US Army Rebukes Trump Campaign

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

If there is no video evidence to prove he did, but someone who was actually there with him when he allegedly said it, saying it's false. How does that make it true?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

If there is no video evidence to prove he did, but someone who was actually there with him when he allegedly said it, saying it's false. How does that make it true?

So if there is no video evidence denials are automatically believed now?

Does that apply to everyone or just Trump?

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Yes; if aligations can not be proved with physical evidence; the default position should be to not believe the aligations.

There is nothing new about that and it applies to everyone.

originally posted by: Dandandat3
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Yes; if aligations can not be proved with physical evidence; the default position should be to not believe the aligations.

There is nothing new about that and it applies to everyone.

So when the White House denied that Biden or Harris had been invited and the comment was we shouldn't believe anything from the White House.

Pretty much the start of this whole chain of conversation.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

The "suckers" and "losers" - debunked (no evidence he ever said that)

This recent Arlington "incident " - no video or audio, just someone who said "something ".

Am I missing any?

The Trump campaign said they had video. Were they lying?

Or did somebody else say The Trump campaign said they had video? 🤔

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Sure; Gold Star families did not invite President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to Arlington National Cemetery by last week to commemorate the third anniversary of the attack at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan.

Why do Gold Star families disapprove of Biden/Harris to the point that they had snubbed them?

a reply to: Dandandat3

Yes; if aligations can not be proved with physical evidence; the default position should be to not believe the aligations.

No, it shouldn't. Life isn't a court room. There are many criterial facets to evaluate, including who's doing the accusing, and who's doing the denying.

But even in the courts that doesn't always apply. For example, the courts tend to believe police officers, regardless of the fact there is no physical evidence of their testimony.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Where's the evidence of this so-called "incident"?

How about the statement from the DOD?

Any proof The DOD actually verified anything and isn't knee-jerky triggered too like the others? Remember who is running the DOD these days. 🤔 xy does not = xx

Well, according to Trump he was going to release the video footage of whatever altercation or no altercation occurred. It's been 2 weeks. That could certainly put this all to rest. Odd it hasn't been released to clear this all up.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

In the here and now, when we are talking about Trump, yes that is the case for this incident.

Unless you have something that actually proves your point you can probably move along, you've made quite the fool of yourself in the last couple pages of nothing ness you have created.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

In the here and now, when we are talking about Trump, yes that is the case for this incident.

Unless you have something that actually proves your point you can probably move along, you've made quite the fool of yourself in the last couple pages of nothing ness you have created.

If you say so. I do value your opinion so highly...

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Opinion would indicate that there was no fact behind it, like your rhetoric the last couple pages


Sorry Trump said some mean things have hurt you in some way, maybe one day you'll get over it and grow up

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Where's the evidence of this so-called "incident"?

How about the statement from the DOD?

Any proof The DOD actually verified anything and isn't knee-jerky triggered too like the others? Remember who is running the DOD these days. 🤔 xy does not = xx

If you don't trust the DOD how about Trumps own campaign staff, they confirmed an incident took place but blamed the Arlington staff member.

Trump now says it didn't happen and was made up by Harris.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Opinion would indicate that there was no fact behind it, like your rhetoric the last couple pages


Sorry Trump said some mean things have hurt you in some way, maybe one day you'll get over it and grow up

Not hurt at all.

Unlike the trump supporters who get so agitated at the mere thought of imperfection from their cult leader.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Where's the evidence of this so-called "incident"?

How about the statement from the DOD?

Any proof The DOD actually verified anything and isn't knee-jerky triggered too like the others? Remember who is running the DOD these days. 🤔 xy does not = xx

If you don't trust the DOD how about Trumps own campaign staff, they confirmed an incident took place but blamed the Arlington staff member.

Trump now says it didn't happen and was made up by Harris.

Where's the proven quotes and verifications? People want to know. People are asking.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Imperfection is fine, I will sit here and tell you all day long about things that Trump does wrong.

It's baseless, disproven, opinions that irritate those that seek the truth. Unlike those that want to find fault in every little thing Trump does, whether it was true or not.

Where is the arrest and charges? Battery on a Federal Employee carries a heavy price. Amazing how these "sources" are always there when Trump makes a mistake...

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Imperfection is fine, I will sit here and tell you all day long about things that Trump does wrong.

It's baseless, disproven, opinions that irritate those that seek the truth. Unlike those that want to find fault in every little thing Trump does, whether it was true or not.

He made comments about a gold star family. It was his own words in an interview.

If you want to claim they weren't disrespectful feel free, but they were certainly comparable to the post that stated this whole conversation chain.

If gold star families are beyond contestation that should apply uniformly.

Personally I expect higher standard from a President than an anonymous poster on a conspiracy site but that is just my opinion.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Glad to see you are circling right back to one of the only talking pints that you have even half an inch to stand on.

Could anyone see them as disrespectful, sure. Could anyone see them as not disrespectful, sure. Did Trump say it with disrespectful intent, why don't you go ask him about it.

Everything Trump has ever said about Veterans and their families has been taken out of context at one point or another by the media. Or completely misrepresented/fabricated all together, such as the ones about him saying "losers" and "suckers".


if you expect higher standards form the POTUS, why not get started with the current one that killed 13 brave US service men and women, rather than focus on one that hurt some feelings

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dandandat3

Yes; if aligations can not be proved with physical evidence; the default position should be to not believe the aligations.

No, it shouldn't. Life isn't a court room. There are many criterial facets to evaluate, including who's doing the accusing, and who's doing the denying.

But even in the courts that doesn't always apply. For example, the courts tend to believe police officers, regardless of the fact there is no physical evidence of their testimony.

Sure this is not a Cort room and if you want to use your preconceived notions as to who to believe and who not to believe based only on their word you are free to do so ... just don't fool your self into thinking your being factual nor right in your opinions.

Police officers do not have political motivations in most cases. At best you need to worry about whether or not they are covering their ass due to some negligence in their work product. And most cases where in the police testify is required there is no direct implications to their possible negligence. They are for the most part professional impartial eye witnesses. In the extreme caes were the officers impartiality is in question you most certainly would not take their word for it.

When in the arena of politics that impartiality is non existent from the jump.