04-24-2019, 01:04 AM
(04-23-2019, 11:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you didn't mention their Military Service and thereby missed the point (I'll leave the counter at 3). Biden got 5 deferments and then receives a deferment at the age of 25 because of a diagnoses of asthma as a teenager. Defend him if you want, but I will not defend him nor Trump in their military service regardless which one you state 50 years later had the "better" deferment.
1. No one here has made the claim one is morally superior to the other based upon their military service. You have repeatedly told us that Biden doesn't have the moral high ground when it comes to military "service," but (again) no one has made that claim you keep denying.
2. I haven't defend Biden. I've educated you asthma can be a disqualifying medical condition for military service whereas heel spurs are not. The actual condition which can be disqualifying is plantar fasciitis. But, fortunately for many seeking to join the military plantar fasciitis is only temporarily disqualifying until the pain is gone. Then they are able to join provided they qualify otherwise.
3. I didn't claim either had a better deferment. I stated one condition can be disqualifying and one isn't.
4. Thank Thor you're not going to defend Trump and his alleged heel spurs which aren't disqualifying for military service by emphasizing his nonexistent "service" repeatedly. But, when it comes to defending Trump for lying about the reason for the medical deferment you're doing an average job of obfuscation with your "service" smoke screen.
Just so you don't claim I missed the point again, I'll summarize. No one has claimed Trump or Biden has the moral high ground based upon military service neither has. You read that part, yes? Neither has military service thus neither can have the moral high ground regarding military service. Yes, yes, yes; we all understand. However, no one made that claim you keep denying. We got it already! The moral high ground to be had would be if one was a draft dodger claiming to have a medical condition which isn't disqualifying while the other actually had a legitimate medical deferment due to an actual medical condition which can be detected with objective measurements using spirometry and a methacholine challenge and a well document medical record indicating the individual had a medical condition since he were a teenager in high school and as an adult decades later. But, thank Thor, you've already stated you won't defend whether a medical condition which isn't disqualifying is better or worse than a medical condition which actually is disqualifying.
Therefore, there is no need for you to comment further.
