Couldn't agree more. This article seems way too sensational to be factual.
He did kinda say these things about McCain, but remember McCain had a role in the dossier and was against Trump. Trump said those things as a response to McCain, just like he has to anyone who goes against him.
Um, Trump knew about McCains beliefs before hand. Trump knew McCain was anti Trump before alot of stuff eventually came out to the public. Trump's rule is to go against anyone that goes against him.
If it was 1 or 2 things, sure. It just seemed like the article kept going on and on with more examples so it was kind of over the top.
"Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies."
That is building on what I said before. I said Trump came out against McCain partly because of McCains role in the dossier and partly because McCain is anti Trump. And then I elaborated by saying Trump knew about his involvement before the media reported it.
Fair point. But just because Trump said something against McCain doesn't imply Trump said something about the troops in France.. You can be upset all you want, but that logic to say he said this, therefore he must have said this other thing, is just incorrect.
I'm going to go ahead and reiterate Trump's question: "who were the good guys?" We sided with the triple entente, which sided with the country that assassinated Franz Ferdinand. WW1 was a very convoluted deal and we could have just as easily sided with Germany as we did France/Russia. It makes for a great "what if" question.
If they provide facts I will believe them. Using other instances as proof isn't evidence. You're deflecting here, I'm not arguing whether Trump is crazy or not, or whether he is a liar. Im arguing that the Atlantic didn't provide evidence to their claims, that is all.
What evidence would you require other than a source stating what he said to him/her? This isn’t a trial. You can say it’s hearsay, sure. But if you are waiting on videos for everything he is alleged to have said, then it will be impossible to satisfy you. The Access Hollywood type tape just isn’t going to exist for every situation. His quoted statements here are completely within character of everything he has done or said in the past. Sure they aren’t proof that he disparages the military. But we pretty much had that already.
Again deflection. I don't know, I honestly don't follow both that much, and I don't have a metric to measure this even if I did.
Proof would be a recording of him saying it. Evidence that would help remove some reasonable doubt would be a person coming forth with evidence they were around the president when he said it.... For example, if Kushner came forth and said he said it, it would give credibility...but as the statement stands, there is nothing to go on...For example I could write an article that says, "a source close to the administration says Trump stated we never landed on the moon"
It’s not a court setting. It’s an article. None of the things you mentioned apply. They have quotes from sources. If they turn out to be made up, then their credibility takes a hit. That’s it. It’s not a trial.
And anonymous Trump defenders are so gullible
