• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Trump's purported remarks about the troops disqualifying?

Are Trump's purported remarks about the troops disqualifying?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 78.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 19.5%
  • Depends

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    41
Bolton is not one of the sources. He cannot nullify their story by having not heard what they heard.
He’s a source that was there on the day the incident happened. Who are the other sources? Don’t you think that’s important to know?
 
Well they should be disqualifying. So should the "grabbing" remark from 2016 just before the election. But 60 million voters or so will put up with anything from him.
 
I think about 90% of us agree his actions in office is reason for his removal.

As to his private life?

Some of the nicest men have been the ****tiest presidents.

Carter
Grant

I'll take a scoundrel if he performs the job well.

FDR
Bill Clinton

Then there is Warren G. Harding - "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here."

i think that 90% is a bit optimistic. even if you dismiss the election interference professionals who have infested article comments and social media, there are still a lot of loyalists.
 
And there he is, the most powerful politician in the entire world and head of the most powerful military force ever built and you are discrediting him because of comments he allegedly said three years ago.
Your criticism carries a lot of weight in this picture.

thanks for sharing your opinion.
 
If grabbing women by the genitals isn't disqualifying, I can't see this being disqualifying. djt's cult of personality doesn't care about anything their Dear Leader does.

Of course it's not disqualifying to the stooges. Nothing is. It's disqualifying for the position of CIC. A Commander is responsible for the care of his troops. If he thinks they're suckers and losers, he's not fit to be Commander in Chief.
 
Not a resounding refutation, if you ask me!


John Bolton Says Trump's Remarks on Military Are Despicable - Bloomberg

Careful, you’ll soil that moniker.......

From the interview:
“I didn’t hear him say those things,” he said, adding later he probably would have included the remarks in his book if he had. “Now, did he say those things to other people later in the day? It’s certainly possible.”

Asked whether Trump has high regard for the military, Bolton said, “I don’t think he really holds anybody in high regard except his family.”
 
Well they should be disqualifying. So should the "grabbing" remark from 2016 just before the election. But 60 million voters or so will put up with anything from him.

If this isn’t true, it is proof that the media is dividing America.

I wonder if this is another lie CNN will repeat over and over until liberals accept it as truth.
 
If this isn’t true, it is proof that the media is dividing America.

I wonder if this is another lie CNN will repeat over and over until liberals accept it as truth.

It's a poll - it's asking for opinion, not the 'truth'.

In a perfect world it is my opinion and that of many, that a comment like this should turn the entire electorate off the president. The poll fairly well shows that. However we do not live in that perfect world and a lot of his supporters are willing to forgive comments like this, and others.

Nothing to do with 'CNN'.
 
It's a poll - it's asking for opinion, not the 'truth'.

In a perfect world it is my opinion and that of many, that a comment like this should turn the entire electorate off the president. The poll fairly well shows that. However we do not live in that perfect world and a lot of his supporters are willing to forgive comments like this, and others.

Nothing to do with 'CNN'.

Reread your post.

You are purposely spreading misinformation.

Look at the OP. If this is true, should it be disqualifying? Regarding a statement a Trump never even made.

This is a maliciously clever method of defaming Trump, without even having to prove that he actually made any statements like this.

The liberal media is dividing and destroying our country, not Trump.
 
This is the same old **** you guys always have. I just answered a post in another thread to someone who said something about Trump allegedly over something and here you come along on cue saying "purported". How could "purported" anything disqualify you from anything?

If it's confirmed, is it disqualifying?

I know it's unthinkable Trump would disparage the troops, certainly he's never done that in the past. :) I'm asking if the remarks described are disqualifying.
 
Is Griffin a Trump hater?
Are the key details of a story confirmed by multiple outlets, including Fox News, the same thing as gossip?


From the FOX News WH reporter John Roberts who is not a Trump fan btw:


@AmbJohnBolton told me today that if @realDonaldTrump had said he didn’t want to visit Aisne-Marne because the interred heroes were “losers” and “suckers”, he would have written an entire chapter about it in his book #TheRoomWhereItHappened

5:05 PM · Sep 4, 2020·Twitter for iPhone


I'll let Jen respond to this more fully. We co-ordinated our reporting tonight on @SpecialReport. She specifically reported that her sources had NOT confirmed "the most salacious part" of the Atlantic article about POTUS calling war dead at Aisne-Marnes "losers" and "suckers"

5:38 PM · Sep 4, 2020·Twitter Web App
 
I hate Trump, and I think he probably said that. Nevertheless, unless these anonymous come forward and identify themselves this seems like shoddy journalism.
 
If it's confirmed, is it disqualifying?

If it's confirmed that Biden is clinically senile, would that be disqualifying?

If it's confirmed that Pelosi is a member of the mafia, would that be disqualifying?

Do you have any problem with the phrasing of these questions lol? If we started up a thread on each one?
 
You are purposely spreading misinformation.

Look at the OP. If this is true, should it be disqualifying? Regarding a statement a Trump never even made.

This is a maliciously clever method of defaming Trump, without even having to prove that he actually made any statements like this.

I don't think kicking around ideas on an internet forum qualifies as 'spreading misinformation.' Not much 'spreads' from DP in any case.

So now this horse***t ad-hominem attempt is out of the way...If it is true, then it appears, many think it should be disqualifying. That's the first conditional for grammar nerds, not a statement of fact.

We were invited to give our opinion based on the assumption that he did make these comments. There are corroborating sources, he's done it before and it would not be out of character at all. that makes it a reasonable assumption, that's all and for that purpose a hypothesis used as the basis of the question.

As for 'defaming' Twump, he does that to himself every time he opens his own fat orange mouth.
 
I don't think kicking around ideas on an internet forum qualifies as 'spreading misinformation.' Not much 'spreads' from DP in any case.

So now this horse***t ad-hominem attempt is out of the way...If it is true, then it appears, many think it should be disqualifying. That's the first conditional for grammar nerds, not a statement of fact.

We were invited to give our opinion based on the assumption that he did make these comments. There are corroborating sources, he's done it before and it would not be out of character at all. that makes it a reasonable assumption, that's all and for that purpose a hypothesis used as the basis of the question.

As for 'defaming' Twump, he does that to himself every time he opens his own fat orange mouth.

So you wouldn't have an issue with me starting a poll based on Nancy Pelosi's father being investigated for mafia connections? And asking people that if it's proven that Pelosi had knowledge of hits being ordered on people, should she lose her position? Hypothetically?

What if the thread turned into 20 pages of discussion of the Pelosi family and the mafia?
 
He’s a source that was there on the day the incident happened. Who are the other sources? Don’t you think that’s important to know?

I don't need to know their names. The story was vetted by a respected news outlet, and supported by the AP. Insisting on names seems like you want to play Trump's HOAX game.
 
I don't need to know their names. The story was vetted by a respected news outlet, and supported by the AP. Insisting on names seems like you want to play Trump's HOAX game.

A respected news outlet vetted the story that the Pelosi family has mafia connections.

Next thing we know you will be calling the Pelosi-Mafia story a HOAX.
 
A respected news outlet vetted the story that the Pelosi family has mafia connections.

Next thing we know you will be calling the Pelosi-Mafia story a HOAX.

Could you please name the respected news outlet ....
 
So you wouldn't have an issue with me starting a poll based on Nancy Pelosi's father being investigated for mafia connections? And asking people that if it's proven that Pelosi had knowledge of hits being ordered on people, should she lose her position? Hypothetically?

What if the thread turned into 20 pages of discussion of the Pelosi family and the mafia?

Don't mind at all. My ego isn't tied to Pelosi.
 
If anything said by Trump mattered to roughly 50% of voters then he would never have been elected in the 1st place. Trump is void of any quality that would make him a decent person. The worse he gets...the deeper his base digs in to defend him while excusing behavior they would never tolerate from anyone else. Standards have now been set so freaking low by the right that anyone in the GoP both past and present who demostrates even a tiny shred of decency is called a rino.
 
He hasn't just said things I don't like. He has publicly said things which are similar to what he is alleged to have said in private. That's what makes it so easy to believe he said the private things. We have already heard very similar things from him.

And his supporters have already shrugged their shoulders.


But he thanks you for playing along and pretending that there's some good reason to believe that he didn't say in private things which were very similar to what he has said in public. Eventually there will be more concrete evidence and he'll need you to move to the "sure he said it, but so what" stage. And I'm sure you'll be johnny on the spot then too.


Present a credible source of his alleged, purported, supposed remarks from someone who was there when he said what you would like to believe he said.
If no one who was there is willing to take an oath and give you bloodsuckers what you want to see and hear , then what good is hearsay and 'he said, he said'?
More fake news to feed the rabid anti-Trumpers who couldn't be any more rabid leading up to November.
 
I don't think it's dirty politics to air the CIC's opinions about fallen soldiers. I doubt The Atlantic would publish such a story without strong substantiation. It's reputation is that it is Highly Factual. The AP has substantiated the reporting. You also have to deal with the fact that this statement of Trump's is not exactly shocking in light of public comments he has made.


If you have such faith in the factual reporting in The Atlantic, then why haven't "the anonymous sources" come out and identified themselves to defend their claims? Why hide in the shadows?
Would you swear those sources are telling the truth based on how much you hate Trump?


"However, despite other media outlets "confirming" the reporting of The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, a story this explosive and so close to the 2020 election is getting intense scrutiny from members of the mainstream media.

"Since Trump is now denying what ⁦@JeffreyGoldbertg has reported, his sources have a duty to go on the record and tell the voters first-hand what they saw and heard," Washington Post columnist Max Boot declared."


Anonymous sources in The Atlantic'''s Donald Trump bombshell urged to go on the record | Fox News
 
It’s awful convenient for it to come out now. It has the smell of a setup. If you believe Nancy Pelosi was set up I don’t see it as unimaginable for this to be a setup also. How many people debunking the story do you require before thinking that maybe he didn’t say it?

In the case of this particular Trump-hater, probably 4,322 people coming out to debunk this scurrilous story.
Some others may require more debunkers.
 
Back
Top Bottom