Report: Trump called WWI Marines buried in France "losers" and "suckers"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 04:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I probably have a different view of this than most because my father was drafted and he was very cynical about the whole thing and would say that he was stupid to get on the bus.  But hey, he went so he can rag on himself, I guess.

My dad was commissioned and was there over a year both times he was sent, so he doesn't get to complain at all.  

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2020, 04:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My dad was commissioned and was there over a year both times he was sent, so he doesn't get to complain at all.  

My ol' man had that CCR style cynicism about it where he knew his poor arse was going on the line while the rich people waved the flag and gave superficial support.

I can just see Trump not going but then seeing even the most cursory of praise going towards people who actually served as something that needs a retort.  I think Trump said something about how he was better than those who served or he was on par with them because of something or another.

Honestly, it's hard to keep up with the crap the guy spews.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/06/top-five-steps-trump-has-taken-to-prepare-the-us-military-for-whatever-comes-next/#545065dc2ee5

Quote:He did this first and foremost by increasing defense outlays 25% between 2016 and 2020—an increase in funding greater in size than the entire military budget of any nation other than China. But the president didn’t just throw money at the problem. From its first months in office, the administration always had a plan for recovering ground lost during the Obama years....

Increased funding for readiness. On the eve of Trump’s election, the Government Accountability Office reported “persistently low readiness levels” in the joint force, which it attributed to high operating tempo, end-strength reductions, under-funding of training activities, and the departure of seasoned weapons maintainers. Military aircraft accidents increased 40% between 2013 and 2017, signaling a deterioration in pilot skills. Military leaders warned only a fraction of the force was ready to fight effectively on short notice.

Investment in core warfighting systems. When President Trump took office, the U.S. military was suffering from decades of under-investment in new technology. The Air Force’s fleet of bombers, fighters and tankers was the oldest it had ever been. The Army’s helicopters and armored vehicles consisted largely of programs begun during the Reagan years (or earlier). Some warfighting systems had grown so decrepit that the military services were proposing their retirement despite a lack of newer weapons with which to replace them.

Modernization of nuclear forces. Recapitalization of the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal was the first major military initiative Trump cited when he announced he intended to seek the presidency.

Bolstering resilience in space. In the years since the Cold War ended, U.S. military forces have become heavily dependent on satellites for missile warning, secure communications, intelligence and navigation. For instance, a typical Army brigade contains many hundreds of systems dependent on signals from the Global Positioning System to function effectively.

Pressing allies to do their part. President Trump has not been shy about telling allies they must do more to support collective security. That goes particularly for the European members of NATO, many of whom have stopped thinking rigorously about the military threat posed by Russia. For instance, Germany—one of the world’s biggest economies—spends less in a year on defense than Washington does in a month.

Now I have little doubt that Trump thinks himself superior to Service Members. Hell he thinks himself to everyone. But everything he says and does publicly supports the Military and our service men and women. So folks can take their anonymous reports of soundbites vote for Biden, because the Military suffered greatly when he was VP. I'll most likely be supporting the narcissist that backs the Military with actions.    

[GMDino]

"Sure, Trump may have insulted the troops but does really mean he insulted the troops?" is a fascinating defense.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2020, 05:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Sure, Trump may have insulted the troops but does really mean he insulted the troops?" is a fascinating defense.

Let's just say everything Trump was reported as saying is true. We know are faced with a simple question:

Which is more important? Words or Actions. 

I understand why the Left has such a hard on for painting Trump anti-Military. It's because they know he'll spend money to support it and if they can get the Military to bite their own heads off then the Left can use that loot to provide free healthcare to illegal immigrants ect...

[KillerGoose]

(09-08-2020, 05:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/06/top-five-steps-trump-has-taken-to-prepare-the-us-military-for-whatever-comes-next/#545065dc2ee5


Now I have little doubt that Trump thinks himself superior to Service Members. Hell he thinks himself to everyone. But everything he says and does publicly supports the Military and our service men and women. So folks can take their anonymous reports of soundbites vote for Biden, because the Military suffered greatly when he was VP. I'll most likely be supporting the narcissist that backs the Military with actions.    

This isn't a combative post, more along the lines of curiosity. I have always had the notion that if you're the POTUS, you play ball with the military whether you like it or not. Has there been a recent President that didn't play ball or support the military?

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2020, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which is more important? Words or Actions. 

To voters?  Words.  Fair or not, it's all about the words.


Actually I'll say the most important thing to people is the letter by the candidate's name...I can't think of any other reason why a bunch of god-praising republicans are pleased with Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2020, 05:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: This isn't a combative post, more along the lines of curiosity. I have always had the notion that if you're the POTUS, you play ball with the military whether you like it or not. Has there been a recent President that didn't play ball or support the military?

To be fair Obama was quite supportive of the Military in his first term, but absolutely killed it in his 2nd term. Don't you remember hearing all the talk about waits at VA facilities, furloughs, and pay raises at lawful minimums?

WTS, as bad as Obama was in his 2nd term he didn't hold a candle to Clinton. Although I gave 2 shits about politics back then I do remember having to bring our own toilet paper to work and cancelling maneuvers because we didn't have any funding for gas. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2020, 05:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: To voters?  Words.  Fair or not, it's all about the words.

It's why i stated I understand why the Left has such a hard on for painting Trump Anti-Military. Those in the know, know. 

[*PhilHos*]

(09-08-2020, 05:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Sure, Trump may have insulted the troops but does really mean he insulted the troops?" is a fascinating defense.

How about 10 people going on record publicly and not as 'anonymous sources' saying he didn't insult the troops?

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2020, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's why i stated I understand why the Left has such a hard on for painting Trump Anti-Military. Those in the know, know. 

Yes, words Trump all...no pun intended.  

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2020, 05:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How about 10 people going on record publicly and not as 'anonymous sources' saying he didn't insult the troops?

You say that as if something Trump has directly stated hasn't been waved off as some form of hoax, itself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair Obama was quite supportive of the Military in his first term, but absolutely killed it in his 2nd term. Don't you remember hearing all the talk about waits at VA facilities, furloughs, and pay raises at lawful minimums?

WTS, as bad as Obama was in his 2nd term he didn't hold a candle to Clinton. Although I gave 2 shits about politics back then I do remember having to bring our own toilet paper to work and cancelling maneuvers because we didn't have any funding for gas. 

Clinton essentially killed my military career.  Once two of my friends lost their pilot slots and I was told I couldn't get one I really lost interest.  Although, looking back, I'm not sure how good an officer I would have been in my early 20's.

For those wondering, the severe budget cuts caused the Air Force to reserve every pilot slot for Academy cadets only.  I crushed the AFOQT in both pilot and navigator and had zero chance.  My friend, who was a year older, would have been a fantastic pilot, he'd been flying since his early teens.  Then I later saw a news story on the first female fighter pilot and she was wearing glasses.  Wearing glasses was the biggest of the automatic disqualifiers for a pilot slot.  If you didn't have uncorrected 20/20 vision you were told not to even bother.

Oh well, all's well that ends well.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-08-2020, 06:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You say that as if something Trump has directly stated hasn't been waved off as some form of hoax, itself.

No doubt some Trump supporters have tried to say Trump didn't say something he clearly did, but there also times when Trump haters have claimed that Trump said something he did not.

That's why when there's a claim about Trump, the best thing would be to provide verifiable evidence and not rely on 'anonymous sources' regardless of whether it's a bad thing/good thing Trump said/did.

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2020, 06:07 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No doubt some Trump supporters have tried to say Trump didn't say something he clearly did, but there also times when Trump haters have claimed that Trump said something he did not.

That's why when there's a claim about Trump, the best thing would be to provide verifiable evidence and not rely on 'anonymous sources' regardless of whether it's a bad thing/good thing Trump said/did.

Right, but we've clearly seen that something he has said that corroborates some sort of accusation has been easily dismissed, as well.  Whether he admits it himself or anonymous sources or named sources or former employees or he pays out a huge settlement rather than fight the charge and blah blah blah happens, it's still just a bunch of unimportant hot air to his fanbase.

I just don't expect that to change, but hey if Trump supporters want to act like they'll believe this latest thing if they can get some actual evidence then they're fooling themselves.  Why can't people just be honest with their bias?

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2020, 05:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How about 10 people going on record publicly and not as 'anonymous sources' saying he didn't insult the troops?

Multiple news outlets confirming it with sources is definitely more believable than multiple Trump staffers saying it. Even if the Trump administration didn’t have a history of lying profusely, I’d believe multiple journalists with independent corroboration.

[*Nately120*]

I'm not sure how legit or representative "Vote Vets" is as a group, but they're really pushing the Trump bad for vets agenda, here. Maybe they're just a group of liberals using veterans as pawns to smear Trump? Ida know. I report, you decide.

https://twitter.com/votevets

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2020, 06:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not sure how legit or representative "Vote Vets" is as a group, but they're really pushing the Trump bad for vets agenda, here.  Maybe they're just a group of liberals using veterans as pawns to smear Trump?  Ida know.  I report, you decide.

https://twitter.com/votevets

They're a liberal veterans group that backs vets running as Democrats. They were pushing Buttigieg back in the primary. 

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2020, 06:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They're a liberal veterans group that backs vets running as Democrats. They were pushing Buttigieg back in the primary. 

Yeah, I looked into them so I'd file this under interesting but nothing new.  Even if I'm not 100% on board with their agenda I can see some logical points in there. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-08-2020, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's why i stated I understand why the Left has such a hard on for painting Trump Anti-Military. Those in the know, know. 

And conservatives and liars want to create this false narrative Trump re-built the military, but it’s just not true. Trump hasn’t spent more on the military than Obama. The truth is actually the opposite.

Obama began decreasing the budget in 2011 because we withdrew from an entire theater, Iraq. Meaning manpower and budget demands were decreasing. Why would we continue spending at 2010 levels?

Trump is increasing the military budget while attempting to decrease our overseas involvement. So where’s the money going? It ain’t on pay, benefits, or housing. Is he paying for military parades and deploying the military to our border with Mexico?

Increased spending while giving tax breaks to the rich is why our deficit and debt has continued to increase.