a person is prepared to put their name to an allegation , then there are just unverified rumors .

Quite possibly a false allegation to help Biden win the election  

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

We are talking about this particular allegation , nothing else .

Unless a person is prepared to put their name to an allegation , then there are just unverified rumors .

Quite possibly a false allegation to help Biden win the election  

 

I understand why, when it suits, context is a bad thing. Not sure on what basis you wish to dismiss Trump's other statements and gaffs, or how they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Obviously, it's essential for the 'defense' offered, seeing as Trump himself often makes statements based on 'someone-told-me', 'I've-heard'. 'many-people-say' and such.

 

As for your insistence on framing things as "unverified rumors", you can go ahead and ignore the fact that use of anonymous sources is a common practice in journalism and that it usually needs to conform to certain ground rules in order to be acceptable. Can't recall you making a fuss over such things when the information relayed was damaging to the other side.

[Sujo]

40 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

We are talking about this particular allegation , nothing else .

Unless a person is prepared to put their name to an allegation , then there are just unverified rumors .

Quite possibly a false allegation to help Biden win the election  

You are ok with, i heard, somebody said, its been said, when it comes from trump.

[CorpusChristie]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I understand why, when it suits, context is a bad thing. Not sure on what basis you wish to dismiss Trump's other statements and gaffs, or how they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Obviously, it's essential for the 'defense' offered, seeing as Trump himself often makes statements based on 'someone-told-me', 'I've-heard'. 'many-people-say' and such.

 

As for your insistence on framing things as "unverified rumors", you can go ahead and ignore the fact that use of anonymous sources is a common practice in journalism and that it usually needs to conform to certain ground rules in order to be acceptable. Can't recall you making a fuss over such things when the information relayed was damaging to the other side.

If this was a Court case and all the known evidence was put before a Judge .

What would be the ruling ?

What the Judge find Trump guilty or not guilty ? 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

If this was a Court case and all the known evidence was put before a Judge .

What would be the ruling ?

What the Judge find Trump guilty or not guilty ? 

 

This is not a court case. Next deflection, please.

[Opl]

11 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

If this was a Court case and all the known evidence was put before a Judge .

What would be the ruling ?

What the Judge find Trump guilty or not guilty ? 

it depends on Trump, will he

- present his tax returns

- get his feet x-rayed

[batata]

On 9/8/2020 at 8:30 PM, Kelsall said:

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.

and what is he doing for the country ?  inciting violence/antagonizing/lying.... what has he done, besides controversy after controversy,  in the past 3+ years