Trump Said Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
At least he didn't call dead martyrs suckers and losers.
The Atlantic is failing?of course Trumpers are too basic to know what the Atlantic is, maybe saw it in a waiting room once or twice in their lives.
they don’t pick up the Atlantic. Some pick up Highlights hoping that little kids will come up to them, others pick up National Geographic hoping to see boobies.
kneeling during a national anthem in protest for an unrelated cause is FAR more disrespectful to the troops than calling them losers and not visiting their graves because you are afraid your hair will look bad.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/06/media/jeffrey-goldberg-atlantic-trump-reliable-sources/index.html
The Atlantic's editor-in-chief says his story about Trump calling vets 'losers' is just the beginning
https://www.cnn.com/profiles/alexis-benveniste
New York (CNN Business)Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said his magazine's story about Trump calling Americans who died in battle "losers" and "suckers," was just the tip of the iceberg.
"I would fully expect more reporting to come out about this and more confirmation and new pieces of information in the coming days and weeks," Goldberg told CNN's Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "We have a responsibility and we're going to do it regardless of what he says."
Here is my problem with the article from The Atlantic. For a claim this wild near an election you need better than a senior "anonymous source" making these type of claims. Someone needs to come forward with the balls to make the claim and stick their name & reputation behind the claim.
Until that happens then I very much doubt The Atlantic's reporting on this matter --- especially since it is already proven with released emails that their claims the helicopter trip was not cancelled due to weather is untrue.
Keep in mind -- I do not doubt that Trump would say something like this (regarding the dead soldiers) considering all the other stuff that come out of this mouth ---- all I am saying that you need better than "anonymous sources" when putting this stuff forward. Unless you want OAN, The Blaze, and the Washington Times to be putting out all sorts of stuff they claim Joe Biden said based on "anonymous sources". Two sides of the political spectrum can play this game.
The editor Goldberg has said there are multiple sources and expects some to step out in the coming months.
Quite simply most just trust him above Trump who is deemed as incapable of telling the truth even when it makes no sense to lie. He has somehow created a shield where nobody expecting anything of him means his transgressions are not counted. Well with some.
Goldberg discussed the issue of sources here and he seems a million times more credible than Trump.
This is Trump to those of us who have good memories.
Trump loves the Military. That is why he hasn't sent them to war anywhere at all.
This election is arguably the most important decision we have made as a country in decades. Regardless of who wins huge changes are coming. You simply cannot make a claim such as this which is so damaging, so impactful that is most likely change the minds of millions of voters, all that on an anonymous source? No, not a chance. Not on one anonymous source, not on a hundred. We need a very credible, first hand eye witness account which can be fact checked. The longer this drip drip political gamesmanship goes on the more likely the "bombshell" is going to be some nobody who knows a guy who heard another guy who says he heard it, and that won't get it either. You have a stake to drive through the heart, indisputable evidence is needed. Otherwise we must then believe every story from every outlet no matter how ridiculous.
