American war dead are "Losers and Suckers," per Trump

[1972 Grad]

It’s not a trick question . Is there proof he said it or are you just assuming based on emotional outrage ?

He is suffering from an advanced stage of TDS.

 

[0nelilreb]

Direct evidence would be witnesses saying he said it. Anonymous sources say he said it. That's proof. The question is whether you want give that proof any weight. You don't, you won't. Once he's out of power, the sources will probably come forward with their names, but don't want to lose their jobs atm.

The video shows him using strikingly similar language against a powerful political opponent/colleague on television. That's called circumstantial evidence. It's evidence of circumstances that tend to support indirectly what the anonymous sources said. It is also evidence. What's most striking is that he would say something about McCain like that despite the blow back it would cause him. So, if he would say terrible things like that against a known powerful politician on TV, what's to stop him from saying it about a bunch of long-dead sharecroppers in private?

The dude is creep with no morality who believes that the poor are "losers and suckers". He's the same silver spoon big city rich boy that republican voters hated 10 years ago but now are lining up to shine his shoes.

Emotional outrage on your part, the medias part or unverified sources not willing to go on record .. is NOT proof of anything . That’s called election year propaganda.

 

[SamRebel35]

Direct evidence would be witnesses saying he said it. Anonymous sources say he said it. That's proof. The question is whether you want give that proof any weight. You don't, you won't. Once he's out of power, the sources will probably come forward with their names, but don't want to lose their jobs atm.

The video shows him using strikingly similar language against a powerful political opponent/colleague on television. That's called circumstantial evidence. It's evidence of circumstances that tend to support indirectly what the anonymous sources said. It is also evidence. What's most striking is that he would say something about McCain like that despite the blow back it would cause him. So, if he would say terrible things like that against a known powerful politician on TV, what's to stop him from saying it about a bunch of long-dead sharecroppers in private?

The dude is creep with no morality who believes that the poor are "losers and suckers". He's the same silver spoon big city rich boy that republican voters hated 10 years ago but now are lining up to shine his shoes.

The video does NOT show him using similar language. He calls McCain a loser in a context that has nothing to do with his war record. He was literally a loser in that he lost the election. Then he literally calls the man a war hero. Cracking a tacky joke later is not similar to what he is accused of saying. It is a stretch.

 

[Ashevolle]

The video does NOT show him using similar language. He calls McCain a loser in a context that has nothing to do with his war record. He was literally a loser in that he lost the election. Then he literally calls the man a war hero. Cracking a tacky joke later is not similar to what he is accused of saying. It is a stretch.

The tacky joke is tantamount to challenging the assertion that he's a war hero. It's clearly a jab.

 

[SamRebel35]

The tacky joke is tantamount to challenging the assertion that he's a war hero. It's clearly a jab.

Obviously a jab at a political opponent. And tacky to boot. But it isn't the same as what he is accused of saying about people who he has no reason to dislike.

 

[Ashevolle]

Emotional outrage on your part, the medias part or unverified sources not willing to go on record .. is NOT proof of anything . That’s called election year propaganda.

In the court of public opinion, it's all the same. And **** flies in both directions.

Plus, it's September. October surprises are just being teased at this point. You're gonna have to wait like everyone else.

 

[Ashevolle]

Obviously a jab at a political opponent. And tacky to boot. But it isn't the same as what he is accused of saying about people who he has no reason to dislike.

One doesn't prove the other, I agree. However, it shows me that he's the kind of person who might say something like that. He doesn't care about those soldiers. The question is whether he is dumb enough to say stuff like that. I think the video shows he lacks common sense restraint.

 

[Orangeslice13]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4604...republican-national-convention-keynote-speech

I remember that speach.
I remember not casting a vote for president at all partly because of it.
As I’ve gotten older my family has become way more important than my crumbling party

 

[lawgator1]

The video does NOT show him using similar language. He calls McCain a loser in a context that has nothing to do with his war record. He was literally a loser in that he lost the election. Then he literally calls the man a war hero. Cracking a tacky joke later is not similar to what he is accused of saying. It is a stretch.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

So if I understand you correctly, you are snipping out the words "He was a war hero..." and ignoring the rest to try to claim that he actually complimented the man?.

 

[SamRebel35]

So if I understand you correctly, you are snipping out the words "He was a war hero..." and ignoring the rest to try to claim that he actually complimented the man?.

Looks like you're doing a little snipping there too. He says "He is a war hero" twice. Once to correct himself and then again before he adds "because he was captured". Which is true. That is literally why he is considered a hero. Then he made his tacky joke.

 

[hog88]

Direct evidence would be witnesses saying he said it. Anonymous sources say he said it. That's proof. The question is whether you want give that proof any weight. You don't, you won't. Once he's out of power, the sources will probably come forward with their names, but don't want to lose their jobs atm.

The video shows him using strikingly similar language against a powerful political opponent/colleague on television. That's called circumstantial evidence. It's evidence of circumstances that tend to support indirectly what the anonymous sources said. It is also evidence. What's most striking is that he would say something about McCain like that despite the blow back it would cause him. So, if he would say terrible things like that against a known powerful politician on TV, what's to stop him from saying it about a bunch of long-dead sharecroppers in private?

The dude is creep with no morality who believes that the poor are "losers and suckers". He's the same silver spoon big city rich boy that republican voters hated 10 years ago but now are lining up to shine his shoes.

Anonymous = zero proof without physical evidence.

 

[hog88]

In the court of public opinion, it's all the same. And **** flies in both directions.

Plus, it's September. October surprises are just being teased at this point. You're gonna have to wait like everyone else.

I will not be surprised at new allegations by anonymous sources.

 

[Hunerwadel]

I will not be surprised at new allegations by anonymous sources.

I'll be surprised if they are anonymous for long. I can understand why they wouldn't come out though. The names addresses and phone numbers of family members might be posted all over the internet and open them up to harassment.

 

[hog88]

I'll be surprised if they are anonymous for long. I can understand why they wouldn't come out though. The names addresses and phone numbers of family members might be posted all over the internet and open them up to harassment.

Amazing how some sources have stayed anonymous for 4 years now.

 

[1972 Grad]

I will not be surprised at new allegations by anonymous sources.

I mean it's obvious that he would hate the military, and men in uniform. Look at how he has has trashed the police, Border Patrol, I.C.E., the Space Force, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Secret Service, etc. The upper management of the FBI and the CIA deserve his criticism for conspiring against him. The others....not so much.

 

[volfanhill]

Looks like you're doing a little snipping there too. He says "He is a war hero" twice. Once to correct himself and then again before he adds "because he was captured". Which is true. That is literally why he is considered a hero. Then he made his tacky joke.

His heroic acts came about while he was a POW. He did some extremely admirable things while being one.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Amazing how some sources have stayed anonymous for 4 years now.

Something like 101 of 113 stories Bob Woodward published on Watergate were from anonymous sources. They all turned out to be true. (don't remember the exact numbers)

 

[SamRebel35]

His heroic acts came about while he was a POW. He did some extremely admirable things while being one.

Don't see where you're disagreeing with me or Trump.

 

[VolnJC]

This is what you guys get for putting trust in a confirmed liar like Goldberg

 

[volinsd]

I'll be surprised if they are anonymous for long. I can understand why they wouldn't come out though. The names addresses and phone numbers of family members might be posted all over the internet and open them up to harassment.

Harrassment of Repubs is happening to people just walking out of conventions. Harrassment is more the liberal style lately.

 

[Y9 Vol]

Something like 101 of 113 stories Bob Woodward published on Watergate were from anonymous sources. They all turned out to be true. (don't remember the exact numbers)

YGHN!!

 

[Hunerwadel]

Harrassment of Repubs is happening to people just walking out of conventions. Harrassment is more the liberal style lately.

There are plenty of a-holes on both sides.

 

[Hunerwadel]

YGHN!!

TGBTRNONYURT

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

My gut feeling is that these allegations are a mashup and blending of true comments mixed in with a few quotes taken out of context.

I'm certain Trump had bad things to say about McCain. I also think that Trump was probably doing what he normally does and speaks off the cuff and had a stream of consciousness moment... similar to the bleach/coronavirus comments that were taken out of context. I'm sure he probably questioned the purpose of Vietnam and some of these other wars, asking what the soldiers really died for. But in typical hater fashion, his enemies used those comments and spun them into a hit piece.

 

[volinsd]

There are plenty of a-holes holes on both sides.

You daggone right about that Huner!