• 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!

[W:241]Trump Was Enraged by Funeral Cost for ‘F–king Mexican’ U.S. Soldier: Report

@Pyrite:
Again, a credible source. Stop trolling this thread.
Do you support trump's racism?
Do you support trump's reneging on his offer to pay for the funeral?
Cosmo said:
Do you support unicorns and sentient hockey pucks from the Andromeda Galaxy?
Click to expand...
Pyrite said:
@Pyrite:
Again, a credible source. Stop trolling this thread.
Do you support trump's racism?
Do you support trump's reneging on his offer to pay for the funeral?



In other words, yes, you do support trump's racism and his reneging on his promise to pay for the funeral.

Why is that? Are both the anti-Mexican-American racism and the cheating/reneging things you would do?
Click to expand...
ClaraD said:
He did it publicly. The parents said he hasn’t paid it. Are you calling her parents liars?
Click to expand...
ClaraD said:
He did it publicly. The parents said he hasn’t paid it. Are you calling her parents liars?
Click to expand...
Cosmo said:
If he did it publicly just post the video.

What violence is "permissible now?" What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Yes, he/she/they does support what trump has said and done.

How do we know? He/she/they has been asked these questions and has had opportunities to say, "No, I don't support trump's racist depiction of the American member of our military". Nor has @Cosmo said, "No, I don't support trump's offering to pay for the funeral but later reneging on his promise."

Clearly, @Cosmo supports trump and his actions re the dead American serviceperson.
 
Cosmo said:
This entire thread is based on a baseless claim by some "magazine." Can't you accept that? Why the need to drone on and on about magazines?

Of course I can answer it, but why would I? It would just enable your leftist attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Good I'm glad you've abandoned trying to substantiate this baseless claim.
Click to expand...
Geez. You should enter the Olympics as a "runner" as much as you run from questions.
Again, you make incorrect assumptions, but thanks for showing why Trump loves his "uneducated" base.
 
ElChupacabra said:
None of my responses were petulant. They were addressing the completely off base remarks you were making since none of them addressed what I actually said.
Click to expand...

Looks like someone's using big words they don't quite understand lol.
 
Pyrite said:
@Pyrite:
Again, a credible source. Stop trolling this thread.
Do you support trump's racism?
Do you support trump's reneging on his offer to pay for the funeral?





Yes, he/she/they does support what trump has said and done.

How do we know? He/she/they has been asked these questions and has had opportunities to say, "No, I don't support trump's racist depiction of the American member of our military". Nor has @Cosmo said, "No, I don't support trump's offering to pay for the funeral but later reneging on his promise."

Clearly, @Cosmo supports trump and his actions re the dead American serviceperson.
Click to expand...
@Cosmo is a rank amateur when trying to perform his TDS duties.
Trump
Defense
Syndrome.
He should take some lessons from some of his Maga brethren.
 
Pyrite said:
mediabiasfactcheck.com

How do you confirm that your sources use factual reporting and have high credibility?
Click to expand...
I prefer to stick to sources that have names and faces. Then I can actually check out who they are. It's not as convenient as citing some arbitrary .com site rating website, but I find it to be better.
 
Pyrite said:
mediabiasfactcheck.com

How do you confirm that your sources use factual reporting and have high credibility?
Click to expand...
Cosmo said:
I prefer to stick to sources that have names and faces. Then I can actually check out who they are. It's not as convenient as citing some arbitrary .com site rating website, but I find it to be better.
Click to expand...
Post #107

```````````````````````

So, you decide what is factual and what isn't, who has credibility and who doesn't.

Thanks for letting us know this.
 
Cosmo said:
I prefer to stick to sources that have names and faces. Then I can actually check out who they are. It's not as convenient as citing some arbitrary .com site rating website, but I find it to be better.
Click to expand...

The only face and name saying this didn’t happen is a spokesman who didn’t even work in the White House when this occurred. So is that face and name reliable?
 
Cosmo said:
What else does "People are only willing to speak under confidentiality agreements" mean?
Click to expand...
You conveniently omitted the context provided by the very next sentence. I was referring to INSIDERS, and I explained exactly WHY they would only be willing to speak with assurances of confidentiality.

Did you already watch the movie, "All The President's Men" ?? Trust me, it's worth it. Especially if you have a blind spot about how journalism works. And your questions would seem to indicate that you do.
 
Pyrite said:
Post #107

```````````````````````

So, you decide what is factual and what isn't, who has credibility and who doesn't.

Thanks for letting us know this.
Click to expand...
Well you literally asked me how I confirm something:
How do you confirm
Click to expand...
Emphasis yours. That sort of excludes any other answer I could possibly give to that question, doesn't it?

SCrider said:
what would satisfy you as proof?
Click to expand...
Let's start with something better than an anonymous source.

Questerr said:
The only face and name saying this didn’t happen is a spokesman who didn’t even work in the White House when this occurred. So is that face and name reliable?
Click to expand...
No clue. Never looked into who it was. But this does nothing to substantiate the left's accusations here.

MamboDervish said:
I was referring to INSIDERS
Click to expand...
Not really. You mentioned insiders later in your post, but at no point did you qualify "People" as "insiders" in your sentence. Not that this is relevant, since nobody established that these accusers are insiders to begin with.
 
Cosmo said:
Not really.
Click to expand...
Yes .... really!
Cosmo said:
You mentioned insiders later in your post, .....
Click to expand...
..... in the NEXT SENTENCE!
Cosmo said:
... but at no point did you qualify "People" as "insiders" in your sentence.
Click to expand...
Is English not your first language? You should demand a refund for those ESL courses. Or did you not finish them? Read it again. And again, until it makes sense. Or not.
Cosmo said:
Not that this is relevant, since nobody established that these accusers are insiders to begin with.
Click to expand...
?? So you think the direct quotes came from .... who? OUTSIDERS ??!!!??
(sigh)
🤦‍♂️

I think we're done here.
 
Questerr said:
It only exactly matches other things Trump has said regarding the military and verified by members of his senior administration.
Click to expand...
Shocking as this is to hear, this doesn't begin to plumb the depths of loathing and depravity that Trump is capable of descending to when it suits his purposes. I echo what many others have said: that Donald Trump does not possess a single redeeming quality but the reasons for God damning him to hell could fill a phone directory.
 
MamboDervish said:
Yes .... really!

..... in the NEXT SENTENCE!

Is English not your first language? You should demand a refund for those ESL courses. Or did you not finish them? Read it again. And again, until it makes sense. Or not.
Click to expand...
You wrote what you wrote. No use trying to revise it now.
MamboDervish said:
?? So you think the direct quotes came from .... who? OUTSIDERS ??!!!??
(sigh)
🤦‍♂️

I think we're done here.
Click to expand...
Who said they were direct quotes? Besides the Atlantic writer commenting on the anonymous supposed statements, I mean. All we know is someone working for the company keyed those statements in. That's all.

Geoist said:
If he is willing to outright insult POWs on camera in an interview, wtf is he willing to say behind closed doors??
Click to expand...
Are POWs your sacred cow or something? Is getting captured by the enemy a badge of honor to the left?
 
Cosmo said:
Well you literally asked me how I confirm something:

Emphasis yours. That sort of excludes any other answer I could possibly give to that question, doesn't it?


Let's start with something better than an anonymous source.


No clue. Never looked into who it was. But this does nothing to substantiate the left's accusations here.


Not really. You mentioned insiders later in your post, but at no point did you qualify "People" as "insiders" in your sentence. Not that this is relevant, since nobody established that these accusers are insiders to begin with.
Click to expand...
Bottom line remains the same: you decide for yourself what is factual reporting, what sources use factual reporting, which sources are credible.

What you believe is your standard.
 
Cosmo said:
You wrote what you wrote. No use trying to revise it now.

Who said they were direct quotes? Besides the Atlantic writer commenting on the anonymous supposed statements, I mean. All we know is someone working for the company keyed those statements in. That's all.


Are POWs your sacred cow or something? Is getting captured by the enemy a badge of honor to the left?
Click to expand...

It’s nice to the Right just be openly disdainful of the military and veterans. People like you and Trump are the reason why Active Duty military are polling positive for Harris.
 
Pyrite said:
Bottom line remains the same: you decide for yourself what is factual reporting, what sources use factual reporting, which sources are credible.

What you believe is your standard.
Click to expand...
I think for myself. You?

Questerr said:
disdainful of the military and veterans.
Click to expand...
Nope, POWs are the topic of discussion. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty, though!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
We all know why this has been published. The Latino vote is going big for President Trump so they are running shit like this.........
Click to expand...

Are you accusing The Atlantic of lying?
Or are you just angry because the thought of Latino voters learning the truth might cause problems for Trump in the voting booth and you just wish that family would go away?

Yeah, we DO all know why it's being published, it's being published because your hero hates the military and hates Mexican-Americans who serve IN the military even more.
It ought to be published, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
 
Questerr said:
So to be clear, we should all bookmark this post to link you back to it next time you support a conservative post based on anonymous sources, yes?
Click to expand...
Be my guest. If I do such a thing I should be called on it, I place no value on anonymous sources no matter the party they say to represent and if I do so it would be by mistake and I would endeavor correct it.
 
Pyrite said:
According to contemporaneous notes and interviews obtained by The Atlantic


It is:

Overall, we rate The Atlantic Left-Center Biased due to editorial positions and High for factual reporting based on excellent sourcing of information and a clean fact-check record.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Credibility Rating: HIGH
Click to expand...

Since the story is filtered through rolling stone it’s a failure.

Cosmo said:
Oh wow sounds reliable!
Click to expand...
It’s not…

www.bbc.com

Rolling Stone and journalist found guilty over false Virginia rape story

Rolling Stone magazine and a journalist are found guilty of defamation over a false rape story.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Cosmo said:
I think for myself. You?


Nope, POWs are the topic of discussion. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty, though!
Click to expand...
Um no, they aren’t. The OP is about a soldier murdered by a fellow soldier on base (Ft Hood) while Trump was in office.
 
@Cosmo here. Now he offered to pay. Why hasn’t he?
If he did, it should be easy to prove. He’d have a cancelled check or bank statement showing a $60,000 payment. The military and other donations paid her funeral costs. You going to admit he offered to pay and failed once again to do so?

Vanessa Guillen's family says funeral has not yet happened, President Trump offers to pay

WASHINGTON, D.C. - President Trump told the family of murdered Fort Hood soldier Vanessa Guillen on Thursday that he would help them get her remains and also offered to help with funeral costs.
sylviagarcia.house.gov sylviagarcia.house.gov
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom