• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump’s alleged comments about ‘losers’ buried in military cemeteries leave military leaders off bal

Top Cat said:
Trump's vindictiveness is why. Ask Col. Vindman. Career over.
Click to expand...

Col. Vindman, retired, of his own accord. After 21 years of service with a helluva nice pension.....
 
sjmay said:
Col. Vindman, retired, of his own accord. After 21 years of service with a helluva nice pension.....
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
Top Cat said:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...

Which part don't you believe, that Vindman retired after 21 years, or he has one helluva pension?
 
vegas giants said:
This looks really bad for trump. It is,exploding
Click to expand...

This is fading away, like the false, debunked, made up story that it was. People, on the record, who were there, confirm it didn't happen. Zero people on the record saying it did.

Count yourself among the low information types if you are dumb enough to believe one shred of this. This is a story meant for you!

But, don't despair, they will be rolling these out on a regular basis until the election. I'm guessing they are getting worried about the black vote, so they may be rushing out the "Trump hates blacks" story sooner than planned.
 
AlphaOmega said:
He didnt. Four sources my ass....you couldn't even name one. I'm going to necro this thread in two weeks just to rub it in. lol
Click to expand...

All five sources have been named in this thread. You've simply ignored them. I'll make them easier for you to read.

Top Cat said:
AP, The Atlantic, WAPO, CNN, and even Trump's own network, the original Fake News all confirm it.

And you know damned well it is perfectly in character.
Click to expand...
 
AlphaOmega said:
I'm trying. Wait... Look.... I revived it! Here, I'll put an IV in...
Trump never said this. It was fake news.
Click to expand...

You really should be more honest. Trump did say it. This has been pretty well corroborated, the Atlantic has never failed a fact check, and Trump has a long track record of disparaging the military, this is not news.

The real truth, however, is you simply don't care. It's like hearing bad things about your girlfriend, even if true, it will not affect your attitude about Trump, so you don't want to hear it. We get it.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You really should be more honest. Trump did say it. This has been pretty well corroborated
Click to expand...

Really?

We now have four named, confirmed sources, two with specific government credentials, confirming that the thesis of the story is false.

Including both John Bolton and John Kelly’s aide.
 
sjmay said:
Col. Vindman, retired, of his own accord. After 21 years of service with a helluva nice pension.....
Click to expand...

A 20 year military pension is no where near as good as a 30 year pension .... and, if you love what you do, you don't want to be forced from the position, pension or not. Yes, Col. Vindman deserves a tear of sympathy.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Really?

We now have four named, confirmed sources, two with specific government credentials, confirming that the thesis of the story is false.

Including both John Bolton and John Kelly’s aide.
Click to expand...

Complete wishful thinking on your part. Those people merely said they did not hear specific comments that are components to the story. Neither one of those people were in a real position to deny the whole story. They could only comment on not hearing some elements of it, which actually means nothing. They only offered you some flimsy evidence of doubt and feed your hunger for straws, which is what you are grasping for. The story substantially true as written and is completely consistent with things Trump has said in the past and consistent with much that has been written about Trump.

Same criticism of you --- you simply don't want to hear it because it doesn't matter to you. You would support Trump if he shot someone in cold blood on 5th Avenue, or let 200,000 died needlessly because he was too much of a coward to tackle a pandemic. It doesn't matter to you what Trump thinks of the military, if it did, you would not be behaving you are. Stop kidding yourself with your feigned outrage and stop with your disingenuous posts. Trump's character does not matter to you.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Complete wishful thinking on your part. Those people merely said they did not hear specific comments that are components to the story. They did not do anything but add some flimsy evidence of doubt and feed your hunger for straws, which is what you are grasping for. The story substantially true as written and is completely consistent with things Trump has said in the past and consistent with much that has been written about Trump.

Same criticism of you --- you simply don't want to hear it because it doesn't matter to you. You would support Trump if he shot someone in cold blood on 5th Avenue, or let 200,000 died needlessly because he was too much of a coward to tackle a pandemic. Stop kidding yourself with your feigned outrage.
Click to expand...

Lol you’re giving that anonymous source a whole lot of credit.

Any impartial observer would weigh the evidence on both sides and laugh themselves silly about The Atlantic’s claim.

When you all were planning your September surprise, you should have gone with an accusation that had some proof in it, like a hot mike or emails.

This sure was scraping the bottom of the barrell.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol you’re giving that anonymous source a whole lot of credit.

Any impartial observer would weigh the evidence on both sides and laugh themselves silly about The Atlantic’s claim.

When you all were planning your September surprise, you should have gone with an accusation that had some proof in it, like a hot mike or emails.

This sure was scraping the bottom of the barrell.
Click to expand...

Thanks goodness the right is now taking this principled stand against anonymous sources. No doubt they will apply it impartially and across the board, as their newfound devotion to sources outing themselves (to face the wrath of captain bone spurs) requires. At a minimum, QAnon is done, right?
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol you’re giving that anonymous source a whole lot of credit.

Any impartial observer would weigh the evidence on both sides and laugh themselves silly about The Atlantic’s claim.

When you all were planning your September surprise, you should have gone with an accusation that had some proof in it, like a hot mike or emails.

This sure was scraping the bottom of the barrell.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way... what separates the Atlantic story from a completely made up, bogus lie by the left to damage Trump? Answer; nothing.

And what about the counter that he said no such thing? Named, actual witnesses, some of whom hate Trump.

Debate over.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Lol you’re giving that anonymous source a whole lot of credit.

Any impartial observer would weigh the evidence on both sides and laugh themselves silly about The Atlantic’s claim.

When you all were planning your September surprise, you should have gone with an accusation that had some proof in it, like a hot mike or emails.

This sure was scraping the bottom of the barrell.
Click to expand...

You don't understand polling and you don't understand investigative journalism (if you understood the later, you would know that anonymous sources are a keystone to investigative journalism, but the profession has methods to ensure journalistic integrity), yet it doesn't stop you from commenting on either. The result is a lot ignorant posts on your part that frankly contribute nothing here.

There is much you have missed in your education. I suggest you read more, listen more and focus your posting on things you know something about.

Here. Study up!

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources | FiveThirtyEight
How Do We Verify Anonymous Sources? — ProPublica
9 things to know about anonymous sources | MPR News
The Risk of Unnamed Sources? Unconvinced Readers - The New York Times
https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/518/9/5189-SFChronicle anonymous source policy.pdf
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/637176285/according-to-anonymous-sources
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
All five sources have been named in this thread. You've simply ignored them. I'll make them easier for you to read.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask for thread links. If you have the names enter them here and stop link hiding.:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5*)
 
upsideguy said:
You really should be more honest. Trump did say it. This has been pretty well corroborated, the Atlantic has never failed a fact check, and Trump has a long track record of disparaging the military, this is not news.

The real truth, however, is you simply don't care. It's like hearing bad things about your girlfriend, even if true, it will not affect your attitude about Trump, so you don't want to hear it. We get it.
Click to expand...

If so then prove it. Until then what you have here is pee pee tapes exist part II. The media has already dropped it. Enjoy.
 
upsideguy said:
You don't understand polling and you don't understand investigative journalism (if you understood the later, you would know that anonymous sources are a keystone to investigative journalism, but the profession has methods to ensure journalistic integrity), yet it doesn't stop you from commenting on either. The result is a lot ignorant posts on your part that frankly contribute nothing here.

There is much you have missed in your education. I suggest you read more, listen more and focus your posting on things you know something about.

Here. Study up!

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources | FiveThirtyEight
How Do We Verify Anonymous Sources? — ProPublica
9 things to know about anonymous sources | MPR News
The Risk of Unnamed Sources? Unconvinced Readers - The New York Times
https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/518/9/5189-SFChronicle anonymous source policy.pdf
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/637176285/according-to-anonymous-sources
Click to expand...

One named source like Bolton trumps your four cowardly anonymous sources. Sorry, it didnt happen. Better luck on your next smear job.
 
chuckiechan said:
The story has been debunked as simply porn for TDS’ers.

What I don’t hear is Biden in front of a real reporter asking real questions like: “What are you going to do about it?”
Click to expand...

Tell me why this is the first republican incumbent president that is under water with the military vote. It's unheard of in modern times. Donald Trump fu**s up everything he touches.
 
Fletch said:
One named source like Bolton trumps your four cowardly anonymous sources. Sorry, it didnt happen. Better luck on your next smear job.
Click to expand...

Bolton, the one who refused to testify, instead holding out for profit from a book. Zero credibility. I used to hate Bolton because of his politics. I hate him even more for the stunt he pulled during the impeachment trial.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Bolton, the one who refused to testify, instead holding out for profit from a book. Zero credibility. I used to hate Bolton because of his politics. I hate him even more for the stunt he pulled during the impeachment trial.
Click to expand...

What gives Bolton credibility is two things, 1) he was there when it happened 2) he hates Trump. If Trump had said this Bolton would tell the world. And the simple fact is, you cannot judge the credibility of someone who chooses to remain anonymous. And if you are going to accuse the president of the United States of something like this, you need to come forward and not hide in the shadows
 
Fletch said:
What gives Bolton credibility is two things, 1) he was there when it happened 2) he hates Trump. If Trump had said this Bolton would tell the world. And the simple fact is, you cannot judge the credibility of someone who chooses to remain anonymous. And if you are going to accuse the president of the United States of something like this, you need to come forward and not hide in the shadows
Click to expand...

We can judge Trump's credibility though. And his history.

Bill Barr and Trump can insist vote by mail is filled with fraud and when asked for evidence, all Barr would say is "logic".

But: we need 1000 named, polygraphed witnesses before we are allowed to entertain the idea that s rich elitist softboy **** on people serving.
 
Top Cat said:
FFS, everyone else is lying. Ask Col. Vindman about going public.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are more people who said it never happened, but, of course you’ll believe anything anti Trump.
 
X Factor said:
Actually, there are more people who said it never happened, but, of course you’ll believe anything anti Trump.
Click to expand...

You mean all of his employees have said he “couldnt” have said it because of all the respect and admiration he has for the military.*

*Except POWs. And war dead. And pilots shot down. And the troops who have been murdered by Putin’s bounties. Soldiers suffering from head injuries.**



**I really could keep going. I don’t know that our U.S. Military can survive another 4 years of Trump’s love and admiration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom