The Trump Presidency...

A person can have as many medals as possible but subsequent actions can tarnish their legacy.

Case in point is Hitler. He was awarded the Iron Cross for bravery. Had he not subsequently become such an awful human being and had led Germany in a different direction, he would have been considered a war hero.

A more up-do-date person would be John McAleese, the archetypal SAS hero, world famous, the first man on the balcony, etc., etc. Just before he died the British government ask the Greek government to arrest him for child pornography. So is he a hero or scum?

Finally, some people felt so strongly about McCain that they instituted a 527-Political Action Committee called Vietnam Veterans Agains McCain. I would say that is serious.

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain - Wikipedia

If you want to beatify someone at least follow the Catholic Church's procedure: wait until the person dies then you'll have their whole life trajectory to judge. Many a real saint started off as an awful human being but ended up transformed and martyred for their faith.

What do you do with someone who achieves hero status but then goes downhill from there?
ASk yourself the same question
Your group was formed by the Ted Sampley who claimed the Iraqis carved up a US pilot Lt Robert Wetzel because he was a Jew (according to Sampley)and handed out his body parts for souvenirs (Your hero Sampley told Wetzels family his insane lie) and then Wetzel was released unharmed.

He also claimed the Vietnamese kept another US Pilot Navy Cmdr. Edwin Tucker's rotting corpse on display from 1973-88

same Sampley who wears a 5th Special Forces group insignia on his beret he parades in, yet never served in 5th group, only the 3rd and 6th at Fort Bragg?

same Ted Sampley who organized bounty hunts on a woman whose Brother was MIA to pelt her with rotting fruit and water balloons
 

philc

LE
God save us all; he's all over the place like a mad woman's shit.

'Sometimes it is practically impossible to distil Donald Trump's public appearances into coherent, easily digestible news stories.

'That was the case back in June, when the US President spent 14 minutes at a political rally talking about that time he walked really slowly down a gentle ramp.

'And it was the case today, when HBO aired Trump's much-anticipated interview with Axios's national political correspondent, Australian reporter Jonathan Swan.

'This interview defies any effort at concise summarization ... '


I watched this and thought it was some comedy sketch, the gift that keeps giving.
 
He also claimed the Vietnamese kept another US Pilot Navy Cmdr. Edwin Tucker's rotting corpse on display from 1973-88
To add to this (I suspect you know this @Goldbricker , but other Arrsers may not have encountered this).

Edwin Tucker was shot down in 1967; several sources reported (after becoming refugees from Vietnam) about an aircraft which was hit over Hon Gay in 1967. This was correlated to the loss of Tucker's F-8, but the sources could never agree on the exact details. Some had him landing in the sea, others on land. They'd all heard differing tales - that he was seriously wounded; that he was seen standing minus all clothing bar his boots and underwear and bleeding heavily from a neck/head wound, that he'd been beaten to death by a farmer, that he was dead when he landed. Those sources which said he landed and was alive when local forces turned up then spoke of the pilot dying in hospital later the same day.

One source reported that a friend of his brother who worked at the hospital had been told that the pilot's remains had been boiled in some unknown chemical to remove the flesh and the skeleton then used for medical training; another source suggested that they had seen a skeleton in the hospital which was, apparently, that of the pilot (who must have been Edwin Tucker). And several others had 'heard' that there was a skeleton being used for anatomy training, and that it belonged to the pilot who'd died in 1967. None of the sources, apart from the one who claimed to have seen it, had anything other than hearsay evidence that Tucker's remains had been used for medical training, although the story was 'well known' in the area and believed. Other sources said that the pilot had been buried in the grounds of the hospital after his death and didn't believe the tale about the skeleton.

I think that by the time the remains were returned, the evidence suggests that the US authorities suspected that there might, despite the hearsay, be an element of truth to the story about his remains being used for medical training. Looking at the records in the Library of Congress, it appears to have been the suspicion that he had been alive, but badly wounded on landing (no voice communication was ever established with him, although his beeper was active) and possibly further injured by locals attacking him before they were driven off by North Vietnamese troops/militia, and he succumbed to his injuries later that day.

Reading between the lines, the various agencies seem to have been convinced that the North Vietnamese knew exactly what had happened to Edwin Tucker, but whether they were simply being uncooperative, or attempting to hide that the story of post-mortem medical use of the remains was true wasn't clear.

All of that said, the claims that the body was on display were complete BS; there was no evidence to support this from the various North Vietnamese sources who had reported on the case.
 
The Excellent is for the very well written post @Archimedes
 

Ritch

LE
God save us all; he's all over the place like a mad woman's shit.

'Sometimes it is practically impossible to distil Donald Trump's public appearances into coherent, easily digestible news stories.

'That was the case back in June, when the US President spent 14 minutes at a political rally talking about that time he walked really slowly down a gentle ramp.

'And it was the case today, when HBO aired Trump's much-anticipated interview with Axios's national political correspondent, Australian reporter Jonathan Swan.

'This interview defies any effort at concise summarization ... '


I needed a laugh and that provided. I think if the topic was less serious, the reporter would have had a hard time keeping a straight face.

I can quite easily believe that behind those cameras, a few of Trump's aides were watching on and I imagine a few absolutely dying inside.

The absolute cretin.
 

offog

LE
Stop press!

News flash!
Mail in ballots are perfectly safe and every one should use them*




*But only in states Trump should win.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I see Don reckons the blast in Beruit was a bomb, no actual evidence offered just he's talked to men. . . Top men.
 
I needed a laugh and that provided. I think if the topic was less serious, the reporter would have had a hard time keeping a straight face.

I can quite easily believe that behind those cameras, a few of Trump's aides were watching on and I imagine a few absolutely dying inside.

The absolute cretin.
The interviewer Jonathan Swan deserves a Pulitzer prize for hanging in there and sticking to his questions, despite being 'over' spoken by fatty numerous times he did not let chump off the hook.

Like Tedsson said earlier I have to wonder why chump had to keep looking up to his right after every new question, it's almost like someone was holding up cue cards with relevant talking points written on them but true to form the orange idiot preferred his own reality TV show method.
 
God save us all; he's all over the place like a mad woman's shit.

'Sometimes it is practically impossible to distil Donald Trump's public appearances into coherent, easily digestible news stories.

'That was the case back in June, when the US President spent 14 minutes at a political rally talking about that time he walked really slowly down a gentle ramp.

'And it was the case today, when HBO aired Trump's much-anticipated interview with Axios's national political correspondent, Australian reporter Jonathan Swan.

'This interview defies any effort at concise summarization ... '


When I first saw this, I had to watch it about five times as I wasn’t sure if it was a skit or a deep fake. I still can’t believe it’s real.
 
I see Don reckons the blast in Beruit was a bomb, no actual evidence offered just he's talked to men. . . Top men.
You honestly couldn't make this shit up!

It's like he has to tell people he's at the cool kids table, it really is pathetic.
 
I see Don reckons the blast in Beruit was a bomb, no actual evidence offered just he's talked to men. . . Big men, Strong men.. Top men with tears in their eyes.
Donny Chump factor applied - no charge.
 
I needed a laugh and that provided. I think if the topic was less serious, the reporter would have had a hard time keeping a straight face.

I can quite easily believe that behind those cameras, a few of Trump's aides were watching on and I imagine a few absolutely dying inside.

The absolute cretin.
For the 'true believers'.

'In a rare sit-down interview at the White House, President Donald Trump repeated a slew of misleading claims aimed at painting a rosy picture of the United States’ coronavirus response.

'During the nearly 40-minute one-on-one, which Axios filmed on July 28 and aired on HBO Aug. 3, political reporter Jonathan Swan quizzed the president about several of the issues that have defined the past six months. Among them: why the president has suggested he won’t accept the outcome of the election, whether Trump knew about reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers and why the coronavirus death rate is on the rise.

"Right now, I think it’s under control," Trump said, referring to the pandemic.

"How? 1,000 Americans are dying a day," Swan asked.

"They are dying — that’s true. And it is what it is," Trump responded. "But that doesn’t mean we aren’t doing everything we can. It’s under control as much as you can control it."

'Trump’s comments contained a mix of half-truths, missing context and outright falsehoods. We fact-checked several of the most questionable claims below.'


 
For the 'true believers'.

'In a rare sit-down interview at the White House, President Donald Trump repeated a slew of misleading claims aimed at painting a rosy picture of the United States’ coronavirus response.

'During the nearly 40-minute one-on-one, which Axios filmed on July 28 and aired on HBO Aug. 3, political reporter Jonathan Swan quizzed the president about several of the issues that have defined the past six months. Among them: why the president has suggested he won’t accept the outcome of the election, whether Trump knew about reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers and why the coronavirus death rate is on the rise.

"Right now, I think it’s under control," Trump said, referring to the pandemic.

"How? 1,000 Americans are dying a day," Swan asked.

"They are dying — that’s true. And it is what it is," Trump responded. "But that doesn’t mean we aren’t doing everything we can. It’s under control as much as you can control it."

'Trump’s comments contained a mix of half-truths, missing context and outright falsehoods. We fact-checked several of the most questionable claims below.'



Will they have to send in Federal Troops to storm the Whitehouse and evict him?

Or they could ask the UK to lend a hand, we have form for dealing with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

51cd4805da9ce412923d8876be7b5ebe.jpg
 
Stand by for more incoming from the "Worlds greatest negotiator" about China being A-Holes as chump decides to bail out of another "Historic bigliest trade deal" that he has failed deliver.

Trump Is Under Increasing Pressure to Blow Up His China Deal Before Election Day.
President Donald Trump bet the house that getting a sweetheart trade deal with the Chinese government would boost the American economy and his electoral odds before the election. Now, with that election less than 100 days away, some members of his inner circle are pushing him to make a new bet: that he’ll win if he blows it all up.

As part of their pitch, these senior officials have also increasingly insisted to Trump that he and the United States are still being “ripped off” by the Chinese government on trade—much in the same way, they argue, that Trump’s predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, were taken advantage of. The reference to the two prior presidents is strategic, as Trump regularly rips both men as “weak” and “stupid” on China matters. The thinking goes that he will recoil at being compared to them.


By Asawin Suebsaeng
White House Reporter
Erin Banco
National Security Reporter

Published Aug. 04, 2020 4:04AM ET

The big story is behind a pay wall Daily Beast Link
(which can be circumvented if you know how to do it.. {Spanky taps nose}
 
I wonder how fatty will take this Spitting Image of the two wooden puppet's.....
1596632542399.png

My money is on 'Not very well'
Other answers include:
Threaten to withdraw all U.S troops from the U.K
Nuke HMS QE
or claim
'he doesn't know this guy and never met him'
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top