Trump insults a war hero

[DrDoomNGloom]

Defending Trump at this stage is meaningless, the deed is done and what he said will become part of Trump's campaign dialogue. I wonder if he gained by his "off the cuff" remark or lost, but I'm sure there are more off the cuff remarks coming.

Didn't like how I pointed out that your actions didn't match your words, huh?

Another dick licking troll ........................

Not you Correll ..............

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I misrepresented nothing. You said Trump attacking McCain's military service was no big deal and I agreed with you that for some, attacking someone's wartime service is not a big deal.

As far as if the GOP pandered to racists since Nixon .... what does that have to do with Trump being a fucktard for insulting McCain's wartime heroism?

You keep phrasing that as "attacking someone's wartime service", could you please quote that attack??

Do you know who was interviewing Trump??

Do you know what the moderator said that brought up McCain being a hero??

Could be the moderator made a comment and Trump did not agree with his stance on the issue ...............

Most reasonable and prudent people understood that McCain was not a hero for being captured, there were many others who did not receive any recognition for being in the same boat and were not classified as heros.

Now some little whiny bitch, looking for a reason to malign Trump might twist that around into something else ..................

What was you take again??

 

[Faun]

Of course Trump can insult him "for other issues." So what? Trump is still a fucktard for insulting him on the issue of his wartime heroism.

And no, I didn't vote for him. I had considered it until he pick Palin to be his running mate.

i voted for him.

Trump is not a "fucktard". He was well within normal rules of civil conduct to insult McCain back.

That he touched upon McCain's military service was a mistake.

Big Freaking Deal.

I understand that attacking the service of those who fought in war for this country is not a big freaking deal.

If it is such a big freaking deal, then you shouldn't have to misrepresent what I say to make your point.

A grumpy old man got into it with someone who insulted him back.

Did he say something he didn't really mean? Probably.

Do you believe that the GOP has been pandering to racists with the SOuthern Strategy since Nixon?

I misrepresented nothing. You said Trump attacking McCain's military service was no big deal and I agreed with you that for some, attacking someone's wartime service is not a big deal.

As far as if the GOP pandered to racists since Nixon .... what does that have to do with Trump being a fucktard for insulting McCain's wartime heroism?

ONe off the cuff remark is not a general policy, which is how you phrased it, "those who fought".

There is no indication that this is the beginning of a trend for Trump, either with attacking the service of all who served, or even of repeatedly attacking McCain's service.

WHat does it have to do with Trump?

Answer the question and find out.

I never said it was, "general policy." You're reading into things not stated. Again ... I said for some, attacking someone's wartime experience is no big deal and Trump falls into that category.

As far as your question, I don't see the connection. So unless you establish one, I'm not interested.

 

[Correll]

i voted for him.

Trump is not a "fucktard". He was well within normal rules of civil conduct to insult McCain back.

That he touched upon McCain's military service was a mistake.

Big Freaking Deal.

I understand that attacking the service of those who fought in war for this country is not a big freaking deal.

If it is such a big freaking deal, then you shouldn't have to misrepresent what I say to make your point.

A grumpy old man got into it with someone who insulted him back.

Did he say something he didn't really mean? Probably.

Do you believe that the GOP has been pandering to racists with the SOuthern Strategy since Nixon?

I misrepresented nothing. You said Trump attacking McCain's military service was no big deal and I agreed with you that for some, attacking someone's wartime service is not a big deal.

As far as if the GOP pandered to racists since Nixon .... what does that have to do with Trump being a fucktard for insulting McCain's wartime heroism?

ONe off the cuff remark is not a general policy, which is how you phrased it, "those who fought".

There is no indication that this is the beginning of a trend for Trump, either with attacking the service of all who served, or even of repeatedly attacking McCain's service.

WHat does it have to do with Trump?

Answer the question and find out.

I never said it was, "general policy." You're reading into things not stated. Again ... I said for some, attacking someone's wartime experience is no big deal and Trump falls into that category.

As far as your question, I don't see the connection. So unless you establish one, I'm not interested.

YOu are the one trying to pump up one off the cuff remark into some sort of reason to hate Trump.

The connection should be obvious.

YOu libs claim to believe that the GOP has been based on pandering to racists, in a racist America for 50 years.

If you really believe that to be true, then getting so hot and bothered over a simple insult is utterly ridiculous.

THis pretense of outrage is complete bullshit.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I never said it was, "general policy." You're reading into things not stated. Again ... I said for some, attacking someone's wartime experience is no big deal and Trump falls into that category.

As far as your question, I don't see the connection. So unless you establish one, I'm not interested.

You are not interesting in anything except trolling this thread and pursuing your moronic little lies ...........................

 

[regent]

Defending Trump at this stage is meaningless, the deed is done and what he said will become part of Trump's campaign dialogue. I wonder if he gained by his "off the cuff" remark or lost, but I'm sure there are more off the cuff remarks coming.

Didn't like how I pointed out that your actions didn't match your words, huh?

The thread is more about Trump than you. I saw nothing that indicated further response, but keep trying.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

It is a shame so many of those cocksuckers refuse to discuss the actual issues ...............

Well another fucking pussy ass troll go on ignore ..................

Out of this meaningless circle jerk with that fucking troll ........................

 

[Correll]

Defending Trump at this stage is meaningless, the deed is done and what he said will become part of Trump's campaign dialogue. I wonder if he gained by his "off the cuff" remark or lost, but I'm sure there are more off the cuff remarks coming.

Didn't like how I pointed out that your actions didn't match your words, huh?

The thread is more about Trump than you. I saw nothing that indicated further response, but keep trying.

"About me"?

LOL!

You're the one that claimed that he would be all about substance in criticizing a hypothetical President McCain while you trying to make a mountain out of this molehill.

That's called hypocrisy.

 

[regent]

The deed is done and that's they way many will remember it. It is now in the political history book and unless Trump knew what he was doing and it was part of some grand scheme, a scheme that he plans to stun the world with, that phase is over. We wait for his next move.

 

[Correll]

The deed is done and that's they way many will remember it. It is now in the political history book and unless Trump knew what he was doing and it was part of some grand scheme, a scheme that he plans to stun the world with, that phase is over. We wait for his next move.

"The Deed is done"?

Can you be any more of a drama queen?

You consider this a "Deed"?

It's a verbal slight, directed at someone who earned it.

That you libs managed to spin it up to a thing, it testimony to your dominance of the media, nothing more.

 

[regent]

The deed is done and that's they way many will remember it. It is now in the political history book and unless Trump knew what he was doing and it was part of some grand scheme, a scheme that he plans to stun the world with, that phase is over. We wait for his next move.

"The Deed is done"?

Can you be any more of a drama queen?

You consider this a "Deed"?

It's a verbal slight, directed at someone who earned it.

That you libs managed to spin it up to a thing, it testimony to your dominance of the media, nothing more.

That is how politics works in the good old USA.

 

[Correll]

The deed is done and that's they way many will remember it. It is now in the political history book and unless Trump knew what he was doing and it was part of some grand scheme, a scheme that he plans to stun the world with, that phase is over. We wait for his next move.

"The Deed is done"?

Can you be any more of a drama queen?

You consider this a "Deed"?

It's a verbal slight, directed at someone who earned it.

That you libs managed to spin it up to a thing, it testimony to your dominance of the media, nothing more.

That is how politics works in the good old USA.

So, you admit that it is nothing but a verbal slight directed at a man who earned it.

THat you pretend otherwise, that you pretend it means more, is you being intellectually dishonest.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

IF the truth isn't on your side, doesn't that mean you are on the wrong side?

 

[regent]

The deed is done and that's they way many will remember it. It is now in the political history book and unless Trump knew what he was doing and it was part of some grand scheme, a scheme that he plans to stun the world with, that phase is over. We wait for his next move.

"The Deed is done"?

Can you be any more of a drama queen?

You consider this a "Deed"?

It's a verbal slight, directed at someone who earned it.

That you libs managed to spin it up to a thing, it testimony to your dominance of the media, nothing more.

That is how politics works in the good old USA.

So, you admit that it is nothing but a verbal slight directed at a man who earned it.

THat you pretend otherwise, that you pretend it means more, is you being intellectually dishonest.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

If the truth isn't on your side, doesn't that mean you are on the wrong side?

Political truth may be on my side at this time, this is politics not Sunday School. The truth in politics is what people believe to be true, and Trump, to me, makes it hard to believe him. He sounds more like a loose cannon than a smart politician, but then again maybe this is part of his political strategy. Sound stupid and then surprise everybody, but is that a good plan? Time will tell.

 

[Faun]

I misrepresented nothing. You said Trump attacking McCain's military service was no big deal and I agreed with you that for some, attacking someone's wartime service is not a big deal.

As far as if the GOP pandered to racists since Nixon .... what does that have to do with Trump being a fucktard for insulting McCain's wartime heroism?

You keep phrasing that as "attacking someone's wartime service", could you please quote that attack??

Do you know who was interviewing Trump??

Do you know what the moderator said that brought up McCain being a hero??

Could be the moderator made a comment and Trump did not agree with his stance on the issue ...............

Most reasonable and prudent people understood that McCain was not a hero for being captured, there were many others who did not receive any recognition for being in the same boat and were not classified as heros.

Now some little whiny bitch, looking for a reason to malign Trump might twist that around into something else ..................

What was you take again??

What needs to be quoted you haven't already heard? The interviewer pointed out, rightfully so, that McCain is a war hero; and Trump disagreed. Trump, who avoided serving, looks like a fucktard denigrating the brave service of a fellow American who did by denying McCain is a war hero. Trump then begrudgingly acknowledged McCain is a war hero after the interviewer called him on his nonsense; but Trump idiotically attributed McCain's wartime heroic status to being captured.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

What needs to be quoted you haven't already heard? The interviewer pointed out, rightfully so, that McCain is a war hero; and Trump disagreed. Trump, who avoided serving, looks like a fucktard denigrating the brave service of a fellow American who did by denying McCain is a war hero. Trump then begrudgingly acknowledged McCain is a war hero after the interviewer called him on his nonsense; but Trump idiotically attributed McCain's wartime heroic status to being captured.

You really are special aren't you??

You can not discuss this without the persistent ad hominem of Trump??

You seem to have double talked and dodged, you know para phrased ...............

Are you just too fucking stupid to quote what Donald said??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Hey you fucking retard , quote out of this article and tell us what the fuck you keep running your dick lickers about ............

You are here: Home › News › Fact Check › Fact Check: The Washington Post on Donald Trump and John McCain
Fact Check: The Washington Post on Donald Trump and John McCain

• by sattkisson
• on July 18, 2015
• in Fact Check, News
• 292 Comments

[Above image: Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference]

Donald Trump appears to have gotten under the skin of not only Democrats, but also fellow Republicans and the news media. Has that subjected Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, to unfair and/or inaccurate reporting?

An article in the Washington Post today is headlined, “Trump slams McCain for being ‘captured’ in Vietnam.”

The article’s lead sentence states, “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump slammed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran, on Saturday by saying McCain was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese [emphasis added].”

Is this report accurate?

In fact, Trump’s actual quote is the opposite of what is presented in the Post’s first sentence.

Discussion

1. The Post did not provide context at the outset disclosing that McCain and Trump have been feuding, with McCain characterizing some Trump supporters as “crazies” and Trump stating that McCain graduated last in his class in Annapolis. The charged rhetoric continued at the conservative Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa this weekend.

2. When a panelist characterized McCain as a “war hero,” the Post is accurate in reporting that Trump initially said McCain is “not a war hero.” But then, Trump immediately modified his statement saying– four times– that McCain is a war hero:

“He is a war hero.”

“He’s a war hero because he was captured.”

“He’s a war hero, because he was captured.”

“I believe, perhaps, he’s a war hero. But right now, he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”

3. Did Trump say McCain is not a war hero because he was captured? No, not in the exchanges represented in the Post.

4. Is the Post’s characterization an accident? It would appear not, because it is repeated in the Post’s caption of the video clip, which also states: “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam war veteran, was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese [emphasis added].”

Further, in the Post’s second sentence, Trump is quoted as stating of McCain, “He’s not a war hero…He’s a war hero because he was captured,” but the article selectively left out the phrase Trump had uttered in between: “He is a war hero.”

Conclusion

Trump actually said the opposite of what the Post lead sentence and video caption claim. The Post might have been able to get away stating that Trump “implied” McCain was not a war hero because McCain was captured, but even that would have been a subjective interpretation since Trump had actually stated the opposite.

 

[Correll]

The deed is done and that's they way many will remember it. It is now in the political history book and unless Trump knew what he was doing and it was part of some grand scheme, a scheme that he plans to stun the world with, that phase is over. We wait for his next move.

"The Deed is done"?

Can you be any more of a drama queen?

You consider this a "Deed"?

It's a verbal slight, directed at someone who earned it.

That you libs managed to spin it up to a thing, it testimony to your dominance of the media, nothing more.

That is how politics works in the good old USA.

So, you admit that it is nothing but a verbal slight directed at a man who earned it.

THat you pretend otherwise, that you pretend it means more, is you being intellectually dishonest.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

If the truth isn't on your side, doesn't that mean you are on the wrong side?

Political truth may be on my side at this time, this is politics not Sunday School. The truth in politics is what people believe to be true, and Trump, to me, makes it hard to believe him. He sounds more like a loose cannon than a smart politician, but then again maybe this is part of his political strategy. Sound stupid and then surprise everybody, but is that a good plan? Time will tell.

We are past the "you admit that you know you are spouting bs and your lame rationalizations for your actions" phase.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

If the truth isn't on your side, doesn't that mean that you are on the wrong side?

 

[Correll]

Hey you fucking retard , quote out of this article and tell us what the fuck you keep running your dick lickers about ............

You are here: Home › News › Fact Check › Fact Check: The Washington Post on Donald Trump and John McCain
Fact Check: The Washington Post on Donald Trump and John McCain

• by sattkisson
• on July 18, 2015
• in Fact Check, News
• 292 Comments

[Above image: Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference]

Donald Trump appears to have gotten under the skin of not only Democrats, but also fellow Republicans and the news media. Has that subjected Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, to unfair and/or inaccurate reporting?

An article in the Washington Post today is headlined, “Trump slams McCain for being ‘captured’ in Vietnam.”

The article’s lead sentence states, “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump slammed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran, on Saturday by saying McCain was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese [emphasis added].”

Is this report accurate?

In fact, Trump’s actual quote is the opposite of what is presented in the Post’s first sentence.

Discussion

1. The Post did not provide context at the outset disclosing that McCain and Trump have been feuding, with McCain characterizing some Trump supporters as “crazies” and Trump stating that McCain graduated last in his class in Annapolis. The charged rhetoric continued at the conservative Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa this weekend.

2. When a panelist characterized McCain as a “war hero,” the Post is accurate in reporting that Trump initially said McCain is “not a war hero.” But then, Trump immediately modified his statement saying– four times– that McCain is a war hero:

“He is a war hero.”

“He’s a war hero because he was captured.”

“He’s a war hero, because he was captured.”

“I believe, perhaps, he’s a war hero. But right now, he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”

3. Did Trump say McCain is not a war hero because he was captured? No, not in the exchanges represented in the Post.

4. Is the Post’s characterization an accident? It would appear not, because it is repeated in the Post’s caption of the video clip, which also states: “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam war veteran, was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese [emphasis added].”

Further, in the Post’s second sentence, Trump is quoted as stating of McCain, “He’s not a war hero…He’s a war hero because he was captured,” but the article selectively left out the phrase Trump had uttered in between: “He is a war hero.”

Conclusion

Trump actually said the opposite of what the Post lead sentence and video caption claim. The Post might have been able to get away stating that Trump “implied” McCain was not a war hero because McCain was captured, but even that would have been a subjective interpretation since Trump had actually stated the opposite.

They lie and they know they are lying.

 

[Vigilante]

Then we have this...

Can Trump Save America Alone?

Townhall.com ^ | July 27, 2015
In spite of the provocative nature of his seemingly unchecked comments, it’s clear that Donald Trump and his polarizing comments are not going away. After all, there’s something very attractive about a truth teller who‘s not afraid of expressing his views in a town known for political correctness, safe comments, and excuses. The faithful want more than campaign promises from politicians who once elected seem to get a strong case of Potomac Fever. Many wonder if fearless campaigning will translate into fearless, effective leadership. By Trump’s own admission, he’s beyond rich, rich enough not to need anyone’s campaign funds. He...

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Not saying everyone who serves is a war hero. I am saying McCain is. And I'm saying Trump is a fucktard for attacking McCain's heroism when he himself evaded going to Vietnam."

I would be very interested in knowing what exactly McCain did that you consider heroic. As I said I fought in Vietnam and I am certainly no hero. Nor were most of the guys I served with. But there were enough who actually were that I hate to see the term (and their service) trivialized by those who simply don't know any better. Mr. Trump was correct: there is nothing heroic about being captured. At best it is at least somewhat embarrassing. And worse than that if you provide enemy propaganda while a POW.

Being captured in itself is not heroic but I view McCain as a hero for a) not revealing any information to the enemy despite being tortured; b) not giving the enemy the opportunity to use him, as the son of an admiral, as a propaganda tool; and c) mostly because he refused to be released early and ahead of other POWs to accomodate (b).

If that were true I would agree with you. Unfortunately it isn't. In fact there are those who consider him a traitor for his actions while a POW. I don't agree with that viewpoint either because he just did what he needed to to survive. Neither hero nor traitor in my book. Same goes for Trump; he's entitled to his opinion and what he said was clearly stated as opinion.