this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3957 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
0
Trump Demands Biden Remove Ad of Him Insulting Dead Troops (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 5 months ago by dogsnest@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Trump Demands Biden Remove Ad of Him Calling Dead Soldiers ‘Suckers’ and ‘Losers’ - The former president said only a “psycho” or a “very stupid person” would’ve made such statements.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

In fairness to Trump (there's a sentence I never thought I'd write...)

"“He said I stood over graves of soldiers and I said: ‘These people are suckers and losers,"

That's technically correct. He did not say those things in public.

Edit I watched the ad, it does not specify that Trump said these things in public, just that he said them which is true.

He said them privately to staff members.

Confirmed by Trump's former Chief of Staff, John Kelly:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/john-kelly-confirms-trump-privately-disparaged-us-service-members-vete-rcna118543

But my favorite quote out of all this is the one that barely gets mentioned:

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/02/trump-troops-fallen-soldiers-john-kelly

Trump saying at a 2017 Memorial Day event in Arlington National Cemetery: "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"

Trump is ENTIRELY transactional. The idea that good men would fight a war for their country purely because it's the right thing to do escapes him entirely.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"What was in it for them?"

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable question to me... far more reasonable than simply assuming the people who perpetrated the US's colonialist mass-murder campaigns in the third world was simply "good men" (supposedly) "doing the right thing."

Good job making Trump sound more rational than you, hero.

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This take just baffles me.. you can disapprove of a war, and still respect people willing to put their life on the line for something they believe is right. Even in war, opposing sides have a long history of showing their enemy a certain amount of personal respect, even though they clearly disagree about something to the point of killing each other over it.

Your take is just condescending and unempathetic. You can respect someone for sacrificing themselves without agreeing with them about what they're sacrificing themselves for. Regardless, it shouldn't be hard to see how someone fighting to depose an infamously brutal dictator (Iraq) or a fundamentalist regime that stones women for wanting a divorce (Afghanistan) can believe that they are doing something good.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Masquenox is a troll. Don't take their bait.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

After reviewing their comment history, I think Masquenox has strong controversial opinions and a bellicose attitude, but is not a troll.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. Now I have to go ask the duck what "bellicose" means...

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

It means you're looking for a fight, which usually involves bouncers and shit.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

After reviewing their modlog history, I think Masquenox displays a level of emotional incontinence that is effectively the same as trolling.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

lol putting that up on the shelf with 'verbal incontinence', I like it.

I do set a line between 'cantankerous' and 'troll' more leniently along the annoyance scale than others. I say let the dork be a dork, not everyone has social skills.

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do see what you mean. I think when a dork engages in repeated personal attacks they cross the line for me regardless of their intent.

It's a philosophical question akin to Baudrillard's "simulate a robbery" idea.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

'Repeated personal attacks' -- oh, well I missed that, that's different from clumsy or cranky.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This take just baffles me… you can disapprove of a war, and still respect people willing to put their life on the line for something they believe is right.

A Toast to the Troops... All the troops. Both Sides.

You can respect someone for sacrificing themselves without agreeing with them about what they’re sacrificing themselves for.

RIP to Sgt. Rufus "Baby Ears" McGuffin. He died doing what he loved. Ripping the ears of babies and putting them on a big necklace that he would wear around camp.

[–] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"All the troops, both sides" is half my point when pointing out that enemy combatants historically have often held respect for each other.

Yes, I respect a combatant fighting for something they believe in that's bigger than themselves, people not fighting for personal gain, but because they want to give someone else a better life. That's regardless of what side they're on- even if they're on the side I'm actively trying to kill.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

enemy combatants historically have often held respect for each other.

Torturing POWs to death as a form of respect

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He died doing what he loved. Ripping the ears of babies and putting them on a big necklace that he would wear around camp.

Just another "All American Hero," eh?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Trump is ENTIRELY transactional. The idea that good men would fight a war for their country purely because it’s the right thing to do escapes him entirely.

In fairness, you only need a bunch of good men to fight a war purely because it's the right thing in order to counter the bad men fighting a war in order to do a bad thing.

Maybe if Trump's attitude had been more common in Berlin in the 1930s, or more common in the US during the 1960s or in Israel or Russia during the 2020s, we'd have skipped a few nightmarish atrocities without having a bunch of good men perish in the process.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You are cherry-picking and going off rails.

But to humor you, how far back do you want to go?

Because the U.S. was founded on atrocities committed against the people who already lived in North America.

And the U.S. funded operations to topple legitimate governments in Central America, a time in which a lot of good people died because of it.

So, don't paint the U.S. as "the good guys who should listen to Trump."

But again, this is entirely a red-herring.

The truth of the matter is, Trump is a piece of shit who doesn't respect the people who sacrifice their lives for his safety.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

So, don’t paint the U.S. as “the good guys who should listen to Trump.”

There are plenty of good people in the US who have resisted the Trumpian brand of ethnic nationalism and the capitalist death drive. And quite a few of them died for their country (or, at least, their friends and family and neighbors). But they're not the ones we celebrate on Memorial Day. Not officially, anyway.

The truth of the matter is, Trump is a piece of shit who doesn’t respect the people who sacrifice their lives for his safety.

Trump was never in any danger. His father was a fascist who idolized the Italian and German dictators running roughshod over Europe. If they'd somehow managed to marshal enough fossil fuel and methamphetamine to do a reverse D-Day and put Axis soldiers onto the Atlantic seaboard, the Trump family would have been the first in line to great them as liberators.

Why on earth would he be celebrating the Roosevelt Democrats and Eugene Debbs Socialists who were out firing on his ideological allies and business buddies on the other side of the Atlantic?

Trump wasn't going to pay homage to the allies of Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. You think he wants to bend the knee for a bunch of tankies?

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Trump is compromised. He is with the tankies. Because the tankies own him.

Edit: downvoted by tankies.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

He is with the tankies.

We talking about the college leftists protesting Israel or the police riding around in military surplus?

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago

“You can never criticize bad things because good things exist, too!” ☺️

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

He got specific when attacking John McCain, "I like people who weren't captured."

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Biden's team should shoot back with that: "I like people who weren't convicted."

[–] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That will backfire if his son gets convicted.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Then just change it to, "I like presidents/candidates who..."

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If Hillarys people wouldn't have pushed trump so hard, it would have been McCain vs Hillary, McCain would have easily won...

It's insane how much better shit would be today if Hillary wouldn't have gambled or cared about literally anything more than being the first woman president.

[–] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

McCain wasn't running in 2016.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

You're right.

I was thinking he did but I guess it was Jeb! And Ted Cruz as the Republican establishment picks in 2016.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The former president said only a “psycho” or a “very stupid person” would’ve made such statements.

I mean, he's right...

[–] proper@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

next ad boom

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Just run clips of him saying it, then clips of what he just said.

Hell, I've even got an idea for the third commercial:

https://youtu.be/Ag4P2xfmuZQ?si=UkSYTIDp0tE_GnuL&t=66