Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
More recently, Trump came under scrutiny when The Atlantic reported in 2020 that he had called those who died in war "suckers" and "losers." Trump has vehemently denied the reported remarks, which President Biden repeated on the campaign trail before he dropped out of the race. ABC News has not independently confirmed the story.
In other words, ABC News is super duper lazy.
Ok, clueless question here. Doesn't independent confirmation include direct contact with a primary source (John Kelly in this case)? Wouldn't referring to another publication be more like dependent confirmation? I'm never quite sure what this phrase means.
It means ABC could have contacted John Kelly just like NBC did.
Sorry, but could you point out where they say they contacted Kelly directly? I'm not saying that his statement are untrue or anything. Just trying to be more responsible with my media consumption. I guess maybe this isn't the best place for me to do that.
The NBC article refers to statements Kelly made on CNN and what The Atlantic published. Is that independent? I can't seem to find anything super definitive online about the phrase's meaning.
Even I never give Trump enough credit for finding the absolutely worst possible option available to him and doubling down on it. He continues to amaze me with his ability to find levels of human stupidity that I did not think existed and saying "YES! WE CAN GO DEEPER!" (The only time he can ever say that, btw).
The military has historically been ruby red. WHY THE FUCK would you EVER want to piss off such a reliable voting bloc by hurling these kind of attacks on the US military, entirely unprovoked? How does this net you a single vote?
As someone who served, I know just how stupid service members can be. Most were single-issue voters and it was who would give them the bigger raise 99% of the time.
Serious question. Do you think that's because, if they were deployed, the politics at home would have little to no impact on their day-to-day lives while on deployment, so they figure might as well vote for whoever gives me the biggest raise? Do you think many would change their vote if domestic politics had a more direct impact on their lives while deployed?
I was in a long time ago. I don’t think any of the enlisted people I knew (none above the age of 30) understood why we were even deployed. They are young, uninformed, and most likely brainwashed. They certainly didn’t respect any context or nuance that I tried to provide.
Two things:
Because like you said the military is ruby red.
People see the R, they pull the lever.
Literally nothing DJT does will cost him votes from people for whom being a Republican is an identity.
It's all about turning out people who prefer left policies but don't vote.
Literally nothing DJT does will cost him votes from people for whom being a Republican is an identity.
I have to disagree a bit here. We're seeing that even that statement has its limits.
We have more and more formerly staunch Trump supporters who are starting to say "Hol' up".
And a lot of people don't have trouble with the mudslinging Trump dishes out, until it hits them personally. Once they become (or feel they've become) a target of the Trump Hate Machine, they tend to change their tune on him pretty quick. I'm not hailing people who do that as heroes, mind you; they were perfectly OK with the hatred until it was directed at them.
I cannot speak and do not speak for those who have served, as I never have. But from everything I've learned from the people who I do know that have served, they value their military service and their brotherhood more than their political identity, and they would take unprovoked attacks on their service (or the service of their fallen brothers) like the comments Trump gave last night about as well as showing up in the middle of Harlem and shouting the N-word through a megaphone. I haven't talked to anybody I know who's served since Trump made those comments, but I don't even think the Trump-friendly ones would be willing to vote for him after that. Again, everybody has their limits.
Yeah people say "hold up", then a week later they're endorsing him again.
McCarthy, McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Vance, it goes on and on.
Even being willing to go on the air and say "Hey, this isn't a winning campaign strategy" is a huge step forward for some of these people, many of which spent the past several years trying to bend reality to Trump's whims. Even daring to criticize God-King-Trump a year or two ago was enough to get you a nasty tweet from Trump, all-but excommunication from the party, and deportation to Jupiter.
Do you think Kellyanne "Alternative Facts" Conway and Kevin "Pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago" McCarthy would have dared to even privately say that this isn't a winning strategy to Trump, let alone publicly and on Fox News? And if they did, do you honestly think they'd have a career in the morning?
One step forward, two steps back and all of that, but at least now they're at least attempting to take the forward step every once in a while.
We should always draw a distinction between republican politicians and republican voters. The former are concerned only with their careers and are often not true believers in conservative rhetoric.
They will speak against him, but odds are the number of votes for him will be comparable to his last two outings.
Me: Yeah, whatever he said it's probably not good.
"But I really, I watched Sheldon sitting so proud in the White House when we gave Miriam the Presidential Medal of Freedom," he said. "That's the highest award you can get as a civilian. It's the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, but civilian version, it's actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they're soldiers. They're either in very bad shape because they've been hit so many times by bullets, or they're dead. She gets it and she's healthy, beautiful woman."
Me: OH, FUCK!
Bone Spurs McShart can only buy one of those medals like his buddies the Adelsons did so of course he thinks it’s better.
Always michael scotting his way through a fragment of a thought
Sometimes I’ll start a sentence, and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way. Like an improv conversation. An improversation.
The context for this comment is that he was recognizing a zionist billionaire donor that he gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom to. When he moved the embassy to Jerusalem and recognized it as Israel's capital, it was explicitly at her request. He said the Presidential Medal of Freedom was better than a Medal of Honor, because people who get the Medal of Honor are often injured or dead.
More evidence that self-sacrifice just does not make sense to him, a borderline psychopathic narcissist.
Borderline?!
Does he have a deathwish? You don't fuck with served soldiers who even got a medal of honor. They know how to NOT MISS.
'Sgt. Hugenutz singlehandedly defended his wounded platoon from an ambush, periodically picking up captured weapons and fighting hand to hand when ammo ran out, for 2 days straight before recovery teams arrived to withdraw. Suffered and survived 3 severe wounds he is credited with saving the lives of 10 men and costing the enemy over 500 casualties.'
"What a loser". - Some guy about to get his shit pushed in.
No, but he has an insatiable craving for attention and saying outrageous things makes the media deliver him that.
ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for ABC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-draws-fire-remarks-medal-honor-recipients/story?id=112883414