11 minutes ago, blaze master said:

None of the gibberish on here will change any of that.

Being Canadian it's somewhat entertaining to watch the US implode in real time though.

18 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

You are obviously cherry picking, the REAL picture is...

• Donald Trump (President): 5 deferments (4 student, 1 medical for bone spurs).

• Bill Clinton (President): Multiple student deferments, then ROTC enrollment (later canceled), and a lottery number that wasn't called.

• Joe Biden (President, former VP): 5 deferments (student and medical for asthma).

• George W. Bush (President): Joined Texas Air National Guard (seen by some as avoiding Vietnam combat deployment).

• Dick Cheney (VP under G.W. Bush): 5 deferments (student and family hardship).

No presidents were formally "draft dodgers" in the illegal sense (e.g., fleeing the country or refusing induction outright). All used legal deferments/exemptions, which over half of eligible men did during the war. Presidents who served in the military (e.g., JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush) were mostly WWII/Korea era, none saw Vietnam combat as Presidents.

• About 27 million men were eligible for the draft (ages 18–26 during the war).

• More than half (~15–16 million) received deferments, exemptions, or disqualifications (student, medical, hardship, etc.) — legal ways to avoid service.

you are desperately trying to defend the indefensible, but be my guest, keep trying

4 hours ago, gargamon said:

Being Canadian it's somewhat entertaining to watch the US implode in real time though.

Canada is not too far away from an implosion too.

The feuding interests are always bubbling below the surface

Just now, Mavideol said:

you are desperately trying to defend the indefensible, but be my guest, keep trying

You are obviously in cloud cuckoo land, Trump was one of 4 Presidents and around 15 million men who didn't go to Vietnam and that's all you got?? Where is a REAL rebuttal??

Go for it!

15 hours ago, Fact said:

They dodged the draft.

In addition to honoring these brave men and women, I hope that President Biden and former presidents Bush and Clinton reflected on the fact that some who are buried at Arlington are there because they — like Trump — avoided being drafted in 1968. Therefore, someone who probably could not afford college, or have the background or connections, had to go into the Army.

https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/21/dodging-and-deferring-trump-wasnt-the-only-potus-to-avoid-the-draft/

besides Trump nobody else claimed the "cheap excuse" of bone spurs, all other had well know medical issues or REAL education/student deferment

1 minute ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

You are obviously in cloud cuckoo land, Trump was one of 4 Presidents and around 15 million men who didn't go to Vietnam and that's all you got?? Where is REAL rebuttal??

Go for it!

Trump was excused from carrying a gun by a friend doctor, try Google......😉

Just now, Mavideol said:

besides Trump nobody else claimed the "cheap excuse" of bone spurs, all other had well know medical issues or REAL education/student deferment

Such as asthma when working as a lifeguard you mean?

2 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Such as asthma when working as a lifeguard you mean?

You're a lifeguard......?

31 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Canada is not too far away from an implosion too.

The feuding interests are always bubbling below the surface

You're on about Alberta separation? Never going to happen. Another right wing wet dream

On 1/25/2026 at 11:51 AM, BritManToo said:

Maybe he's just tired of the toddlers posting Trump hate threads like the rest of us.

Yes, clearly some people have far too much time on their hands and have nothing better to do than post THS.

On 1/25/2026 at 8:41 AM, Gandtee said:

You have been brainwashed by your ignorant, disrespectful draft-dodging specimen of a President. I'm sure most sane Americans are hiding their faces in embarrassment. He has succeeded in making the USA the most disliked and untrustworthy nation in the world. With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?

And I think Trump is a laughing stock.

I work with a Chinese lady recently moved here to Bangkok and if a photo of Trump comes up on the computer she starts to laugh.

She said he is a joke to people in China and she said the joke was NSFW;

so I don't know exactly what it is.

On 1/24/2026 at 1:31 PM, blaze master said:

Can someone explain the difference between this thread and the 14 million others about Trump ?

Can we not just consolidate all these hate threads into one.

Ps....no that doesn't mean I support Trump......but im sure someone will froth in soon telling me what my political beliefs are.

BRAVO!

On 1/24/2026 at 1:26 PM, Mavideol said:

by now the majority of us here know what type of President Trump is, but some around the world also know and agree with us and the worse part of it, the draft dodger decided to insult the NATO military that served and got wounded and/or killed in Afghanistan, no respect for anybody dead or alive, what a disgrace, how can anyybody support or respect the moron

Donald 'dodged draft five times' during the Vietnam War in 1960s

Harry joins the backlash after Trump's slur that British troops hid from danger in Afghanistan

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/harry-joins-the-backlash-after-trump-s-slur-that-british-troops-hid-from-danger-in-afghanistan/ar-AA1UQVV8?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=69742d268bed4792afe8d5db57a00958&ei=60

We Have A Toddler As President": Trump Just Shared A Message About This Weekend's Massive Snowstorms That's Really...Something

Yahoo News

"We Have A Toddler As President": Trump Just Shared A Mes...

"BREAKING: Trump is an imbecile..."

You can disagree strongly with Trump without dehumanizing people who support him. If we care about standards in leadership, that includes how we talk about each other. Respect for military service and for political disagreement shouldn’t depend on party.

Calling him a “moron” or “toddler” might feel good, but it doesn’t persuade anyone. If the criticism is strong, it should be able to stand on facts without name-calling. You can disagree with President Trump’s policies, but the constant name-calling (“moron,” “toddler,” etc.) just makes the your discussion look frivolous.

Political debate is fair game. But when discussion turns into pure contempt for half the electorate, it stops being debate and becomes tribalism. That doesn’t help anyone. It’s interesting how quickly “tolerance” disappears when conservatives are involved. You can criticize Trump’s words or decisions — that’s fair game — but constant name-calling just signals that the debate is emotional, not factual. The level of hostility toward conservatives here demonstrates the left's boring playbook of shaming techniques that try to suppress the speech of conservatives like: moral framing, association with extremism, labeling & branding, withholding facts so to change the context of a story, fact-checking & “misinformation” labeling, media gatekeeping (look it up).

Supporting Trump doesn’t make someone stupid or immoral. It just means they prioritize different policies. MILLIONS support him because of policies — border security, economic record, foreign policy — not because we think he’s perfect. If we’re going to debate, let’s debate substance. Again, many of us support him because of policies: border enforcement, economic performance before COVID, pushing NATO countries to contribute more, and a different approach to foreign policy. Voters support Trump because his administration increased defense spending, pushed NATO members to meet funding commitments, cut taxes, regaining control over immigration, exercising the duties of the Federal government specified in the Constitution, reduced regulations, and presided over strong pre-COVID economic numbers... all very important to realists. Those are policy reasons why millions supported him.

The narrative that Trump “hates the military” doesn’t match reality. His administration increased defense spending and pushed NATO members to meet funding commitments. You can argue about style, but the record on military funding and pressure on allies is clear. On the NATO/Afghanistan issue — British, American, and allied forces fought and died together. That deserves respect across the board.

The draft deferments were legal and common at the time — including for people who later became critics. If we’re going to judge 1960s deferments, that standard would apply to a lot of public figures. Let’s not pretend this is unique to Trump. The “draft dodger” line gets repeated a lot, but it leaves out context. During the Vietnam era, draft deferments — for education or medical reasons — were legal and widely used across the political spectrum. Singling Trump out as if he uniquely invented the system isn’t accurate.

More importantly, voters in 2016 and 2020 weren’t deciding who served in the 1960s — they were deciding on policies: the economy, immigration, trade, foreign policy, and national security. You can disagree with those policies, but reducing everything to a half-century-old deferment feels more like a talking point than a serious argument. If Vietnam-era deferments are now the moral standard for public office, that would apply to a long list of politicians and public figures — not just Trump. It was a controversial system, yes, but it was the law at the time and widely used. It’s fair to criticize decisions made while in office. But using a 1960s deferment as a substitute for debating actual policy feels more like partisan shorthand than a serious critique.

I say again: On the draft issue: Vietnam-era deferments were legal and widely used. Trump received student and medical deferments under the system that existed at the time. So did Democrats like Joe Biden (who received multiple student deferments and later a medical classification for asthma), Bill Clinton (student deferments while at Oxford), and Bernie Sanders (who sought conscientious objector status and was later classified 1-Y). If Vietnam deferments are the moral test for office, that standard would apply across party lines. When's the last time you heard about their deferments? NEVER! All of these leftist heroes whom received deferments or alternative classifications under the legal system at the time probably bumped into Trump in the waiting line.

4 minutes ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

You can disagree strongly with Trump without dehumanizing people who support him. If we care about standards in leadership, that includes how we talk about each other. Respect for military service and for political disagreement shouldn’t depend on party.

Calling him a “moron” or “toddler” might feel good, but it doesn’t persuade anyone. If the criticism is strong, it should be able to stand on facts without name-calling. You can disagree with President Trump’s policies, but the constant name-calling (“moron,” “toddler,” etc.) just makes the your discussion look frivolous.

Political debate is fair game. But when discussion turns into pure contempt for half the electorate, it stops being debate and becomes tribalism. That doesn’t help anyone. It’s interesting how quickly “tolerance” disappears when conservatives are involved. You can criticize Trump’s words or decisions — that’s fair game — but constant name-calling just signals that the debate is emotional, not factual. The level of hostility toward conservatives here demonstrates the left's boring playbook of shaming techniques that try to suppress the speech of conservatives like: moral framing, association with extremism, labeling & branding, withholding facts so to change the context of a story, fact-checking & “misinformation” labeling, media gatekeeping (look it up).

Supporting Trump doesn’t make someone stupid or immoral. It just means they prioritize different policies. MILLIONS support him because of policies — border security, economic record, foreign policy — not because we think he’s perfect. If we’re going to debate, let’s debate substance. Again, many of us support him because of policies: border enforcement, economic performance before COVID, pushing NATO countries to contribute more, and a different approach to foreign policy. Voters support Trump because his administration increased defense spending, pushed NATO members to meet funding commitments, cut taxes, regaining control over immigration, exercising the duties of the Federal government specified in the Constitution, reduced regulations, and presided over strong pre-COVID economic numbers... all very important to realists. Those are policy reasons why millions supported him.

The narrative that Trump “hates the military” doesn’t match reality. His administration increased defense spending and pushed NATO members to meet funding commitments. You can argue about style, but the record on military funding and pressure on allies is clear. On the NATO/Afghanistan issue — British, American, and allied forces fought and died together. That deserves respect across the board.

The draft deferments were legal and common at the time — including for people who later became critics. If we’re going to judge 1960s deferments, that standard would apply to a lot of public figures. Let’s not pretend this is unique to Trump. The “draft dodger” line gets repeated a lot, but it leaves out context. During the Vietnam era, draft deferments — for education or medical reasons — were legal and widely used across the political spectrum. Singling Trump out as if he uniquely invented the system isn’t accurate.

More importantly, voters in 2016 and 2020 weren’t deciding who served in the 1960s — they were deciding on policies: the economy, immigration, trade, foreign policy, and national security. You can disagree with those policies, but reducing everything to a half-century-old deferment feels more like a talking point than a serious argument. If Vietnam-era deferments are now the moral standard for public office, that would apply to a long list of politicians and public figures — not just Trump. It was a controversial system, yes, but it was the law at the time and widely used. It’s fair to criticize decisions made while in office. But using a 1960s deferment as a substitute for debating actual policy feels more like partisan shorthand than a serious critique.

I say again: On the draft issue: Vietnam-era deferments were legal and widely used. Trump received student and medical deferments under the system that existed at the time. So did Democrats like Joe Biden (who received multiple student deferments and later a medical classification for asthma), Bill Clinton (student deferments while at Oxford), and Bernie Sanders (who sought conscientious objector status and was later classified 1-Y). If Vietnam deferments are the moral test for office, that standard would apply across party lines. When's the last time you heard about their deferments? NEVER! All of these leftist heroes whom received deferments or alternative classifications under the legal system at the time probably bumped into Trump in the waiting line.

I wish more people would comment like this.