re: Do any resident dems actually believe Trump disparaged our fallen soldiers?

quote:

---

I’ll get roasted here, but I’ll first day of course I don’t KNOW what he said.

But so I believe it, as in do I think it’s more likely he said it than not? Yes. And why? Because I’ve heard him say as mean if not meaning things on television and on twitter and if he has no filter then I’m sure it’s worse in private.

And since I truly don’t think Trump cares (maybe even has the capacity to care) about anyone but himself (and hopefully his family at least), I could see him saying that not because he “hates” them or anything, they’re just literally meaningless, like everybody else though.

So oddly, the story didn’t make me outraged or anything. It was unsurprising and just whatever. I didn’t really take notice until the Fox News report because he oddly keeps drawing attention to more people saying it happened. He should probably just move on.

---

more long winded anti-Trump horse shite

Of course you believe it because you are not terribly bright

quote:

---

Obama has more antisocial traits than Trump, and I still wouldn’t call him a sociopath.

---

I’m not going to diagnose either of them (although I am trained to). But this just isn’t true, at least in the ability to hide those traits. In other words, he may have been better at feigning it, but at least Obama had the ability convey empathy a little bit,

At the very least, Obama would have probably known that throwing toilet paper rolls to people displaced by a deadly hurricane like he’s playing catch with the kid from Little Giants is just not ideal behavior at that time.

quote:

---

When Trump made the comment about McCain I thought it was way out of line. Then I learned that at the time Trump said it McCain was actively conspiring with foreign intelligence services to overthrow the Republic. That mitigates the comment considerably for those of us opposed to treason.

---

As a former Military Officer I hated McCain but respected the fact he was a POW. I was taken back by Trump’s attack on him. Now knowing the origins of the Piss Dossier I understand why Trump attacked him.

quote:

---

Even the most devoted President Trump supporter knows in their heart that he said these things.

---

That's a lot of logical fallacy to pack into one sentence.

I think Trump is an asinine blowhard who is prone to staying stupid things. He's not this stupid. I'm open it... as soon as someone willing to put their name to it comes forward, and someone else corroborates it on first-hand account. Until then it's Weekly World News quality reporting.

Until then... it's about as believable as that fake Saban locker room speech from a few years ago.

This whole story is ridiculous and irrelevant to anything going on in 2020.

quote:

---

I don't know, therefore I can't be in a position to believe it.

---

Huh? I don’t know. You don’t know. You can believe what you believe for whatever reasons, and I believe what I believe for whatever reasons. And we have to fall somewhere in there.

It doesn’t bother me that you don’t believe it. Why would it other you that I do?

quote:

---

you would admit you don't know yet still believe.

---

I don’t understand what you’re point is. It happened or it didn’t. We don’t know. So ultimately if having to take the side of two options, using the preponderance of whatever we have to make fall on one side, it’s going to ultimately end up being a decision made by what we believe or think happened.

quote:

---

unnamed sources" from a couple of hack writers.

---

The only writer I actually know of who reported on it was Jennifer Griffin from Fox. And she’s not a hack (maybe the others were). But frankly, I wouldn’t even be willing to be an unnamed source in a climate like this if I had something that would rile people up about either Biden or Trump. Not because of them, but because of what the fanatics would do. I would truly not feel safe. So not being willing to come out publicly, when it’s rational not to, does not make an unnamed source any more or less credible, especially since when it wouldn’t matter to the fanatics and it wouldn’t matter if it was the truth. So dishonesty isn’t the masking issue here.

But again. Maybe the 3 other reporters were hacks, but I know one isn’t. So let’s not pretend that when it’s supported by the reporting by a non-hack that there isn’t credibility to it.

quote:

---

have come forward and said this was NOT true

---

The thing is that they can’t actually say it’s not true, because what they’re saying is that they never heard it. That’s evidence to support Trump, BUT they can’t make a claim of that did or didn’t happen because they didn’t hear it happen. For all we know, (and may even they know) is that when he “allegedly” said it, they were not close enough to hear it or their attention was elsewhere.

I mean my wife will ask me a question 5 times when I’m arguing on here. I didn’t hear her (well cognitively processed it), so I’m not lying when I say I didn’t, but she’s not lying when she said she asked me 5 times. And I can’t claim she didn’t ask when I wasn’t even paying enough attention to know.

But this whole thing is silly. I don’t care if you don’t believe it. And just because I do believe, I actually don’t think not believing is unfounded or illogical.

quote:

---

You appeal to authority (of a career DC journalist) over direct, primary, named, sources is noted. And at.

---

Maybe I deserve this for all of my insufferable arguing over the years, but I’m really confused as to why you and jake, who of all of the the posters, are two I haven’t argued a lot with and often agree with, are taking such an issue with the fact that when asked if I believe it or not, I said yes (but not confidently).

And man there are a lot of things that Trump has done or said that have fired me up over the last 5+ years. And this is down the list, not just in my “outrage” but in my confidence of it happening.

If I found out the sources were lying (I don’t think the reports about them were lies), I’m not going to be surprised either because that’s also believable.

In fact, maybe I’ve been stating my position incorrectly. It’s not so much I believe it (because I don’t have enough to be confident), but it is BELIEVABLE. But it’s not so believable that makes the possibility the sources were lying also believable.

And if finding both scenarios believable does not meet your standards, then I’m just not going to meet them. I hope it’s not a criminal offense in your thought policing here.

He never said that stuff.

Proof? This is it - No way the MSM could have sat on it for two years without bursting.