First off, Fox News has confirmed the story about Trump's disregard for those who serve or who have served in the military:
That's a screenshot in case FNC makes her take it down. The original is here.
The Times has a lengthy article out today on Trump's disregard for those who have served as well as those who were wounded and killed in the service of this nation.
Note that of those who are defending Trump, almost all are Trump's lackies. Even John Bolton, who has said he did not hear Trump say bad things about those who died in the First World War, had this to say:
While Mr. Bolton said he did not hear the president disparage troops, he added that Mr. Trump did not protest the decision [to not visit the cemetery], as he now says he did. “He didn’t say, ‘This is terrible, I have to go out to the veterans,’” Mr. Bolton said. “He accepted it, and that was pretty much the end of it.”Which is precisely the point. The reported comments are well in keeping with Trump's character.
Mr. Bolton added that the reported comments were not out of character for the president. “I haven’t heard anybody yet react to say, ‘That’s not the Donald Trump I know,’” he said.
People familiar with Mr. Trump’s private conversations say he has long scorned those who served in Vietnam as being too dumb to have gotten out of it, as he did through a medical diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels. At other times, according to those familiar with the remarks, Mr. Trump would marvel at people choosing military service over making money.If you got shot down, even if you weren't injured, captured or killed, well..
Some said they also recalled him questioning why the United States should be so interested in finding captured soldiers, a comment made in the context of Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Another former official said Mr. Trump had often expressed discomfort with being around people who had been injured, although he has held events with wounded veterans.
On at least two occasions since becoming president, according to three sources with direct knowledge of his views, Trump referred to former President George H. W. Bush as a “loser” for being shot down by the Japanese as a Navy pilot in World War II.If you answered this country's call to serve, your current president views you as a sucker and a loser. If your son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother were injured or died in the service of this country, Trump regards them as losers.
And if you are backing Trump in this, so do you.
10 comments:
We need an Operation Rolling Thunder GOTV for a sustained Blue Tsunami.
You’ll see the same people who believe the QAnon bullshit decry this story because of anonymous sourcing.
Just watch.
1: It's difficult to believe that of all the people privy to these alleged statements (many of them senior military), none of them have had the 'nads to stand up for these revelations in person.Alexander Vindman should shame them all, if they're capable of shame.
2: The walks like a duck & quacks like a duck test. Are these statements inconceivable for a person of known character or utterly consistent with past statements/positions? I'll leave that to the judgement of the observer but at this point it's hard to claim that this is wildly out of character.Unless one of the people referenced in 1 steps up as Vindman did, this is going to be a he said/she said, and that's a national shame (among several)
Trump will lose zero republican votes over this latest disclosure. Because it was well known long before 2016. Trump's hatred for McCain, his draft-dodging, his contempt for anyone serving anything except money, all this was well known to GOP voters, or should have been known. Like trump's stiffing working people, sexually assaulting women, lusting after his daughter, failing upwards after multiple bankruptcies, cheating on his spouse of the time with porn stars and hookers, consuming large quantities of drugs...all these, and more acts of depravation and criminality were well known. Nobody can act surprised at anything trump does because he did it all in the past. And got away with it all, a rich and privileged white man who never got caught and believes he never will. So, the scary part is not trump, he's not long for this world no matter how rich and special he is. The scary part is that GOP voters, our neighbors, approve of this criminal reprobate in overwhelming numbers and will vote for him in November NO MATTER WHAT VILE THING HE DOES OR SAYS. That's the scary thing about the trump phenomenon, the undying love by 40% of American voters for a person who is worth nothing and has no good deeds on his record for his entire long life. Even his family hates him, yet to most GOOPers he is, if not God, at least God's man down here on earth. Frightening and inexplicable, at least to me.
They all know who and what he is, and that he got the most votes in history in a Republican primary.
The candidates he defeated in said primary all ran on variations of the Republican orthodoxy of attracting bigots with dog whistles of racism in the campaign, and pivoting to the service of their paymasters after obtaining office, and keeping the base happy with maintenance doses of racism while there.
Fergus' crude stroke of political brilliance was in offering all of those bigots a straight geeze of the uncut product, and now they are pretty much forever loyal to him for it.
For them, he assures them that their ignorance is noble and their bigotry is patriotic, and that they can celebrate them both right out in front of god and everyone.
So for that, they will forego judgement on any of the laundry list of transgressions that one would typically associate with the downfall of any politician anywhere.
I will note, however, that this seems to be the first "let's use the latest scandal to distract attention away from the major atrocity we're perpetrating" that has fully blown up in his face.
So perhaps there really are a lot of people left in the country who have things they value more than Fergus values money or clout.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Jennifer Griffin is repeating the anonymous allegations, not confirming them.
0_0, I listened and watched a Fox News video that interviewed Ms. Griffin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29gkyycXZPM
In it, she clearly states that she talked to people that confirmed some of the information in the Atlantic article, including the statement attributed to Trump. "Deep Throat was an unnamed source. It didn't make what he said untrue."
You make not like the report, but it is confirmed by others to be true.
Dale
Elsewhere she has said she spoke to the same Atlantic sources. That is not confirmation.
I wasn't there, but there is actual evidence from logs why he did not go, and John Bolton- who was there- would certainly have said so.
Logs can be doctored and people can lie. I guess we’ll never know for sure since not may of us were there. It comes down to who or what you want to believe. I know what I’ve seen and heard from trump, and I think the alleged words fit his personality and demeanor. So I’ll believe the story. You can choose otherwise. Cheers.
Dale
Also, that IS confirmation. First you talk to the cited sources to make sure that is what they said. Then you go to other sources, listen to them, and if they recall the same data, it is confirmed. Quite a simple concept, really.
Dale
Post a Comment