There are no established facts anywhere that you alleged. Trying to make something out of nothing.
Trump insults our war dead...again
- Thread starter willdup
- Start date
From Axios: It's not entirely clear what is considered an election-related activity
I guess that's the rub, here. Three more points:
1. The rules make no mention of seeing names on headstones
2. Using your interpretation of what you provided above, if any film of any ceremony or simply Arlington at all is used in any political ad, it would be a violation of law
3. If you try to differentiate between pool (it makes no distinction, fwiw) & private filming, Trump's videographer was effectively part of the pool, per the permission given
Did he release a campaign video?
Do you think there was a confrontation because the staff at ANC just have it out for Trump and the woman wanted to pick a fight?
Did you see Trump’s weak attempt to avoid responsibility and suggest it was all a set up?
I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere but here. It was brought up on Fox but it was dismissed as a nothing burger.
Yes. This image:
...is from Section 60 AND is in a campaign video, here:
The video ends with "Paid for by Biden for President".
Watch it yourself.
Not sure. I think it's either:
1. Staffers acted very inappropriately or
2. The woman didn't know they had been given permission for photos/video, outside of the normal pool
...in which case both sides have some validity in their actions.
I don't think she knew & still tried to stop them, if she did then she's completely in the wrong (and makes Trump's response you reference below have validity). But, apparently the issue has been "closed" and we'll likely never know for sure, unless more video is released (which still wouldn't tell us who knew what, but could be valuable).
I read a reference to it. If he was told "you can" then you're later slammed for doing that and an ANC official tries to stop you (whether she was aware of the permission or not) I can understand his sentiment.
But again...who knows? We'll probably get the full story in 3 months, per the normal life of these things.
I’m not sure I agree with your summary of the facts but you have successfully filibustered me into putting the debate aside for cocktails with the in-laws.Yes. This image:
...is from Section 60 AND is in a campaign video, here:
The video ends with "Paid for by Biden for President".
Watch it yourself.
Not sure. I think it's either:
1. Staffers acted very inappropriately or
2. The woman didn't know they had been given permission for photos/video, outside of the normal pool
...in which case both sides have some validity in their actions.
I don't think she knew & still tried to stop them, if she did then she's completely in the wrong (and makes Trump's response you reference below have validity). But, apparently the issue has been "closed" and we'll likely never know for sure, unless more video is released (which still wouldn't tell us who knew what, but could be valuable).
I read a reference to it. If he was told "you can" then you're later slammed for doing that and an ANC official tries to stop you (whether she was aware of the permission or not) I can understand his sentiment.
But again...who knows? We'll probably get the full story in 3 months, per the normal life of these things.
Have a great weekend and Go Dawgs.
I didn't know providing a campaign video that shows Biden did the same thing that Trump did & is getting blasted for was "filibustering"
...but enjoy your evening and the Dawgs tomorrow!
That’s what happens when you raise interest rates to a place that squeezes Americans and small businesses in order to address the 9 percent inflation 18 months ago. Unfortunately the cumulative inflation ship has sailed and housing and food is unaffordable for an unprecedented number of Americans.
In all seriousness thank God these numbers are finally manageable from a data dependency standpoint and rates can hopefully get to a workable place again.
When you continue to show this is not unprecedented of course it is filibustering. But they plan to take that away as well.I didn't know providing a campaign video that shows Biden did the same thing that Trump did & is getting blasted for was "filibustering"
...but enjoy your evening and the Dawgs tomorrow!
The filibustering was simply because Moose always brings a lot of good content to support his positions and I ran out of time to create a reasonable reply. I didn’t mean to imply it was the content itself. Apologies if it came across that way.
Weird that if it was all legal and appropriate that Trump is now claiming some combination of ignorance and being set up. You’d think he would just own it, but then again, the photo with the smiles and thumbs up that included the grave of the soldier who committed suicide is still a tough one to explain.
Enjoy the game and Go Dawgs.
Who is this chick?
What's interesting to me is the context. He clearly stated he didn't know who posted the pic and videos. He said it could have been anyone and it could have been a set up by the Biden/Harris Admin, which is a reasonable assertion these days. And it's going to get a lot worse after Labor Day.
Anyway, don't criticize ppl who post Gateway Pundit or Alex Jones if you're going to post stuff like this.
Last edited:
I understand. I also wanted to point out someone has talked about removing the filibuster and stacking the Supreme Court.
We are all still waiting for a reasonable reply from you. 😉
This first image is of Biden serving in his role as Commander in Chief. He honors the dead and does not discuss politics or attack his opponent.Yes. This image:
...is from Section 60 AND is in a campaign video, here:
The video ends with "Paid for by Biden for President".
Watch it yourself.
Not sure. I think it's either:
1. Staffers acted very inappropriately or
2. The woman didn't know they had been given permission for photos/video, outside of the normal pool
...in which case both sides have some validity in their actions.
I don't think she knew & still tried to stop them, if she did then she's completely in the wrong (and makes Trump's response you reference below have validity). But, apparently the issue has been "closed" and we'll likely never know for sure, unless more video is released (which still wouldn't tell us who knew what, but could be valuable).
I read a reference to it. If he was told "you can" then you're later slammed for doing that and an ANC official tries to stop you (whether she was aware of the permission or not) I can understand his sentiment.
But again...who knows? We'll probably get the full story in 3 months, per the normal life of these things.
The second tweet you posted is gone. What was the source? I’ve tried to find a campaign matching that description and have been unsuccessful.
The only people suggesting the staffer acted inappropriately are the same Trump campaign staffers who ignored the rules, physically attacked her and then attacked her character. ANC stands behind her actions and the fact that she was attempting to prevent the campaign from breaking the rules they had just been briefed upon.
To be clear, Trump never had permission to take his own photographer and videographer into section 60. That was not “previously agreed upon”.
Perhaps the blowback for Trump would have been significantly less if the illegal campaign video that he made and released was focused on honoring the dead instead of attacking his opponents while using the dead as a prop for his smiling, thumbs-up absurdity.
The latest reporting that I’ve seen suggests that the campaign attempted to position the private memorial as a planned public event that Biden and Harris were invited to and refused to attend, which it was not.
Regarding Trump’s weak attempt at a denial, he didn’t say he was given permission. He said he didn’t know the rules and he didn’t know who did the video. Then he said perhaps it was a set up by Biden or one of the gold star families.
But again, all of this is simply the latest example of Trump’s repeated dismissing law and decorum for pursuit of what ever he wants. We saw it again last night when, after trashing the MSM yet again, one of his followers attempted to attack the press, and Trump praised the guy. Just as he praises the violent felons from J6. We can’t say it’s an anomaly, or he was caught in a bad day. This is who he is, and he has no business returning to the WH and he reminds of that on a nearly daily basis now.
“Beautiful. That’s beautiful. It’s ok, he’s on our side. We get a little itchy”.
Here is some comprehensive coverage of ANC from Stars and Stripes.
How a Trump visit sparked turmoil at America’s most sacred cemetery
Officials from Arlington National Cemetery and the military hoped clear rules would avoid a damaging public spat with Donald Trump. Instead, they got sucked into exactly the kind of crisis they were hoping to avoid.
Last edited:
That's a heck of a spin.
1. That's from his time as VPOTUS...so, not CINC
2. It still an image from Section 60, in ANC, being used in a political ad. Which, according to you above is against the law
So, again...I guess we're left with the ill-defined "political activity". You're making excuses for the Biden ad & slamming Trump.
Ok, VP serving in an official capacity and being respectful and non-partisan.
Clearly, if you’ve found the gotcha that shows that Biden also broke the law, please share a credible source stating that. Perhaps it was stock, perhaps he got the needed permissions. I don’t know, but I don’t believe the army and ANC have conspired to make Trump look bad.
The Trump campaign was told ahead of time and during the first part of the event that they could not bring their private photographer and videographer into section 60, and when they were challenged they got physical and did it anyway and then released the product of their efforts.
Read the Stars and Stripes article.
Bottom line, it’s clear there is no scenario where you seem willing to fault Trump that I remember. I’m sure you will have a reason for why his comments last night as one of his followers tried to attack the press were misunderstood and justified. Does it not grow tiresome having to constantly make excuses for what is an extremely well establish person of horrible morale character?
We can argue the details of why he asked Ukraine for dirt on Biden or why Trump lied about proof of election fraud or why he asked the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by or why he lied about returning the classified documents or why he praised J6 and promises to pardon those convicted or why his goons got into a physical altercation at ANC or why he praises a person attacking the press right in front of him or why he talks about illegal immigrants poisoning the blood of our country. But can you acknowledge a pattern here?
Is it not completely exhausting?
At the end of the day, just remember:
Trump is ALWAYS going to try to play the victim. It's been his schtick for decades.
Once you know that, it's so predictable to see where he is going to go. Nothing is ever his fault. He could be caught on tape/video saying things and then blame it on someone or "context" (we be seen this before). When he does something wrong he will try to hide behind "immunity" that doesn't exist (see election interference case). He never takes ownership of anything. Ever....unless it's good....then it's always because of him (but it would've been better if not for so and so).
At best....trump is on the line here for violating policy; he just can't seem to get out of his own way (the smiling thumbs up pic is just the epitome of his lack of decency); he brought campaign staff with him which caused the issue with the staffer who was doing their job. At worst, it's a another blatant violation of federal law(s), of which none of us should be surprised with him. A former POTUS should know better but he's also Trump so 🤷♂️.
And now....he will play victim (because: see above). It's all so predictable.
Trump is ALWAYS going to try to play the victim. It's been his schtick for decades.
Once you know that, it's so predictable to see where he is going to go. Nothing is ever his fault. He could be caught on tape/video saying things and then blame it on someone or "context" (we be seen this before). When he does something wrong he will try to hide behind "immunity" that doesn't exist (see election interference case). He never takes ownership of anything. Ever....unless it's good....then it's always because of him (but it would've been better if not for so and so).
I believe there are separate issues at play here and they are getting conflated. I'm not aware of any laws that preclude someone from USING photos or videos in campaign materials/ads as long as they have permission to use those videos/images and/or they aren't violating some copyright. It's the use of Arlington or other cemeteries to stage and/or photograph or video specifically for campaign purposes (for example: trump can't hold a rally or campaign press conference at Arlington) -- this is expressly forbidden and it's not just Arlington. These 2 things are not the same and they are being unfairly compared in my opinion.
At best....trump is on the line here for violating policy; he just can't seem to get out of his own way (the smiling thumbs up pic is just the epitome of his lack of decency); he brought campaign staff with him which caused the issue with the staffer who was doing their job. At worst, it's a another blatant violation of federal law(s), of which none of us should be surprised with him. A former POTUS should know better but he's also Trump so 🤷♂️.
And now....he will play victim (because: see above). It's all so predictable.
(This is another "long" one (sorry) I tried to keep it short, but couldn't. I encourage anybody to read it, in full before responding. How this story has continued to develop has disturbed, but unfortunately, not surprised me)
But, what is the effective difference between "official capacity" and "invited by multiple Gold Star families"? At the end of the day, the photo rules about specific areas and whatever else are effectually irrelevant, even if there are "legal" issues. So, let's forget the legal questions. There is room for debate there, as I've addressed more than once (i.e. what exactly is "political activity"?)
1. You renewed this discussion earlier this week saying that this is another example and clear confirmation that Trump doesn't "respect" the "war dead".
2. You then made a clear point that use of footage from the ceremony (specifically Section 60) in a 'campaign video' was evidence of that.
3. I provided evidence of Biden literally doing the same thing & you made distinctions with no difference.
4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)
Had you agreed that Biden's campaign video was conceptually just as disrespectful, I think our discussion here would be done. I've been very clear that I don't like ANY of it used politically. But, since it's common...I don't get worked up about it. I'm used to my service & my friends that have died being used as political props. It comes with the territory.
My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics.
Evidence: They reached out to other Gold Star families both before & after Abbey Gate. It's clear why this is radioactive for them...Politics (duh).
Eight different Gold Star families have now released a response to Harris politicizing their children's deaths with her statement. Eight families (people Kamala Harris had ignored until she could use their grief to dunk on Trump) are taking Kamala to task for being shamelessly partisan.
Is that "disrespecting the dead"? She's literally never reached out to them. Ever. Now she wields their loss and their grief for political points against Trump. The audacity is unbelievable, if not unsurprising.
According to the NY Times: "Donald Trump isn’t the first candidate to have politicized Arlington National Cemetery." Even though the story does not acknowledge the videos put out by the Gold Star families, it's clear this is "clean up" from Harris's (or an intern's) tweet...because they're losing the narrative on this "controversy": Trump was supporting the families of those ignored by Biden/Harris.
So, again: The dead are being wielded for political purposes. The NY Times story can't say why what Trump did is "bad" without admitting that "normal" political behavior is bad:
1. The families requested the pictures and videos
2. This entire "controversy" highlights the bankrupt absurdity of our politics
The NY Times story cannot admit that Trump did a normal thing (support grieving families after being invited) because they don't want to legitimize his behavior, which is in stark contrast to his opponent(s)...who just happen to have direct 'Command Responsibility' of the entire mission that lead to the deaths (Biden was CINC, Harris was the "last in the room" when the decision was made).
Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership).
You said that Trump broke the law because he used a photo from Section 60 in a political ad. The picture of Biden is from the WH archive, that noted the person being buried...which you can search and clearly see he is in section 60. I'm not finding that again...but, you can believe me or not.
Again, the "law" is clear, if interpreted that a political ad is "political behavior". I'd argue that the law is meant to keep political rallies or other disrespectful activities from happening on the grounds. I also think it's a really poorly-written "law", fwiw.
The law you referenced made no note of exceptions. Are there? Did Trump's team think (inaccurately?) he had an exception, since he was allowed both a photographer & videographer? The official direction added his people to "the pool". Weird.
Please correct me: But, haven't most of those comments been directed towards the "interaction" between the woman & campaign staffers? That's a different issue, imo. Everything else I've read (officially) has been references to the general rules. I'm open to clarification.
I think your memory is faulty
I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
To be clear: Trump is his own worst enemy. He wastes clear "wins" w/ his inability to simply not say the wrong thing. I wish he'd ignore his ego.
Beyond the "politics": I try & stay away from 'attacking' the politician & focus on the argument (one big caveat: the Biden $ w/ Hunter...but, I've tried to keep that within that specific discussion)
-------------------
Regardless, I think you're clearly giving Biden the benefit of the doubt for the exact same 'crime' which you accuse Trump of.
This entire scenario could be one of confusion & miscommunication or misunderstanding. Stay with me:
1. Trump's team is told they can have a photographer & videographer (not a normal thing, I think)
2. Section 60 restrictions are briefed. Were they understood? Were they properly communicated? Did Trump have sufficient leadership at levels to be able to manage the restrictions?
If ANC did everything right and Trump's team screwed up...that's bad on him. How many people were even aware of Section 60 and it's restrictions before this incident, other than those of us who have attended funerals there? Were the Gold Star families aware?
I have buried friends in that section and do not remember being told anything. But, that's on me...maybe I was too caught up in the emotion. Not an excuse. I took pictures...I guess I was wrong.
Was the 'woman' who tried to stop the sanctioned 'Trump Media' aware they had permission (at least in part) to film? If ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY is not allowed, what did ANC expect to result from Trump's media that they themselves allowed? He's a literal POTUS candidate...what were they going to do with the footage?
This entire scenario reeks of competing stories.
But (to get back to your original point in this thread) is that "EVIDENCE OF TRUMP DISRESPECTING THE MILITARY"? I don't think so.
Per @Zonadog 's post above, Trump has the backing of the very Gold Star families he was there to support....and isn't that what the entire ceremony was about? The thing that pisses me off is the media contacting the families of the heroes whose graves happened to be pictured.
None were aware until media contacted them. What the hell are they doing? THEY are being used for political purposes...just to potentially get a "get Trump!" quote. Sickening.
Beyond that, and to bring it back to the subject-at-hand...it takes a special level of sociopathy for Kamala Harris to get on her high horse and wag her finger about respecting Arlington National Cemetery when the people she’s lecturing were there because *she* got people killed. Moral vapidity perfectly illustrated.
/rant
Absolutely...but, I'm not sure we're seeing the same one. It is exhausting.
I'm aware, but that's not how this has been treated, which has been my point I've been hammering home. See above.
So, a Gold Star family requests a 'smiling, thumbs up'-type photo w/ you (as indicated by their own universal smiles) and it's "lack of decency". Noted.
At least he returns their calls & accepts their invitations (as opposed to ignoring & not even responding, while on vacation and/or having literally nothing on the schedule). Decency? Ok.
Yep. Everything about this is "predictable".
So, we get to ignore federal law if (iyo) they're being "respectful" & non-partisan...in a political ad. That's your argument. That fails basic logic.
But, what is the effective difference between "official capacity" and "invited by multiple Gold Star families"? At the end of the day, the photo rules about specific areas and whatever else are effectually irrelevant, even if there are "legal" issues. So, let's forget the legal questions. There is room for debate there, as I've addressed more than once (i.e. what exactly is "political activity"?)
1. You renewed this discussion earlier this week saying that this is another example and clear confirmation that Trump doesn't "respect" the "war dead".
2. You then made a clear point that use of footage from the ceremony (specifically Section 60) in a 'campaign video' was evidence of that.
3. I provided evidence of Biden literally doing the same thing & you made distinctions with no difference.
4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)
Had you agreed that Biden's campaign video was conceptually just as disrespectful, I think our discussion here would be done. I've been very clear that I don't like ANY of it used politically. But, since it's common...I don't get worked up about it. I'm used to my service & my friends that have died being used as political props. It comes with the territory.
My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics.
Evidence: They reached out to other Gold Star families both before & after Abbey Gate. It's clear why this is radioactive for them...Politics (duh).
Eight different Gold Star families have now released a response to Harris politicizing their children's deaths with her statement. Eight families (people Kamala Harris had ignored until she could use their grief to dunk on Trump) are taking Kamala to task for being shamelessly partisan.
Is that "disrespecting the dead"? She's literally never reached out to them. Ever. Now she wields their loss and their grief for political points against Trump. The audacity is unbelievable, if not unsurprising.
According to the NY Times: "Donald Trump isn’t the first candidate to have politicized Arlington National Cemetery." Even though the story does not acknowledge the videos put out by the Gold Star families, it's clear this is "clean up" from Harris's (or an intern's) tweet...because they're losing the narrative on this "controversy": Trump was supporting the families of those ignored by Biden/Harris.
So, again: The dead are being wielded for political purposes. The NY Times story can't say why what Trump did is "bad" without admitting that "normal" political behavior is bad:
1. The families requested the pictures and videos
2. This entire "controversy" highlights the bankrupt absurdity of our politics
The NY Times story cannot admit that Trump did a normal thing (support grieving families after being invited) because they don't want to legitimize his behavior, which is in stark contrast to his opponent(s)...who just happen to have direct 'Command Responsibility' of the entire mission that lead to the deaths (Biden was CINC, Harris was the "last in the room" when the decision was made).
Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership).
You said that Trump broke the law because he used a photo from Section 60 in a political ad. The picture of Biden is from the WH archive, that noted the person being buried...which you can search and clearly see he is in section 60. I'm not finding that again...but, you can believe me or not.
Again, the "law" is clear, if interpreted that a political ad is "political behavior". I'd argue that the law is meant to keep political rallies or other disrespectful activities from happening on the grounds. I also think it's a really poorly-written "law", fwiw.
The law you referenced made no note of exceptions. Are there? Did Trump's team think (inaccurately?) he had an exception, since he was allowed both a photographer & videographer? The official direction added his people to "the pool". Weird.
Please correct me: But, haven't most of those comments been directed towards the "interaction" between the woman & campaign staffers? That's a different issue, imo. Everything else I've read (officially) has been references to the general rules. I'm open to clarification.
I think your memory is faulty
I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
To be clear: Trump is his own worst enemy. He wastes clear "wins" w/ his inability to simply not say the wrong thing. I wish he'd ignore his ego.
Beyond the "politics": I try & stay away from 'attacking' the politician & focus on the argument (one big caveat: the Biden $ w/ Hunter...but, I've tried to keep that within that specific discussion)
-------------------
Regardless, I think you're clearly giving Biden the benefit of the doubt for the exact same 'crime' which you accuse Trump of.
This entire scenario could be one of confusion & miscommunication or misunderstanding. Stay with me:
1. Trump's team is told they can have a photographer & videographer (not a normal thing, I think)
2. Section 60 restrictions are briefed. Were they understood? Were they properly communicated? Did Trump have sufficient leadership at levels to be able to manage the restrictions?
If ANC did everything right and Trump's team screwed up...that's bad on him. How many people were even aware of Section 60 and it's restrictions before this incident, other than those of us who have attended funerals there? Were the Gold Star families aware?
I have buried friends in that section and do not remember being told anything. But, that's on me...maybe I was too caught up in the emotion. Not an excuse. I took pictures...I guess I was wrong.
Was the 'woman' who tried to stop the sanctioned 'Trump Media' aware they had permission (at least in part) to film? If ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY is not allowed, what did ANC expect to result from Trump's media that they themselves allowed? He's a literal POTUS candidate...what were they going to do with the footage?
This entire scenario reeks of competing stories.
But (to get back to your original point in this thread) is that "EVIDENCE OF TRUMP DISRESPECTING THE MILITARY"? I don't think so.
Per @Zonadog 's post above, Trump has the backing of the very Gold Star families he was there to support....and isn't that what the entire ceremony was about? The thing that pisses me off is the media contacting the families of the heroes whose graves happened to be pictured.
None were aware until media contacted them. What the hell are they doing? THEY are being used for political purposes...just to potentially get a "get Trump!" quote. Sickening.
Beyond that, and to bring it back to the subject-at-hand...it takes a special level of sociopathy for Kamala Harris to get on her high horse and wag her finger about respecting Arlington National Cemetery when the people she’s lecturing were there because *she* got people killed. Moral vapidity perfectly illustrated.
/rant
Absolutely...but, I'm not sure we're seeing the same one. It is exhausting.
I'm aware, but that's not how this has been treated, which has been my point I've been hammering home. See above.
So, a Gold Star family requests a 'smiling, thumbs up'-type photo w/ you (as indicated by their own universal smiles) and it's "lack of decency". Noted.
At least he returns their calls & accepts their invitations (as opposed to ignoring & not even responding, while on vacation and/or having literally nothing on the schedule). Decency? Ok.
Yep. Everything about this is "predictable".
Good response and outlook. Yes both sides have done the same thing and if you cannot see that you should probably need to try to take a fresh look at things.(This is another "long" one (sorry) I tried to keep it short, but couldn't. I encourage anybody to read it, in full before responding. How this story has continued to develop has disturbed, but unfortunately, not surprised me)
So, we get to ignore federal law if (iyo) they're being "respectful" & non-partisan...in a political ad. That's your argument. That fails basic logic.
But, what is the effective difference between "official capacity" and "invited by multiple Gold Star families"? At the end of the day, the photo rules about specific areas and whatever else are effectually irrelevant, even if there are "legal" issues. So, let's forget the legal questions. There is room for debate there, as I've addressed more than once (i.e. what exactly is "political activity"?)
1. You renewed this discussion earlier this week saying that this is another example and clear confirmation that Trump doesn't "respect" the "war dead".
2. You then made a clear point that use of footage from the ceremony (specifically Section 60) in a 'campaign video' was evidence of that.
3. I provided evidence of Biden literally doing the same thing & you made distinctions with no difference.
4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)
Had you agreed that Biden's campaign video was conceptually just as disrespectful, I think our discussion here would be done. I've been very clear that I don't like ANY of it used politically. But, since it's common...I don't get worked up about it. I'm used to my service & my friends that have died being used as political props. It comes with the territory.
My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics.
Evidence: They reached out to other Gold Star families both before & after Abbey Gate. It's clear why this is radioactive for them...Politics (duh).
Eight different Gold Star families have now released a response to Harris politicizing their children's deaths with her statement. Eight families (people Kamala Harris had ignored until she could use their grief to dunk on Trump) are taking Kamala to task for being shamelessly partisan.
Is that "disrespecting the dead"? She's literally never reached out to them. Ever. Now she wields their loss and their grief for political points against Trump. The audacity is unbelievable, if not unsurprising.
According to the NY Times: "Donald Trump isn’t the first candidate to have politicized Arlington National Cemetery." Even though the story does not acknowledge the videos put out by the Gold Star families, it's clear this is "clean up" from Harris's (or an intern's) tweet...because they're losing the narrative on this "controversy": Trump was supporting the families of those ignored by Biden/Harris.
So, again: The dead are being wielded for political purposes. The NY Times story can't say why what Trump did is "bad" without admitting that "normal" political behavior is bad:
1. The families requested the pictures and videos
2. This entire "controversy" highlights the bankrupt absurdity of our politics
The NY Times story cannot admit that Trump did a normal thing (support grieving families after being invited) because they don't want to legitimize his behavior, which is in stark contrast to his opponent(s)...who just happen to have direct 'Command Responsibility' of the entire mission that lead to the deaths (Biden was CINC, Harris was the "last in the room" when the decision was made).
Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership).
You said that Trump broke the law because he used a photo from Section 60 in a political ad. The picture of Biden is from the WH archive, that noted the person being buried...which you can search and clearly see he is in section 60. I'm not finding that again...but, you can believe me or not.
Again, the "law" is clear, if interpreted that a political ad is "political behavior". I'd argue that the law is meant to keep political rallies or other disrespectful activities from happening on the grounds. I also think it's a really poorly-written "law", fwiw.
The law you referenced made no note of exceptions. Are there? Did Trump's team think (inaccurately?) he had an exception, since he was allowed both a photographer & videographer? The official direction added his people to "the pool". Weird.
Please correct me: But, haven't most of those comments been directed towards the "interaction" between the woman & campaign staffers? That's a different issue, imo. Everything else I've read (officially) has been references to the general rules. I'm open to clarification.
I think your memory is faulty
I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
To be clear: Trump is his own worst enemy. He wastes clear "wins" w/ his inability to simply not say the wrong thing. I wish he'd ignore his ego.
Beyond the "politics": I try & stay away from 'attacking' the politician & focus on the argument (one big caveat: the Biden $ w/ Hunter...but, I've tried to keep that within that specific discussion)
-------------------
Regardless, I think you're clearly giving Biden the benefit of the doubt for the exact same 'crime' which you accuse Trump of.
This entire scenario could be one of confusion & miscommunication or misunderstanding. Stay with me:
1. Trump's team is told they can have a photographer & videographer (not a normal thing, I think)
2. Section 60 restrictions are briefed. Were they understood? Were they properly communicated? Did Trump have sufficient leadership at levels to be able to manage the restrictions?
If ANC did everything right and Trump's team screwed up...that's bad on him. How many people were even aware of Section 60 and it's restrictions before this incident, other than those of us who have attended funerals there? Were the Gold Star families aware?
I have buried friends in that section and do not remember being told anything. But, that's on me...maybe I was too caught up in the emotion. Not an excuse. I took pictures...I guess I was wrong.
Was the 'woman' who tried to stop the sanctioned 'Trump Media' aware they had permission (at least in part) to film? If ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY is not allowed, what did ANC expect to result from Trump's media that they themselves allowed? He's a literal POTUS candidate...what were they going to do with the footage?
This entire scenario reeks of competing stories.
But (to get back to your original point in this thread) is that "EVIDENCE OF TRUMP DISRESPECTING THE MILITARY"? I don't think so.
Per @Zonadog 's post above, Trump has the backing of the very Gold Star families he was there to support....and isn't that what the entire ceremony was about? The thing that pisses me off is the media contacting the families of the heroes whose graves happened to be pictured.
None were aware until media contacted them. What the hell are they doing? THEY are being used for political purposes...just to potentially get a "get Trump!" quote. Sickening.
Beyond that, and to bring it back to the subject-at-hand...it takes a special level of sociopathy for Kamala Harris to get on her high horse and wag her finger about respecting Arlington National Cemetery when the people she’s lecturing were there because *she* got people killed. Moral vapidity perfectly illustrated.
/rant
Absolutely...but, I'm not sure we're seeing the same one. It is exhausting.
I'm aware, but that's not how this has been treated, which has been my point I've been hammering home. See above.
So, a Gold Star family requests a 'smiling, thumbs up'-type photo w/ you (as indicated by their own universal smiles) and it's "lack of decency". Noted.
At least he returns their calls & accepts their invitations (as opposed to ignoring & not even responding, while on vacation and/or having literally nothing on the schedule). Decency? Ok.
Yep. Everything about this is "predictable".
Agreed. Another example of democrats using the advantage of controlling all things federal to vilify an opponent. Total hypocrisy.
This should be about the families. The left should be ashamed to even bring this up. To make it an issue. Biden even forgot them in his debate position. I am sure Kamala will do the same. Anyone from the left trying to make this an issue is clearly reaching., spinning and trying everything they can to take shots. Then hiding behind, well you guys think Trump does no wrong. Plenty have said differently in this thread. Not one mention of Biden or Harris doing wrong or even accepting that their actions are responsible for the dead. Why not start there?
Something told me not to check the Chat last night(This is another "long" one (sorry) I tried to keep it short, but couldn't. I encourage anybody to read it, in full before responding. How this story has continued to develop has disturbed, but unfortunately, not surprised me)
So, we get to ignore federal law if (iyo) they're being "respectful" & non-partisan...in a political ad. That's your argument. That fails basic logic.
But, what is the effective difference between "official capacity" and "invited by multiple Gold Star families"? At the end of the day, the photo rules about specific areas and whatever else are effectually irrelevant, even if there are "legal" issues. So, let's forget the legal questions. There is room for debate there, as I've addressed more than once (i.e. what exactly is "political activity"?)
1. You renewed this discussion earlier this week saying that this is another example and clear confirmation that Trump doesn't "respect" the "war dead".
2. You then made a clear point that use of footage from the ceremony (specifically Section 60) in a 'campaign video' was evidence of that.
3. I provided evidence of Biden literally doing the same thing & you made distinctions with no difference.
4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)
Had you agreed that Biden's campaign video was conceptually just as disrespectful, I think our discussion here would be done. I've been very clear that I don't like ANY of it used politically. But, since it's common...I don't get worked up about it. I'm used to my service & my friends that have died being used as political props. It comes with the territory.
My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics.
Evidence: They reached out to other Gold Star families both before & after Abbey Gate. It's clear why this is radioactive for them...Politics (duh).
Eight different Gold Star families have now released a response to Harris politicizing their children's deaths with her statement. Eight families (people Kamala Harris had ignored until she could use their grief to dunk on Trump) are taking Kamala to task for being shamelessly partisan.
Is that "disrespecting the dead"? She's literally never reached out to them. Ever. Now she wields their loss and their grief for political points against Trump. The audacity is unbelievable, if not unsurprising.
According to the NY Times: "Donald Trump isn’t the first candidate to have politicized Arlington National Cemetery." Even though the story does not acknowledge the videos put out by the Gold Star families, it's clear this is "clean up" from Harris's (or an intern's) tweet...because they're losing the narrative on this "controversy": Trump was supporting the families of those ignored by Biden/Harris.
So, again: The dead are being wielded for political purposes. The NY Times story can't say why what Trump did is "bad" without admitting that "normal" political behavior is bad:
1. The families requested the pictures and videos
2. This entire "controversy" highlights the bankrupt absurdity of our politics
The NY Times story cannot admit that Trump did a normal thing (support grieving families after being invited) because they don't want to legitimize his behavior, which is in stark contrast to his opponent(s)...who just happen to have direct 'Command Responsibility' of the entire mission that lead to the deaths (Biden was CINC, Harris was the "last in the room" when the decision was made).
Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership).
You said that Trump broke the law because he used a photo from Section 60 in a political ad. The picture of Biden is from the WH archive, that noted the person being buried...which you can search and clearly see he is in section 60. I'm not finding that again...but, you can believe me or not.
Again, the "law" is clear, if interpreted that a political ad is "political behavior". I'd argue that the law is meant to keep political rallies or other disrespectful activities from happening on the grounds. I also think it's a really poorly-written "law", fwiw.
The law you referenced made no note of exceptions. Are there? Did Trump's team think (inaccurately?) he had an exception, since he was allowed both a photographer & videographer? The official direction added his people to "the pool". Weird.
Please correct me: But, haven't most of those comments been directed towards the "interaction" between the woman & campaign staffers? That's a different issue, imo. Everything else I've read (officially) has been references to the general rules. I'm open to clarification.
I think your memory is faulty
I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
To be clear: Trump is his own worst enemy. He wastes clear "wins" w/ his inability to simply not say the wrong thing. I wish he'd ignore his ego.
Beyond the "politics": I try & stay away from 'attacking' the politician & focus on the argument (one big caveat: the Biden $ w/ Hunter...but, I've tried to keep that within that specific discussion)
-------------------
Regardless, I think you're clearly giving Biden the benefit of the doubt for the exact same 'crime' which you accuse Trump of.
This entire scenario could be one of confusion & miscommunication or misunderstanding. Stay with me:
1. Trump's team is told they can have a photographer & videographer (not a normal thing, I think)
2. Section 60 restrictions are briefed. Were they understood? Were they properly communicated? Did Trump have sufficient leadership at levels to be able to manage the restrictions?
If ANC did everything right and Trump's team screwed up...that's bad on him. How many people were even aware of Section 60 and it's restrictions before this incident, other than those of us who have attended funerals there? Were the Gold Star families aware?
I have buried friends in that section and do not remember being told anything. But, that's on me...maybe I was too caught up in the emotion. Not an excuse. I took pictures...I guess I was wrong.
Was the 'woman' who tried to stop the sanctioned 'Trump Media' aware they had permission (at least in part) to film? If ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY is not allowed, what did ANC expect to result from Trump's media that they themselves allowed? He's a literal POTUS candidate...what were they going to do with the footage?
This entire scenario reeks of competing stories.
But (to get back to your original point in this thread) is that "EVIDENCE OF TRUMP DISRESPECTING THE MILITARY"? I don't think so.
Per @Zonadog 's post above, Trump has the backing of the very Gold Star families he was there to support....and isn't that what the entire ceremony was about? The thing that pisses me off is the media contacting the families of the heroes whose graves happened to be pictured.
None were aware until media contacted them. What the hell are they doing? THEY are being used for political purposes...just to potentially get a "get Trump!" quote. Sickening.
Beyond that, and to bring it back to the subject-at-hand...it takes a special level of sociopathy for Kamala Harris to get on her high horse and wag her finger about respecting Arlington National Cemetery when the people she’s lecturing were there because *she* got people killed. Moral vapidity perfectly illustrated.
/rant
Absolutely...but, I'm not sure we're seeing the same one. It is exhausting.
I'm aware, but that's not how this has been treated, which has been my point I've been hammering home. See above.
So, a Gold Star family requests a 'smiling, thumbs up'-type photo w/ you (as indicated by their own universal smiles) and it's "lack of decency". Noted.
At least he returns their calls & accepts their invitations (as opposed to ignoring & not even responding, while on vacation and/or having literally nothing on the schedule). Decency? Ok.
Yep. Everything about this is "predictable".
. Obviously, a good call given I would have been up until well past midnight trying to read and respond to the latest tome. I'll endeavor to keep it as simple as possible."4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)"
False. Using a private videographer and photographer is illegal in Section 60. I would assume that law is to ensure that the Army can review and approve of any media and the use of that media, but it doesn't really matter. The law is clear, the Trump campaign was briefed both before they arrived and at the beginning of their visit and the effort to use the private photographer and videographer in Section 60 was explicitly what the staffer who was involved in the physical altercation with trying to prevent.
Trump honoring the requests from the Goldstar families in no way required him to break the law regarding Section 60.
"My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics."
False. This was a private, not public, ceremony and the circumstances under which either Biden or Harris were "invited" is murky at best. If you have any credible reporting that supports the claim that these invites were a good-faith effort by families that clearly love Trump and hate Biden, focused on honoring the dead and not conducting a political stunt, I'm happy to review it. I haven't seen it.
We know it was a stunt because, despite the multiple briefings, the Trump campaign knowingly broke the law regarding Section 60, to the point that it resulted in a physical confrontation to get the footage they wanted and then released as a campaign video.
"1. The families requested the pictures and videos"
I don't know how many times I can say this, it doesn't matter. The law doesn't say "This law is void if Goldstar families want the photos from a private photographer". There are 887 other families with dead service members in that section of ANC and their rights are no less important that the rights of the families who invited Trump.
"Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership)."
Trump also seemed to have issues engaging with the families of the 65 soldier who died during his administration. While Trump claimed to have reached out to every family, the AP reported that a number of families claimed to have never been contacted or were severely disappointed by what interaction occurred.
How Donald Trump has comforted the families of 43 fallen soldiers
Calling every family member isn't a presidential tradition. Still, Trump this week used his calls as evidence of his support for the military, suggesting he did more to honor the families than his predecessors did.
www.pbs.org
Trump also stopped attending the return of the dead ceremonies at Dover for eighteen months after the father of one of the dead made him uncomfortable. Efforts to carve out the moral high ground for trump on this topic are challenged as best.
Trump Stopped Going to Dover AFB To Receive Bodies After Getting Berated On First Visit
Vice President Pence attended "dignified transfer" ceremonies for two years by himself after the father of a slain SEAL "rattled" Trump In February 2017.
Joe and Jill Biden attended the return of the bodies of the 13 killed in Kabul and met with the families in private.
"I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
"You are 100% correct and I definitely should have framed my comment differently.
You have called out Trump for actions that are "stupid", "asinine and flippant" and the like many, many times. What I don't remember seeing is acknowledgment of any form of a line that would constitute a disqualifying offense by Trump. Of course, you don't think that Trump has crossed any sort of line that should disqualify him (not talking legal disqualification, which is a whole other topic), but given our many exchanges I'm unclear if that line exists for you.
It's truly confounding to me that some of Trump's actions, for what under any other circumstances with any other candidate would be disqualifying, are explained away by people who are otherwise clearly intelligent and thoughtful in their approach. You can say that Trump isn't substantively different from any other politician but, as I've detailed exhaustively too many times to recount or recreate, the evidence to my eyes suggest otherwise. I think the answer is also reflected in the unprecedented lack of support that Trump has from former cabinet and other loyal republicans who have worked for or with him and other senior GOP.
It is what it is, and no question Trump is going to get millions of votes in November from people who disagree with my analysis. We will see if there are more of those people or more who feel as I do.
wtf is wrong with you?
contrarian.
I fulfill dreams.
it's only an ask.
while you may not understand.
pay attention.
Last edited:
Huff post and pbs,,, LMBOSomething told me not to check the Chat last night
"4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)"
False. Using a private videographer and photographer is illegal in Section 60. I would assume that law is to ensure that the Army can review and approve of any media and the use of that media, but it doesn't really matter. The law is clear, the Trump campaign was briefed both before they arrived and at the beginning of their visit and the effort to use the private photographer and videographer in Section 60 was explicitly what the staffer who was involved in the physical altercation with trying to prevent.
Trump honoring the requests from the Goldstar families in no way required him to break the law regarding Section 60.
"My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics."
False. This was a private, not public, ceremony and the circumstances under which either Biden or Harris were "invited" is murky at best. If you have any credible reporting that supports the claim that these invites were a good-faith effort by families that clearly love Trump and hate Biden, focused on honoring the dead and not conducting a political stunt, I'm happy to review it. I haven't seen it.
We know it was a stunt because, despite the multiple briefings, the Trump campaign knowingly broke the law regarding Section 60, to the point that it resulted in a physical confrontation to get the footage they wanted and then released as a campaign video.
"1. The families requested the pictures and videos"
I don't know how many times I can say this, it doesn't matter. The law doesn't say "This law is void if Goldstar families want the photos from a private photographer". There are 887 other families with dead service members in that section of ANC and their rights are no less important that the rights of the families who invited Trump.
"Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership)."
Trump also seemed to have issues engaging with the families of the 65 soldier who died during his administration. While Trump claimed to have reached out to every family, the AP reported that a number of families claimed to have never been contacted or were severely disappointed by what interaction occurred.
How Donald Trump has comforted the families of 43 fallen soldiers
Calling every family member isn't a presidential tradition. Still, Trump this week used his calls as evidence of his support for the military, suggesting he did more to honor the families than his predecessors did.
Trump also stopped attending the return of the dead ceremonies at Dover for eighteen months after the father of one of the dead made him uncomfortable. Efforts to carve out the moral high ground for trump on this topic are challenged as best.
Trump Stopped Going to Dover AFB To Receive Bodies After Getting Berated On First Visit
Vice President Pence attended "dignified transfer" ceremonies for two years by himself after the father of a slain SEAL "rattled" Trump In February 2017.www.huffpost.com
Joe and Jill Biden attended the return of the bodies of the 13 killed in Kabul and met with the families in private.
"I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
You are 100% correct and I definitely should have framed my comment differently.
You have called out Trump for actions that are "stupid", "asinine and flippant" and the like many, many times. What I don't remember seeing is acknowledgment of any form of a line that would constitute a disqualifying offense by Trump. Of course, you don't think that Trump has crossed any sort of line that should disqualify him (not talking legal disqualification, which is a whole other topic), but given our many exchanges I'm unclear if that line exists for you.
It's truly confounding to me that some of Trump's actions, for what under any other circumstances with any other candidate would be disqualifying, are explained away by people who are otherwise clearly intelligent and thoughtful in their approach. You can say that Trump isn't substantively different from any other politician but, as I've detailed exhaustively too many times to recount or recreate, the evidence to my eyes suggest otherwise. I think the answer is also reflected in the unprecedented lack of support that Trump has from former cabinet and other loyal republicans who have worked for or with him and other senior GOP.
It is what it is, and no question Trump is going to get millions of votes in November from people who disagree with my analysis. We will see if there are more of those people or more who feel as I do.
After Trump was confronted by the father of a dead Green Beret during a dignified transfer ceremony in February 2017, he stopped attending the ceremonies for two years and sent Pence instead.
The father was upset that the raid that resulted in the death of his son was not well thought out. It’s noteworthy that Trump made the decision to approve the raid during a social dinner with his son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, rather than consulting with his National Security Council staff.
Trump approved the raid just five days after his inauguration, motivated in part by the fact that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had declined to do so.
Feel free to correct anything that I got wrong here.
I have no clue if you're correct t. But I know this. You can always find someone who hates Trump, Biden, Obama, whomever.
I also know this. Rank and file military and union members are voting for Trump in very large numbers.
While union leadership and high level political military officials prefer Harris. Like with anything it is a question of what motivates them. And how does that differ from their subordinates?
My grandfather was an elevator mechanic. Union guy meant he voted democrat every time. He was also a WW2 vet, Purple Heart recipient 101st airborne jumped in Europe to fight nazis….and the most conservative guy you’ll ever meet.
My uncle followed in his footsteps. Same job. Same company. Smart guy rose to middle management and had a great career. Recently retired. After a career toeing the union line and voting democrat, you will now find the largest Trump flag you can possibly imagine gracing his property.
My question to anyone who wants to answer. Why? Is it because he is dumb and has been sold a bill of goods by Trump the liar? Or is it because the guy is very smart, has done a ton of research, and has experienced firsthand the Trump economy as well as the dynamic that incentivizes union leadership to endorse democrats and vilify Trump….versus the dynamics that truly benefit union membership.
I’m sure your uncle is a fine gentleman, and I can’t attest in any way to his economic acumen.
I will say that his projected outlook for each potential administration differs from Goldman’s outlook. The primary drivers for the expected underperformance of the economy under Trump seems to center on tariffs and deportations, which I think I’ve mentioned a few times on here.
U.S. GDP May Rise Slightly Under Harris, Fall If Trump Returns: Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs, in a report, said that the GDP is likely to increase with a Harris administration and with Democrats controlling Congress.
www.ibtimes.com
…..wouldn’t be very smart for Goldman to effectively endorse the anti-Christ would it?I’m sure your uncle is a fine gentleman, and I can’t attest in any way to his economic acumen.
I will say that his projected outlook for each potential administration differs from Goldman’s outlook. The primary drivers for the expected underperformance of the economy under Trump seems to center on tariffs and deportations, which I think I’ve mentioned a few times on here.
U.S. GDP May Rise Slightly Under Harris, Fall If Trump Returns: Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs, in a report, said that the GDP is likely to increase with a Harris administration and with Democrats controlling Congress.
Did you read the article? Government spending driven GDP? Same shit that caused inflation and has created a disconnect between stats like GDP and the general prosperity of regular Americans.
If only we could eat GDP and benefit from illegal immigrant jobs. That is generally the main point from this one Goldman economist.
In an honest moment (which you won’t get for political reasons)….knowing the CEO of Goldman, I guarantee you he believes Trump is better for the US economy. As most people do.
Tariffs aren't paid by the exporter; they are paid by the consumer, and as such will likely contribute to inflation.
Deporting 10m immigrants from what is already a tight labor market is inflationary and will weigh on overall productivity.
Those are the top two economic planks that Trump goes back to again and again. Goldman may have an agenda (which is the accusation against anyone, anytime they say anything that doesn't support Trump) but in this case, tariffs and deportations will likely have the effect Goldman is predicting.
Even if those sources got some of this story right, it sheds light on how you have come to be so far out of touch with reality. You have become so radicalized, you would vote for mao himself, (while she may be slightly less left then mao, she is definitely a communist sympathizer) to not vote for someone that has a brutish personality.
Her policy positions (the ones to believe) until the last 2 months were left of left and socialist/communist in makeup. IN no way were they pro capitalism or America. I won't bother to list them here. You can go look at an actual news site or two if you want to know something other than propaganda.
Don't say its because he is a liar. Even super lib Bill Mahar has called Kamala and Timmy compulsive liars.
Here you go. This is what Tim Walz family thinks of him.
Eight members of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's family in Nebraska posing for an image showing their support for Republican rival Donald Trump
Lets here the huff post spin on why Democrats oppose making it illegal for non-citizens to vote.
Your boy biden put tariffs back in place when he saw how stupid he was for killing them. The only way to stop China from flooding the market with cheap crap.
Will, these guys have been wrong about everything. So take their forecast with a grain of salt.I’m sure your uncle is a fine gentleman, and I can’t attest in any way to his economic acumen.
I will say that his projected outlook for each potential administration differs from Goldman’s outlook. The primary drivers for the expected underperformance of the economy under Trump seems to center on tariffs and deportations, which I think I’ve mentioned a few times on here.
U.S. GDP May Rise Slightly Under Harris, Fall If Trump Returns: Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs, in a report, said that the GDP is likely to increase with a Harris administration and with Democrats controlling Congress.
The fact is the GOP under Trump (who a mere 8 years ago was a D) has become more blue collar, anti-establishment and diverse. The Ds under Obama have become more elitist, socialist and racist/anti-semitic. We can argue why, but that's what has happened.
Tariffs, or taxes, are paid by the consumer. That is correct. That is affirmed throughout the economic history of this country. So when a candidate for president proposes to "make them pay their fair share" by raising the corporate tax rate by a third, that is paid by the consumer, not the corporation, and is inflationary.
When a candidate for president proposes to tax the wealthy more, the people that create, fund and promote enterprise and jobs, that added cost is ultimately borne by the end consumer, and is inflationary. When small and medium businesses are further curtailed by this action, big ol' greedy corporations get to control more markets, efficiency declines, prices go up, and Goldman Sachs economists celebrate their commissions.
When a candidate for president proposes to artificially increase the costs of doing business by wage tariffs, that is paid by the consumer, not the corporation, and is inflationary. When small and medium businesses are further curtailed by this action, big ol' greedy corporations get to control more markets, efficiency declines, prices go up, and Goldman Sachs economists celebrate their commissions.
In the article you posted, the author quotes Goldman Sachs economists as confirming that illegal immigration will continue unabated if Harris is elected. Further, they say that under Trump, illegal immigration would be curtailed to some unspecified degree. I'll assume that I don't have to explain the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
Goldman Sachs also says in this article that Harris will increase GDP. The largest component of GDP right now is government spending. They expect government spending, already wildly out of control under the current administration, will continue. If Trump is elected, they expect this to be curtailed to a degree - presumably by greater controls on the military industrial complex. At least in the context of this article, they don't discuss the economic impact of other policy the Trump administration may implement, such as measures that might require the millions of workforce dropouts in this country to go back to work rather than living on the government.
You know they are plugging for the status quo when these GS economists talk about illegal immigration as "labor force growth" when in fact illegal immigration is straining the limits of government dependency through housing support, medicaid and medicare support, and food benefit programs. That's not inflationary?
Once again, you bring us the most tainted pro-government control spin possible, this time from the desk of Alec Phillips, Chief Political Economist of Goldman Sachs, Lincoln Project contributor, and professor of impending Armegeddon if the government doesn't get to spend trillions we don't have. You know, because that's not inflationary.
Something told me not to check the Chat last night
"4. Either using photos of the Section 60 is "wrong" or it's not. It's either "disrespectful" or it's not. Is this about "respecting the dead" or is it about scoring "political points"? (Repeating myself: I have an issue w/ ANY use of photos from there...Section 60 or not)"
False. Using a private videographer and photographer is illegal in Section 60. I would assume that law is to ensure that the Army can review and approve of any media and the use of that media, but it doesn't really matter. The law is clear, the Trump campaign was briefed both before they arrived and at the beginning of their visit and the effort to use the private photographer and videographer in Section 60 was explicitly what the staffer who was involved in the physical altercation with trying to prevent.
Trump honoring the requests from the Goldstar families in no way required him to break the law regarding Section 60.
"My issue is the obvious hypocrisy of the coverage & the logic used to attack/defend both. It was "political" for Biden and Harris not to be there. We all know why they didn’t show up: Because if they were there, they would be getting an earful from Gold Star families and that might result in some bad political optics."
False. This was a private, not public, ceremony and the circumstances under which either Biden or Harris were "invited" is murky at best. If you have any credible reporting that supports the claim that these invites were a good-faith effort by families that clearly love Trump and hate Biden, focused on honoring the dead and not conducting a political stunt, I'm happy to review it. I haven't seen it.
We know it was a stunt because, despite the multiple briefings, the Trump campaign knowingly broke the law regarding Section 60, to the point that it resulted in a physical confrontation to get the footage they wanted and then released as a campaign video.
"1. The families requested the pictures and videos"
I don't know how many times I can say this, it doesn't matter. The law doesn't say "This law is void if Goldstar families want the photos from a private photographer". There are 887 other families with dead service members in that section of ANC and their rights are no less important that the rights of the families who invited Trump.
"Running from the consequences of the decision is cowardice, imo. Comforting or minimally reaching out the family of the dead is the least they could do (and any similar situation where Trump or literally any other politician has acted similarly is just as cowardly and just as big a failure of leadership)."
Trump also seemed to have issues engaging with the families of the 65 soldier who died during his administration. While Trump claimed to have reached out to every family, the AP reported that a number of families claimed to have never been contacted or were severely disappointed by what interaction occurred.
How Donald Trump has comforted the families of 43 fallen soldiers
Calling every family member isn't a presidential tradition. Still, Trump this week used his calls as evidence of his support for the military, suggesting he did more to honor the families than his predecessors did.
Trump also stopped attending the return of the dead ceremonies at Dover for eighteen months after the father of one of the dead made him uncomfortable. Efforts to carve out the moral high ground for trump on this topic are challenged as best.
Trump Stopped Going to Dover AFB To Receive Bodies After Getting Berated On First Visit
Vice President Pence attended "dignified transfer" ceremonies for two years by himself after the father of a slain SEAL "rattled" Trump In February 2017.
Joe and Jill Biden attended the return of the bodies of the 13 killed in Kabul and met with the families in private.
"I have faulted Trump many times, calling many actions "stupid". Even when 'defending' him against many of the legal actions against him...I've said things like "That was a dumb thing to do". I've said (here & in DMs to people like @celticdawg) that I wish he'd go away...that he's a chaotic force that is not healthy for the republic.
Specifically, in this very thread I've referred to his comments as "asinine & flippant". Additionally, I've also defended Biden in this thread re: the watch "controversy". I have defended the Biden admin re: several military issues that I thought were not being argued here fairly. I try & take each issue independently. If the weight of illogical/inaccurate attacks weighs more heavily on one "side" vs. the "other"...I cannot be held responsible
You are 100% correct and I definitely should have framed my comment differently.
You have called out Trump for actions that are "stupid", "asinine and flippant" and the like many, many times. What I don't remember seeing is acknowledgment of any form of a line that would constitute a disqualifying offense by Trump. Of course, you don't think that Trump has crossed any sort of line that should disqualify him (not talking legal disqualification, which is a whole other topic), but given our many exchanges I'm unclear if that line exists for you.
It's truly confounding to me that some of Trump's actions, for what under any other circumstances with any other candidate would be disqualifying, are explained away by people who are otherwise clearly intelligent and thoughtful in their approach. You can say that Trump isn't substantively different from any other politician but, as I've detailed exhaustively too many times to recount or recreate, the evidence to my eyes suggest otherwise. I think the answer is also reflected in the unprecedented lack of support that Trump has from former cabinet and other loyal republicans who have worked for or with him and other senior GOP.
It is what it is, and no question Trump is going to get millions of votes in November from people who disagree with my analysis. We will see if there are more of those people or more who feel as I do.
I think you completely missed my point, so I'll repeat:
1. You claimed that this incident was more evidence that Trump does not respect the sacrifices of the military
2. I gave direct evidence that both Biden & Trump did the same thing. There is no evidence that Biden's video had 'permission', as the law you discussed no waiver nor did it discuss release authorities. It's supposition w/ no evidence. And even if it could be 'waived', "permission" does not matter, as the actual matter at hand (respecting the military dead) is using those graves in political ads. Again...you're making a distinction w/ no difference.
3. Furthermore, the entire reason Trump was there was to pay respect at the request of the Gold Star families...which is direct evidence against what your original point was. If you dismiss their wishes, you have to dismiss the Navy Seal father you keep referencing, too. Is Biden/Harris avoiding these 8 families not effectively the same "evidence" you keep arguing?
I thought this was a clear-cut, non-partisan stance to take. But, clearly I was wrong.
Have you considered that like many kf
The things trump gets villified for, threatening reciprocal tariffs as a means to even the trade deficit is a good negotiating tactic? It certainly didn’t seem to hurt the economy or prices when he was tough on china trade in his first term.
