Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

[azgreg]

 

[Nevada6077]

3 hours ago, azgreg said:

 

Not

that place is reserved for soldiers and not those with bone spurs

[smltwnrckr]

3 minutes ago, Nevada6077 said:

Not

that place is reserved for soldiers and not those with bone spurs

I'd personally dig up my grandfather and move him if trump somehow got buried there. 

[CPslograd]

Goddamn Trump is an asshole.

Politicians send troops to war, and appropriate funds for defense contractors.  Not generals or staffers at the Pentagon.

I get that the neocons are doing a full court hit job on him at the moment, but then lash out at the neocons, not the military.

 

[Guest #1Stunner]

15 hours ago, Akkula said:

This makes your spin job harder about Trump not attacking the military,  eh?

"White House tries to walk back Trump attack on Pentagon chiefs as beholden to arms dealers"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/white-house-walks-back-trump-attack-pentagon-chiefs/story%3fid=72877389

^^^ #TeamsAndShit

This story shouldn't even be about partisan politics...

Trump Boners unwilling to see this for what it is.   All hail the power of the WAR MACHINE.

This is a fake story, pushed by War Hawks, who don't want Trump to end our foreign wars (Democrats apparently on board with maintaining the war in Afghanistan, and aligning with the criminal Cheney family).

 

@East Coast Aztec.  Looks like we got people ensuring more wars...

[East Coast Aztec]

12 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

^^^ #TeamsAndShit

This story shouldn't even be about partisan politics...

Trump Boners unwilling to see this for what it is.   All hale the power of the WAR MACHINE.

This is a fake story, pushed by War Hawks, who don't want Trump to end our foreign wars (Democrats apparently on board with maintaining the war in Afghanistan, and aligning with the criminal Cheney family).

 

Trump is also a part of the war machine, and that also shouldn't be about partisan politics.  The truth is, him and Obama say the same lip service meanwhile, in succession, dropped more bombs than their predecessor, and are indirectly and directly responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.  Also like Obama, defense spending has increased under their presidencies.  They are one and the same, didn't start them, won't end them (but say they will).

[Guest #1Stunner]

9 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Trump is also a part of the war machine, and that also shouldn't be about partisan politics.  The truth is, him and Obama say the same lip service meanwhile, in succession, dropped more bombs than their predecessor, and are indirectly and directly responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.  Also like Obama, defense spending has increased under their presidencies.  They are one and the same, didn't start them, won't end them (but say they will).

Trump is definitely no saint, but he has a much better record on starting wars than Obama and obviously Bush, Clinton and Bush Sr....

But even besides that... The point is that the fake story (being celebrated by Trump Boners in this thread), about Trump supposedly bad mouthing WWI vets 30 months ago, should be very concerning as it is a lie told to manipulate the American public, and to maintain the war in Afghanistan.  Trump is clearly trying to get us out of that war.  The Democrats / Cheney family apparently want it to continue.  The WAR MACHINE goes with whichever side funds their government contracts (anonymous leaks of unverifiable stories).   We waste money on War instead of building America.

[East Coast Aztec]

7 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Trump is definitely no saint, but he has a much better record on starting wars than Obama and obviously Bush, Clinton and Bush Sr....

But even besides that... The point is that the fake story (being celebrated by Trump Boners in this thread), about Trump supposedly bad mouthing WWI vets 30 months ago, should be very concerning as it is a lie told to manipulate the American public, and to maintain the war in Afghanistan.  Trump is clearly trying to get us out of that war.  The Democrats / Cheney family apparently want it to continue.  The WAR MACHINE goes with whichever side funds their government contracts (anonymous leaks of unverifiable stories).   We waste money on War instead of building America.

Stop saying Democrats without saying Republicans.  Better yet, just say D.C.  They are all in on it.  Why you try and parse it out is beyond me.  And call me extremely skeptical on Trump trying to get out, even before this conversation that still hasn't been debunked, he could have and didn't.  It is only getting latched onto now because of this incident.  Trump has shown as much evidence as Obama of trying to get out.  All talk.  D.C. is D.C.  They are ALL in on it, even him.

[Guest #1Stunner]

3 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Stop saying Democrats without saying Republicans.  Better yet, just say D.C.  They are all in on it.  Why you try and parse it out is beyond me.  And call me extremely skeptical on Trump trying to get out, even before this conversation that still hasn't been debunked, he could have and didn't.  It is only getting latched onto now because of this incident.  Trump has shown as much evidence as Obama of trying to get out.  All talk.  D.C. is D.C.  They are ALL in on it, even him.

Both parties throw money at war machines and war.  Yes.  Republicans more so...

But bottom line, Trump's record is no new wars during that past 4 years, and a verifiable effort to end the Afghanistan war.  Also efforts to close military bases in Germany, and to spend less US money on funding NATO (make other countries pay their share).

Democrats (the majority party in the house) have ODDLY aligned with Republicans / the Cheney Mafia to stop that effort. Democrats are no longer the party of less military spending. SAD.  

 

It is clear from these anonymous sources that the Military Machine has picked the candidate they think won't end the 19 year long Afghanistan War, and it isn't Trump.  Keep the Trillions of Dollars flowing to the WAR MACHINES, Joe Biden.

[East Coast Aztec]

3 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Both parties throw money at war machines and war.  Yes.  Republicans more so...

But bottom line, Trump's record is no new wars during that past 4 years, and a verifiable effort to end the Afghanistan war.  Also efforts to close military bases in Germany, and to spend less US money on funding NATO (make other countries pay their share).

Democrats (the majority party in the house) have ODDLY aligned with Republicans / the Cheney Mafia to stop that effort. Democrats are no longer the party of less military spending. SAD.  

 

It is clear from these anonymous sources that the Military Machine has picked the candidate they think won't end the 19 year long Afghanistan War, and it isn't Trump.  Keep the Trillions of Dollars flowing to the WAR MACHINES, Joe Biden.

Again, it's D.C.  They have their owners, and the defense department is a main source for those leeches.  And Trump isn't without sin.  I am glad he is lowering troop levels (why there are any in Iraq is beyond me, and Afghanistan needs to be emptied too), but that is simple tempo.  I am guessing there is something behind the Germany base that has little to do with military (like not happy with German leaders).  And lest us not forget he showed up to praise himself for keeping the Tank plant churning with large contracts for stuff the Army said they didn't need.  Until we stop honoring contracts that bloat our supplies to unnecessary levels, until we right-size our military personnel and do away with jobs that are no longer needed, and we are out of the middle east in a fighting capacity, nothing has changed.  He still has a lot to show, and although he will once again promise this until November, his record is the same as the rest of the leech-lovers.  I hope it changes.  

[retrofade]

 

[smltwnrckr]

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

 

The interesting thing in this quote to me is more than it demonstrates his inability to grasp how much our military alliances relate to trade alliances. 

[THEUniversityofNevada]

On 9/3/2020 at 8:01 PM, retrofade said:

On Memorial Day 2017, Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery, a short drive from the White House. He was accompanied on this visit by John Kelly, who was then the secretary of homeland security, and who would, a short time later, be named the White House chief of staff. The two men were set to visit Section 60, the 14-acre area of the cemetery that is the burial ground for those killed in America’s most recent wars. Kelly’s son Robert is buried in Section 60. A first lieutenant in the Marine Corps, Robert Kelly was killed in 2010 in Afghanistan. He was 29. Trump was meant, on this visit, to join John Kelly in paying respects at his son’s grave, and to comfort the families of other fallen service members. But according to sources with knowledge of this visit, Trump, while standing by Robert Kelly’s grave, turned directly to his father and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” Kelly (who declined to comment for this story) initially believed, people close to him said, that Trump was making a ham-handed reference to the selflessness of America’s all-volunteer force. But later he came to realize that Trump simply does not understand non-transactional life choices.

John Kelly could easily kill this story by coming out and saying this account is false. 

[JADogs05]

On 9/8/2020 at 12:58 PM, #1Stunner said:

"Put things in their proper context" = spin.

Facts don't need context.

Removing facts from their factual context is one of the most effective ways of spinning things. One recent example was QAnon's attacks on CA legislators when they passed a bill modifying the penalties for certain forms of sexual predation. But hey, to hell with understanding the issues; it's apparently impossible to mislead someone without literally lying, so why bother? 

[Guest #1Stunner]

19 minutes ago, JADogs05 said:

Removing facts from their factual context is one of the most effective ways of spinning things. One recent example was QAnon's attacks on CA legislators when they passed a bill modifying the penalties for certain forms of sexual predation. But hey, to hell with understanding the issues; it's apparently impossible to mislead someone without literally lying, so why bother? 

Who defines what the "context" is, and when it is appropriate to put things in a "proper" context?

Context often = spin.   There is no independent agency putting out unbiased context.

Choose your context.

[818SUDSFan]

18 hours ago, Nevada6077 said:

Not

that place is reserved for soldiers and not those with bone spurs

"I like my heroes not to be captured"

. . . but bone spurs are OK.

[818SUDSFan]

7 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

 

 

@East Coast Aztec.  Looks like we got people ensuring more wars...

Props to you for getting me to watch The Hill again. I guess.

The woman is a far more attractive version of my former sister-in-law also named Crystal who my brother-in-law finally divorced after reading one too many sexts to another man on her cell phone and then following her one night when she left him at home with their two cute twins to hook up with her boyfriend where my brother-in-law caught her banging the guy in the cab of his pickup. It's one thing for my former sister-in-law, a clerk at a bank, to have "like" as her every other word but the woman above supposedly has better communication skills than that. Then there's the man. Excuse me, Saagar, but when you once again indicated you believe in the Deep State, I couldn't help tuning out everything else you said.

Bottom Line: How in the world do these idiots actually have those jobs?

[Guest #1Stunner]

14 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Props to you for getting me to watch The Hill again. I guess.

The woman is a far more attractive version of my former sister-in-law also named Crystal who my brother-in-law finally divorced after reading one too many sexts to another man on her cell phone and then following her one night when she left him at home with their two cute twins to hook up with her boyfriend where my brother-in-law caught her banging the guy in the cab of his pickup. It's one thing for my former sister-in-law, a clerk at a bank, to have "like" as her every other word but the woman above supposedly has better communication skills than that. Then there's the man. Excuse me, Saagar, but when you once again indicated you believe in the Deep State, I couldn't help tuning out everything else you said.

Bottom Line: How in the world do these idiots actually have those jobs?

Your critique of their segment:

 

(1) the woman is named Crystal, and my ex-sister in law also named Crystal had an affair, and banged a guy.    The woman isn't smart.

(2) the guy is named Saagar, and said the word "Deep State" (in the context of making a military contracts accusation), and so I tuned him out.

 

Deep thoughts.   

Will have to think over all of the interesting points you just made.

 

[818SUDSFan]

Just now, #1Stunner said:

Your critique of their segment:

 

(1) the woman is named Crystal, and my ex-sister in law also named Crystal had an affair, and banged a guy.    The woman isn't smart.

(2) the guy is named Saagar, and said the word "Deep State" (in the context of making a military contracts accusation), and so I tuned him out.

 

Deep thoughts.   

Will have to think over all of the interesting points you just made.

You lose cred with me every time you link one of their blabbering colloquies. So I guess we're even.

[Guest #1Stunner]

7 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

You lose cred with me every time you link one of their blabbering colloquies. So I guess we're even.

You have cred?   Really?

You commented on the lady's looks, and right after, oddly shared an unrelated sexual story of your ex sister-in-law, and then admitted that you refused to listen to what the guy said.  When were you going to talk about their points raised?

 

Also, what media sources should I link to?  Do you have a list of what is credible?

Can't post links to other media sources that won't cover certain stories.