Trump Calls US Soldiers "Losers"

[Buddy2]

Not just Senator John McCain or President George H. W. Bush. And especially soldiers who are killed in wars.

The president is outraged at the suggestion, but his great dislike for McCain is in the public record.

[Buddy2]

Now the president is saying he never called John [McCain] a loser.

 

Once again, Mr. Trump is not telling the truth in broad daylight 

[Pete1111]

 

[stevenkesslar]

@AdamSmith  noted in a different thread that history has a way of turning on itself, in response to my point about 2004 and the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry.

I'm continuing this here, since I didn't realize there was a thread on this subject.

Here's another weird turn of history:

Evidence piles up that the phony Atlantic story about Trump and troops was a slime job to boost Biden

It's a thoughtful enough article if you care to read the whole thing.  Maybe about 20 % of it reiterates that that this obviously can't be true, because people around President Toxic say it's not true.

The other 80 %  is about how this is all part of a .......................................... wait for it ......................................................................... vast left-wing conspiracy.  

Who'd a thunk that if we waited a generation, right wing rags like American Spectator would be repurposed as the new and conservative Hillary Clinton?

This is a perfect metaphor for Trumpism.  Because the argument collapses on itself.  It's fine to argue that The Atlantic is one of the vague dark forces out there.  But they might want to at least mention that three other major media outlets have confirmed the general thrust of the story.

And, yeah, granted.  Two of the other three are no doubt part of the vast left wing conspiracy.  So why bother with those facts?

But who'd a thunk that, nowadays, even Fox News is part of the vast left wing conspiracy?

 

[AdamSmith]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

@AdamSmith  noted in a different thread that history has a way of turning on itself, in response to my point about 2004 and the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry.

I'm continuing this here, since I didn't realize there was a thread on this subject.

Here's another weird turn of history:

Evidence piles up that the phony Atlantic story about Trump and troops was a slime job to boost Biden

It's a thoughtful enough article if you care to read the whole thing.  Maybe about 20 % of it reiterates that that this obviously can't be true, because people around President Toxic say it's not true.

The other 80 %  is about how this is all part of a .......................................... wait for it ......................................................................... vast left-wing conspiracy.  

Who'd a thunk that if we waited a generation, right wing rags like American Spectator would be repurposed as the new and conservative Hillary Clinton?

This is a perfect metaphor for Trumpism.  Because the argument collapses on itself.  It's fine to argue that The Atlantic is one of the vague dark forces out there.  But they might want to at least mention that three other major media outlets have confirmed the general thrust of the story.

And, yeah, granted.  Two of the other three are no doubt part of the vast left wing conspiracy.  So why bother with those facts?

But who'd a thunk that, nowadays, even Fox News is part of the vast left wing conspiracy?

 

Bizarro, world very strange. & accurate.

 Yes .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro

[Buddy2]

My dad served in the Army when Roosevelt and Truman were president.

 

For me, it was Johnson and Nixon.

 

Those presidents were far from perfect, especially Johnson and Nixon, but they never called soldiers "losers" or  "not smart enough to avoid serving."

[Pete1111]

As John Lovett said, the WH knows

this is bad, bad, bad, bad.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonlovett/status/1301711229476429826

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1302616512046477312

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1302616512046477312

Speaking of which, Mayor Pete is on the transition team,  and he'll very likely be a Cabinet Secretary.

Pete and Chasten are among the stars of 2020.  That makes me proud to be an American, too.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.   There goes Joe being all touchy again.   If you don't ask about it, I won't tell.  

Edited September 6, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[stevenkesslar]

Trump continues counterattack on military comments

That headline made me wonder.  Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him?

And I have to wonder if this was a Freudian slip on Mnuchin's part.

Quote

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Bret Baier on “Fox News Sunday” that Trump “supports the military in an unbelievable way.” Mnuchin said he’s been with the president at Arlington National Cemetery, the World War II Memorial and the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial.

I can believe that either way.  If I believe Gen. Kelly's military pals who are obviously leaking this, what our Commander In KFC said is unbelievable.  And what President Toxic is now saying about his support for the military does sound unbelievable.

Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean Its Opposite

And, sorry, I can't resist the temptation to get a dig in at supposedly progressive journalist and champion whiner Baby Glenn Greenwald.  He needs to go away.  I continue to believe someone should give Baby Glenn a coloring book and a few crayons, which seems to be the level of complexity his mind can handle.  Now that he's doing it again, I also wonder whether he needs to just take his coloring book and go sit on the lap of his Daddy, Vladimir Putin.  That's probably the least likely explanation for his behavior.  It's probably just a combination of ego, bad judgment, and wanting to be in the spotlight.

my contempt for him is mostly about Russiagate.  If Baby Glenn had argued the Democrats are taking this way too far relative to other critical national priorities, I would have at least respectfully disagreed.  Instead, his language was as good as right wing hogwash.  He said this was a big nothingburger.  Any Trumpian could just listen to Baby Glenn whine and pout and conclude that The Deep State was real.  And Russiagate was 1000 % bullshit. 

On a level of journalism and fact checking, which is what Baby Gleen likes to claim he is good at, his statements about the clear facts of Russiagate were wrong, wrong, and wrong.  The Democrats who voted to impeach clearly see it that way.  But so do the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee who put out the bipartisan report documenting some of those facts.  Decades from now, most Americans will probably see President Toxic as a crook, and probably agree with Alan Lichtman that impeaching President Toxic was a big nail in his political coffin.  So who, and what, is Baby Glenn fighting for?

So now Baby Glenn is whining and pouting some more.  

Quote

IT SEEMS THE SAME MISLEADING TACTIC is now driving the supremely dumb but all-consuming news cycle centered on whether President Trump, as first reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, made disparaging comments about The Troops. Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate.

So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate. 

Baby Glenn has a kernel of a good argument.  It is logical to argue that sources like Deep Throat should attach their name to anonymous allegations.  I'm sure Richard Nixon felt that way.

To hold Baby Glenn to his own standard, who does he name?  You can read the article.  But on a factual level, he is saying The Atlantic is "supremely dumb" because Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton "deny" that the report is accurate.

Sorry, Baby Glenn.  But even Kellyanne is having a hard time with that logic.

Here's a compare and contrast between two takes on this story:  Fox News and Bloomberg

Bolton defends Trump against allegations he disparaged war dead | Fox Exclusive

Bolton Calls Trump Comments on Military 'Despicable' If Accurate

 

I included the headlines because they are so dramatically different.  And I don't even think the first one is accurate.  I'm okay with the word "defended".  But only if what follows is that Bolton "defended" President Toxic's statement that his decision not to go to the cemetery was a weather call.  He even qualified that by saying he could only comment on what he heard while he was in the room.  

Mostly, Bolton threw lots more fuel on the fire.  The word he chose - "despicable" - is consistent with Biden's comments and speaks for itself.

If you watch the whole Fox story, this is stating the obvious.  It's classic Fox propaganda parading as news.  And this is the Brett Baier version, who I mostly see as a decent journalist.  There's no mention of the tweets from their own Jennifer Griffin posted above.  The Atlantic article, which is based on at least four years of statements an incidents regarding President Toxic's contempt for the military and the concept of serving your country, is reduced to one minor incident from a few years ago in France.  It is the most easily denial part of the story.  And Bolton's statement, which is not a denial, is portrayed as a denial.  If that Fox News clip above is all I knew, I actually wouldn't know what to make of it.

I posted Fox for one other reason.  Bolton is cunning.  So you could take his "denial" as a bit of a poison pill.  The new thing I heard is that President Toxic did not go to the cemetery in France based on the "because of John Kelly's recommendation ... It was an entirely weather-related decision."  In the context of Bolton's statement, that mostly sounds like Bolton just letting the facts as he knows them be the facts.  But it puts Kelly in the center of at least two critical incidents:  the cemetery in France, and the cemetery his own son is buried in.    That's another lead for a good journalist to follow that leads right back to Gen. Kelly.  It makes his silence even more deafening.  Implicit in this story is that what President Toxic says in public does not reflect what he really thinks about the military.  And that, for whatever reason, Kelly is one of the people he expressed his real views to.  

I can only speculate about why Baby Glenn is again backing up and illogically trying to rationalize their comic book view of reality.

In a story in which he argues that The Atlantic, WaPo, AP, and even some part of Fox are using the word "confirmed" to mean it's opposite, Baby Glenn managed to use the word "deny" to mean the opposite.  In fact, John Bolton confirmed some key elements of the story: that President Toxic is a bad leader, who holds the military heroes like John McCain in contempt.  Bolton says he thinks our Commander In KFC doesn't understand what military service means to the people who serve.  He said if the parts of the story he can't personally confirm are true, Trump is "despicable."

I'll end with Bolton verbatim from the Bloomberg clip:  "There's no surprise that President Trump went out of his way last night here in the US to deny that he had said it.  But, you know, his credibility is pretty thin in my view."  My translation:  Bolton is saying he think President Toxic's denial is bullshit.

Whoever gives Baby Glenn his coloring book should make sure one page includes the word "D.E.N.I.A.L." in big letters.  Baby Glenn doesn't seem to know what the word means.  Whatever value he added to progressive causes or journalistic truth and integrity in his Snowden glory days is now just history.

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

All us Bernie/Tulsi/Yang voters remember this garbage from this same  vicious  crowd in the primaries and it will just assure 2016 gets repeated. People with consciences and brains don't support McCarthyism no matter who uses it. Claiming you said something and making you prove you did not say it (a la Snake Lady) is an arrogant tactic that just shows the user is assuming the intended audience is low-IQ enough or mostly just doesn't care what the truth is. WTF happened to the adage "when they go low, we go high" With this crowd it's "how low can we go?".

What happened to the warmonger narrative a couple weeks ago, (that only the lowest of morons would believe), that Russia was now allied with the Taliban against American troops?  Anyone who thinks Russia wants to have to deal with the Taliban on their border doesn't know any of the history of the Taliban/Mujahideen and their skinning Russian soldiers alive with CIA help. Where are all those "anonymous sources" that the corporate media promised to bring forward? At least because of the McCain comments this new narrative would be a little believable. That one was pure horsehit. Yellow warmonger journalism for the braindead.

And just like with Bernie, Tulsi, and Yang the exact same media outlets here had the campaign ads already produced and rolling before the story even came out complete with quotes. And of course the accompanying re-reporting of the story of a dozen clones is immediate, each citing each other. BTW-- when you put quotes attributable to someone, as in the ads, aren't you supposed to have a cite for the "quote"? Have we changed that rule to help get the hip warmonger crowd into power?  " I think all Mexican immigrants should be killed"...Buddy2.    Can you prove you never said that? How disgusting of you. Do people realize 90% of media is owned by 6 mega-corporations and that 3 of the richest families in the US are media families? Thanks goodness the internet came along as cable/print media consolidated. 

We got the word at the DNC convention that Bernie, Tulsi, Yang voters weren't welcome in the party and this slimey Republican-type campaign just reinforces that people with morals and brains have no place in either of the two Republican parties. Trump's approvals are low and imitating exactly his type of dishonest campaign style is stupid. The "skeptical" half of the Democratic voters want policy positions on issues , not totally avoiding them with this National Enquirer stuff. There are 1000 reasons not to be for Trump, why make up lies and go with this as the narrative? Both parties are now molded and playing by Trump tactics and games instead of one being honest and reformer. We've got 2 more months of this poison and I fully expect it to spiral into a snakepit really fast. The DNC got $350 million from Wall Street and military contractors last month-thanks to Kamala and Buttigieg mostly, and have $ to buy all airwaves 24/7.  And the consensus of young independents I deal with everyday is that the "Democrats" are becoming just as despicable as Trump and the GOP. It should be an almost-impossible task but this warmonger crowd running the DNC might pull off making Trump look dignified. That should have been an impossibility.  Never underestimate the  ability of the DNC elite to pull defeat out of certain victory. 

Here's part of the blowback from honest sympathetic intelligent people that this McCarthyite tactic invites:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-came-dover-after-my-wife-was-killed-fighting-isis-ncna1239425

The days after my wife, Shannon Kent, was killed by a suicide bomber during a mission to fight ISIS in Syria in January 2019 had been such a blur and, anyway, I’d never met a president before...

I find that platitudes about respect for our nation’s troops from leaders without a strategy to keep us from getting into pointless or unwinnable wars are the highest form of disrespect. Our troops and our nation deserve a president who has our best interests in mind, not just meaningless platitudes about our service meant to paint a rosy picture of war and destruction.

And a photo you can print to enjoy of some of the tens of thousands of dark-skinned people we're constantly committing genocide on  every day since the Bush/Biden genocide in Iraq of 1 million. The warmongers want more of this. A LOT more. 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-came-dover-after-my-wife-was-killed-fighting-isis-ncna1239425

First, kudos to President Toxic for getting that moment right.  You didn't cite the quotation.  While I can't confirm it, either, it sounds very believable to me that Trump said this to a grieving husband:  "“I’m so sorry for your loss. Shannon was an amazing woman and warrior.”

I personally find it just as easy to believe this other story from 2017 that has now been resurrected:

Myeshia Johnson: Soldier's widow says Trump made me cry

Quote

Myeshia Johnson, widow of Sgt La David Johnson, told ABC News the president's "stumbling" and tone "made me cry".

"He had my husband's report in front of him, and that's when he actually said La David. I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband's name."

"If my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risks his life for our country, why can't you remember his name?" she added.

Let's add a few caveats.  

First, this confirms President Toxic at least called and tried.

Second, all this has to be filtered through loved ones that are in the middle of an ocean of sadness.  I won't dredge them up, but if my memory is correct I recall reading some really sharp things the families of one of the Benghazi dead said about Hillary.  I can't even remember what they said.  But I do remember thinking that while I can understand why they felt that way, it just seemed really unfair to Hillary.

Third, this is not really about President Toxic's empathy.  His lack of empathy is a given.  Those polls I cited to death from YouGov make it clear that even Republicans see Trump's lack of empathy as one of his biggest weaknesses.

What it's really about is President Toxic's shitty leadership.  And his basic views of the military, and the broader idea of serving your country.  The Atlantic is arguing he is simply unfit to lead.  He is certainly not fit to be Commander In Chief.

The interesting thing about your rebuttal is that it had almost nothing to do with anything The Atlantic said.  Or, if it did, it was all by implication.  The Atlantic is part of the "vicious crowd".  The Atlantic is practicing McCarthyism.  Sorry, but I don't buy it.

You can change the subject and say the Taliban skinned Russian soldiers alive.  That's a horrible thing.  But it has nothing to do with The Atlantic story.

Back to the facts:

Here's Trump, verbatim, in one of his many statements lately saying that it is a "hoax" and "fake news" that he made "negative statements" about "fallen heroes", or that he called them "losers" or "suckers".

 

And here's President Toxic, verbatim, making "negative statements" about "fallen hero" John McCain.  Including calling him "a loser".

President Toxic called McCain a "loser".  That's just a fact.  So this isn't McCarthyism.  This is listening, and believing what I hear with my own ears.

You can cut President Toxic some slack, and argue that in context the word "loser" was a specific reference to McCain losing the 2008 Presidential election.  The more damning statement is this:  "John McCain is not a war hero.  He's a war hero, but that's because he got captured.  I like people who don't get captured."

That's entirely consistent with the core of The Atlantic's article.  He did call McCain a loser.  He did say McCain being captured and tortured is not heroism, and in fact is something he doesn't like about McCain.  If those are not "negative statements" about any member of the military that was captured in the line of duty, then I guess I need Baby Glenn to define what "negative statement" means.

Back to your Russian soldiers being skinned alive by The Taliban.  You may think it's horrible.  And I may agree.    But President Toxic sees it differently.  At the very least, he does not view them as heroes.  He does not like that they got captured.  That's different than saying they deserved to be skinned alive, because they let themselves be captured.  But that's how some of these military sources are describing how President Toxic really thinks.  They deserved what they got.  It's quite easy for me to believe they are telling the truth.  I simply have to listen to what Trump said.  And how he is now lying about what he said on camera.

There is one other way to give President Toxic the benefit of the doubt, and argue he is NOT a liar.  And that road follows the path that he was actually telling the truth when he said, "I know a lot about crazies."  Because he is crazy.  Meaning, he actually does have dementia.  Dementia runs in his family.  And some forensic psychologists say he displays many very concerning signs of dementia.

His inability to remember what he actually said would be one concerning sign.  So would the lack of critical thinking skills involved in not realizing that it's easy enough to just roll the tape and see what he said, on camera.  I'd add the patently false portrayal of Gen. Kelly's last months in office.  You can argue that Trump is lying.  Or you can argue Trump actually believes what he said about Gen. Kelly:  that he was "totally exhausted" and "unable to function".  That is, in itself, a "negative statement" about a military leader, made in the context of Trump saying he doesn't make "negative statements" about military leaders.  Like the mysterious people on airplanes and the "darker forces" and various other whacko conspiracies, it does have lots of glimmers of the dementia I watched my Mom live through for a decade.

It's anyone's guess whether President Toxic is a pathological liar, or is suffering from dementia.  Neither are very good for the military or the nation.

Edited September 7, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[Buddy2]

I contributed to Tulsi Gabbard campaign for president and no other candidate so far. 

@tassojunior

[Pete1111]

All these sources coordinating the story about Trump makes no more sense than the worldwide deep state conspiracy to undermine POTUS.   

The Atlantic has already admitted there is more to come.

 

 

 

[Pete1111]

23 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Speaking of which, Mayor Pete is on the transition team,  and he'll very likely be a Cabinet Secretary.

Pete and Chasten are among the stars of 2020.  That makes me proud to be an American, too.

 

Jim Clyburn's grandson Walter Clyburn Reed backed Pete's campaign and recently tweeted how Buttigieg would make a great chief of staff.   And though it is off topic, I must say Walter Clyburn Reed is cute AF. 

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Pete1111
fix

[stevenkesslar]

Trump launches unprecedented attack on military leadership he appointed

Quote

President Donald Trump launched an unprecedented public attack against the leadership of the US military on Monday, accusing them of waging wars to boost the profits of defense manufacturing companies.

"I'm not saying the military's in love with me -- the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy," Trump told reporters at a White House news conference

I'd say we've reached a tipping point.

Not in the election itself.  But in the theory that President Toxic is some kind of a political genius.  He'll probably go down in history as a senile crook with horrible political instincts who may possible destroy the Republican Party.  It will at least take the party a long time to rebuild, if it does survive.  

If you start the clock at January 20, 2017, Inauguration Day, it's actually hard to come up with a list of things he's done that involve politically sound judgment.  Yeah, he has a pen.  He was able to sign the tax bill Paul Ryan has had a hard on for ever since he was elected.  He let Mitch nominate the best conservative judges the Federalist Society could find.  He inherited an economy with the lowest Black and Hispanic poverty in US history from Obama, and managed not to screw that up until this year.  

But what did he actually do?  What unique policies of his own - infrastructure, rebuilding broken factory towns, opiod epidemics, or even The Wall - has he won?  Pretty much every election from 2017 to 2019 is just worse news for Republicans as this has played out.  He sends right-of-center moderates and principled conservatives screaming into the night.  

And that was all before COVID-10 and a recession that wiped 9.5 % out of second quarter GDP.  Is that supposed to make things better for President Toxic?

So why am I not surprised that the vet with PTSD interviewed by Lemon in the video embedded in the CNN story above ends the interview by going off about how he just can't wait to vote.  That's what America is feeling like.  Whatever is happening in that diminishing intellectual and physical space called Toxic Trumpland, it's very clear that much of America can't wait to go vote this moral loser out of office.  He'll learn about being a complete political loser soon enough.

If there is a sort of genius here, it is President Toxic's ability to pack so many deep and hurtful insults to people whose votes he needs into only two paragraphs.

One of the points the vet interviewed made is that people in the military can sniff out a good leader when they see one.  So the troops didn't need The Atlantic to know what President Toxic has been saying for years, he argued.  So it just adds insult to injury to say the soldiers are in love with him.  The goods news:  he'll always have Kim, and their tepid love affair.

Now he's figured yet another way to insult the military leaders that he supposedly respects.  And implicit in it is yet another insult to the troops:  your leaders care more about the profits of weapon's manufacturers than your lives.  Which will probably just make them feel their Commander In Chief cares more about money than their lives.

I'm all for going after the military industrial complex.  But this makes no fucking sense whatsoever.  His defense for 24 or 48 hours was that this can't be true, because he's the guy who has showered money on the military.  Now he's arguing that this is happening because the generals are pissed that he won't shower money on the military.  Huh?

And other than the war President Toxic almost started with Iran, in part because he ripped up a deal with Iran that some of those top generals told him not to, what war has it been that the generals have been itching to fight under President Toxic's command?

This could be a bunch of lies.  Or this could be dementia.  It just makes no logical sense.  A 2nd grader could come up with a better cover.

It is consistent with what happened with Ukrainegate.  When one outrageous lie doesn't work, move on to the next one.  Which often contradicts the lie you told before it.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

Manufactured news is even worse than fake news because it's an intentional setting of the narrative acceptable  to be discussed in the media. It's sometimes a "look over there"  topic to hold the public's interest away from other issues. Sometimes it's more sinister as in warmongering (like the Russia/Taliban garbage or the weapons of mass destruction. In a way it's a form of media censorship since it replaces important issues with National Enquirer-type fluff convincing people these are the critical issues of the day.  It worked well in totalitarian countries and is all there is in China since the internet is usually filtered. Since most people just want affirmation of their existing beliefs manufactured news and narratives are very popular. 

We went through this in the Bernie, Tulsi, Yang campaigns with these exact same people "breaking" these exact same phoney "news" stories in unison. Reporting each others reporting immediately as in "like everybody says it! " to make it true and a new story. This problem with manipulated news has been happening across the political spectrum for three years now.  https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/06/liberal-fake-news-shift-trump-standing-rock

I can't stand Trump and hope he's gone. But am I to believe the most critical story (narrative) this week was Newflash ! , a reporter just remembered that over a year ago an anonymous somebody told the reporter (and 3 friends) that Trump said the same thing about soldiers generally he had said about McCain (who was objectively a pig, btw) . And then bingo, another reporter in the clique publishes they also now remember "someone" told them back then he had said it generally and not just specifically about McCain? And then 2 more! And in the intervening 15 minutes the Biden tv ad magically also appears with the same far-back remembrances complete with scrolling "quotes"  with zero cites.  As Gomer Pyle would say Shazam what a coincidence !

So this sudden anonymous remembrance of the generality vs. a special reference  becomes the only thing worth talking about in the news cycle. And it fills every available crevice of attention. Same day a young Black guy is shot in the chest by DC police and killed in high definition on his 18th birthday, after he threw a handgun away,  and our national 6-corporation-owned media is all "nothing to see here" and censures the story from national news because it neither fits the ongoing narrative or the "sudden anonymous remembrance of generality" they scheduled for the day's big story.    

 https://youtu.be/E2P7Fu2w0ts

Nothing is to be discussed that does not reinforce the current narrative or distracts from the day's "Big" story.  

The truth is the ruling class, the Trumps and the Bidens,  the Clintons,  and Bloombergs, consider dying in a war something for others to risk, ie: America's unlimited supply of peasant cannon fodder. (and I'm not talking about Beau or Hunter's service in the JAG corps as lawyers lol). We have so many of those expendable poor types we even send them to die as a favor to Saudis, Israelis, UAE and Kuwaiti Emirs so their , so much more valuable kids don't have to risk their lives. Their kids' lives are so much more cherished than our poor peasants'.  But Mom will get a free flag from the prez and we'll honor their giving their lives for (some) country.  And the ones who survive get wonderful experience killing Blacks for their most-likely next job as police.

BTW- For those who think we don't live in a censored, manipulated media: How much mention is there on Joe Biden's Vietnam service vs. Bone -Spur Donnie's?   Surprise;  In the exact-same year, 1968, when Americans were getting killed more than ever, the Bidens got a doc to get little football-star Joe out of the draft for having once had asthma. 5 deferments just like his pal Donnie.  So strange that's never been mentioned lol. 

 

 

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/06/liberal-fake-news-shift-trump-standing-rock

[stevenkesslar]

First, I'll take that as a compliment.  You don't really have a rebuttal.  So our main strategy here seems to be to again change the subject to something else, like DC cops shooting another Black guy.  The closest you get to the specific content of the claims is to dismiss them all as the sort of thing "totalitarian" countries do.

I heard Bernstein say in an interview today that of the 200 or so stories Woodward and him wrote on Watergate, almost all of them involved anonymous sources.  As the story played out, more and more of what had been sourced anonymously went on the record by some named person.   We of course only learned the identity of the most famous anonymous source after his death.

Since you won't address any of the content, other than call it totalitarianism, address the standard of using anonymous sources.  As Bernstein said, it means in practice you confirm it at least twice, and often three or more times - all, of course, anonymously.  We now have four different news outlets, including Fox, citing God knows how many anonymous sources.

Are you saying that you are opposed to this?  Should we go back and void Watergate from history?  And if there's a difference, what is it?

Edited September 8, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

First, I'll take that as a compliment.  You don't really have a rebuttal.  So our main strategy here seems to be to again change the subject to something else, like DC cops shooting another Black guy.  The closest you get to the specific content of the claims is to dismiss them all as the sort of thing "totalitarian" countries do.

I heard Bernstein say in an interview today that of the 200 or so stories Woodward and him wrote on Watergate, almost all of them involved anonymous sources.  As the story played out, more and more of what had been sourced anonymously went on the record by some named person.   We of course only learned the identity of the most famous anonymous source after his death.

Since you won't address any of the content, other than call it totalitarianism, address the standard of using anonymous sources.  As Bernstein said, it means in practice you confirm it at least twice, and often three or more times - all, of course, anonymously.  We now have four different news outlets, including Fox, citing God knows how many anonymous sources.

Are you saying that you are opposed to this?  Should we go back and void Watergate from history?  And if there's a difference, what is it?

Watergate was a specific incident, a break-in, a major crime disclosed by 1 "Deepthroat" at the top of the crime fairly soon after. 

This is a sudden remembrance of a remark to someone else from well over a year ago of it being a generality statement and not a statement just about McCain, (which statement is well-known) and therefore "Major News" !. Same media people caught Bernie in a "Major News" sudden-remembrance-at-opportune-time allegedly saying a woman couldn't beat Trump in the popular vote (after one had). Neither makes any sense upon much thought and doesn't really matter much except it's what we're supposed to be interested in if we're "on the right side". To be honest there are a thousand other, worse, things and policy stands, I care about besides this teeny-bopper he-said, she-said some Mean-Girl media wants us to think is the major news. People having bullets put in their heads is major news. Whether a mean statement over a year ago was a generality instead of just specific to McCain is not on a normal person's top-ten worry list right now. The obviousness of the co-ordinated timing between the party and the "independent" press to portray this as a sudden news event is just going to cause blowback against the ticket and sympathy for Trump.  It's a stupid strategy but typical of the arrogance of these neanderthal Neo Libs. 

What happened to the "anonymous sources" who were going to come out on the Russia/Taliban collusion that was the media narrative a few weeks ago........crickets. But we had proof on the Assad gassing his own people narrative...until...it didn't matter anymore and the UN said it was all a lie and.....nevermind.  

The arrogance of the new wave of media is that they believe they can fucking make you believe anything they want you to. Truth is easy, any wimp can do that. But these folks think they can convince one the sky is green. That's an aspiration to show power and influence. 

We're not 100% totalitarian. We have 90% of our media owned by the same 6 corporations who promote and censor on behalf of the corporate party they are financially invested in. They decide what the narrative is they promote and everything has to bend to support that narrative or be censored. If you choose to participate in this mind-numbing experience you can. Few people I know do anymore. It's a habit once-broken loses any appeal.  Unfortunately American media is hopeless noise and it's better to turn it off. You feel (and think) much better. 

Edited September 8, 2020 by tassojunior

[Buddy2]

John McCain is always a hot topic to folk who believe Donald Trump showed who he really by slamming McCain for getting shot down and spending many years in a Hanoi prisoner of war camp.

 

McCain wasn't an advocate for regime change wars during all those years in Hanoi. He was in the military partly because his grandfather and father were also. A common occurrence for young men throughout history.

 

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, tassojunior said:

If you choose to participate in this mind-numbing experience you can. Few people I know do anymore. It's a habit once-broken loses any appeal.  Unfortunately American media is hopeless noise and it's better to turn it off. You feel (and think) much better. 

Good point.   

What I decided several months back is that I was tired of the mind-numbing experience of these yammering online back and forths with conservatives.  As in this instance, no matter what President Toxic says, they will defend it.  So there's no point.  I like intellectual masturbation more than almost anyone.  But the yammering is more like using a catheter to induce mild pain, rather than using a well-oiled hand to induce pleasure.

You and I mostly see things similarly.  And this one I just don't get.  I'll go with "neanderthal NeoLibs" or "warmongers" and leave it at that.  There is some thread of logic with you and Baby Glenn and Matt Taibbi, among others, that seems to say that if it's coming from the NeoLibs or warmonger class, it must be wrong.  It's not the same as President Toxic's Deep State.  And I certainly agree with you that warmongers and the military industrial complex and the corporate media are all powerful interest groups that are healthy to fear and keep a close eye on.  To me, though,  Baby Glenn and Taibbi have done a lot to discredit the particular forms of journalism they claim to represent.  Their arguments don't hold together.  And they are both sloppy with facts.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.  We've both made our points.  So I'll take it in another direction.

The military itself seems to have already weighed in on this.  You were the one who pointed out that for a very right-of-center group of people, support for Biden is off the charts.   

In theory, that could be because they love The Green New Deal.  In fact, the logical explanation is that many, maybe most of them believe what we're hearing now.  If you believe the story, they've been hearing and talking about this for years.

Watergate itself was, as break-ins go, a relatively petty crime that Nixon was not personally involved in as a burglar.  Not going to a cemetery is not even a crime.  And if you isolate it to that one thing (either the cemetery in France, or the cemetery in the US where anonymous people think President Toxic dishonored his son to Gen. Kelly's face), this is arguably not a big deal.  If you believe the anonymous sources, Gen. Kelly himself took President Toxic's words about his dead son to be an awkward comment about the volunteer nature of the military.  

Like Watergate, this seems to have become a big fucking deal because it speaks to something much bigger and seriously wrong with the President of the United States.  And I say it's a big fucking deal because before The Atlantic broke the news, the attitudes described seem to have impacted the way members of the military and veterans are voting.  If they saw President Toxic the way he sees himself, he'd probably be pulling as much support as any other Republican President - if not more.  

This article from 2004 does not give clear poll data on active military.  But it does state that support for W. was strong among active troops.  And that they viewed W. himself more favorably than his conduct of the Iraq War, which the military itself was starting to sour on.   The closest I could get to seeing how the military voted is a CNN exit poll saying veterans favored W. 57/41, whereas people who hadn't served were a toss up:  Kerry 50/W. 49.

A Gallup poll from June 2008 shows McCain slaughtering Obama among people who served in the military, 56 to 34.  That actually exceeded the partisan registration split among veterans, which was 47 % Republican/39  % Democrat at that time.  So this data suggests that, not surprisingly, military voters and veterans probably tend to support one of their own, or leaders who they feel have their back like W.  What's happening now strongly suggests the troops do not "love" President Toxic, as he seems to feel they do.  Wonder why?

Desperately Derailing Donald

The effort to stop President Trump is growing comical.

Quote

Goldberg’s work, then, is symptomatic not just of the growing desperation of the Left to blow up Trump’s current polling trajectory, but the poverty of the muck material still left to work with.

I find that article from Trumpian American Greatness comical.  It's all well and good for Trump propagandists to hammer Biden, the corporate media, and various other segments of the vast left-wing conspiracy.  But last time I checked, the military was not a part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

What's interesting as a liberal outsider looking into the so-called "conservative" tent is that the MAGA types really don't seem to give a shit about the military, or their sentiments, at all.  Large chunks of the article above could have been written by Baby Glenn, who is certainly NOT a fan of the US military.  There's similar shitty reporting.  The article above, just like Baby Glenn, cites Bolton as a primary source who "denied" the story.  He actually confirmed some elements of the story (mostly about McCain), said the President is not credible, said he did not hear Trump use the alleged words "losers" and "suckers" in the meeting he was in, and offered that if President Toxic did say those words, it was "despicable".  That's not a denial.

It's understandable to me that Baby Glenn's sympathies don't go out to the military.  But what about MAGA conservatives?  Isn't a strong military supposed to be what they are about?  This military story is an octopus that covers the entire Toxic Trump Presidency in all kinds of facets.  Including, for example, the allegation that President Toxic hasn't lifted a bone spur to object that Putin put bounties on American soldiers.  So for American Greatness to dismiss all this as a desperate and comical lie seems to be a slap in the face to the military, which conservatives are supposed to respect - I thought, at least.  

Again, these people suck at facts and actual journalism.  But if they want to talk about "Trump's current polling trajectory", they might want to note that he is deep in the shitter with the military.  And that is unprecedented.  Neither the tone nor content of this article will help.  It goes along for the ride with the idea that all this concern about President Toxic's disregard for military lives and disrespect for military service is just comical.  Try explaining that to the military, if the journalists and the polls are right.  They may not see it as very funny at all.

Again, I'm just a liberal looking into the conservative tent.  It seems like there's a war going on in there.  If they are this busy throwing bombs and barbs at each other, how do they plan to win?

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[tassojunior]

@stevenkesslar

1. The military poll is a little surpring but remember the service, even though its less black, is hard to get in now. HS degree, no record, tests, etc. Many go to get college. Otherwise, its a smaller poll. But military, Ive heard, is much less right wing than police. Cops are far far right. 

2. I still say the cemetary narrative is obviously manufactured news and has no legs. To take it far requires going with the bone spurs thing and Biden did the same thing.

3. I dont know MN and WS and am surprised Biden is doing well there.I do remember that in 68 most riots were in Detroit and it was almost burned out of existence but in November voted Dem by over 6%. So riots may hurt more in other states. Nixon certainly won on law and order and disgust with the race riots.

4. Im surprised Biden is sinking in his "home" of PA and in MH. Both may be turning red. If Biden loses he'll regret not picking Whitmer.

5. If it stays close Trumps best shot is the 3 debates. Biden depends on a teleprompter and with one is trained to speak well. Primary debates also are more subdued with plenty of rehersed lines and platitudes. Biden stumbles on reading lines though and under heat lashes out crazily. One of the few people who may end up making Trump look presidential if he starts one of his Horse faced lesbian/Pony faced liar tirades.  Why Pelosi says "no debates". 

6. If I were advising Trump (I would not) Id suggest 2 biggies....first .....all China Joe, China Joe. Biden, and many Dems are extremely susceptible on that and China is the major enemy of the US and now the world's #1 country. 

Second, do a 180 on war and healthcare. Trump used to be a liberal Democrat and Biden was a main supporter of the Iraq War. Pull troops out of Afghanistan and Syria and condemn endless Democratic wars. Stop the drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia. Use executive orders to force low prescription prices and maybe even set up M4All. Trump once asked why not just M4All. Pardon Snowden, Assange and Manning. Pull the liberal rug out from under the Dems. People elected Trump because he was a rebel, not a Republican, and running the same old socialism, socialism GOP campaign is worn out. He needs independents.  Anyway I doubt he's any smarter than the Dems. 

My 2 cents on the election.

[tassojunior]

Addendum to above: Florida would be the win for Biden and I've been saying I hear the reason he's been ahead there is Trump's loss of seniors over 65. Biden needs to drive home policy on SS and Medicare. Trump cant lose seniors or Florida. Trump has pulled into a tie now with big Florida Latino support as opposed to 2016. 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by tassojunior

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tassojunior]

3 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Addendum to above: Florida would be the win for Biden and I've been saying I hear the reason he's been ahead there is Trump's loss of seniors over 65. Biden needs to drive home policy on SS and Medicare. Trump cant lose seniors or Florida. Trump has pulled into a tie now with big Florida Latino support as opposed to 2016. 

 

 

In further reading of the new FL poll, Biden is underperforming Clinton 2016's final across the board except for older voters: