669
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
669 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2740 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I have to give him credit for being right. Broken clock and all. Obviously no one wants to see wounded vets. Personally I'd rather they just not be in positions to get wounded or at the very least they have proper access to medical care post injury.
E: What ignorant twats are downvoting this? I'm saying we should be working towards vets not getting injured in the first place. As in lowering the number of vets that are injured, therefore there are less of them to be seen. Second would be ensuring proper care. How the fuck is that at all controversial?
Medical care should be top priority. If we fought wars with flower petals and cotton candy, then we wouldn't need to worry about it. But war is ugly, and these are the repercussions. People should see the hard truths so that we can make better choices on how to provide for the wounded, and the possibilities when committing to that line of work.
Trump was out of line with his remarks, and clearly has no appreciation for those who serve. He wants to be able to live in his fantasy land without seeing the consequences of his actions and what being the leader of a country entails. Shame on him. If he doesn't think wounded veterans are suitable to be seen, then he isn't suited to be Commander in Chief.
You buried a good point (about reducing harm from war) in a wrapper of shit (about thinking trump's comments were at all appropriate).
I, and many Americans are happy to "see" wounded vets. They're people, just with injuries, they aren't a spectacle. That said, it is important to recognize the physical toll of our political choices, so people like aliva should not be tucked away.
Lol at pretending that you actually think Trump was making a statement about war, and that "we need fewer wounded vets," and not, "get this disgusting person away from me and out of my line of vision."
Quite the attempt there.
You read that wrong. Try again.
K
Your main point of "maybe people shouldn't be injured in war to begin with" makes sense, but you're being downvoted probably because that is not what Trump meant and therefore he isn't "right."
Except me, I downvoted you because I think it's funny how indignant you got about "ignorant twats" when it was fairly obvious why people were downvoting you.
... and the clock isn't "right". It just happens to display the correct time for a brief moment.
You're looking at it through a lense of compassion. Go back and read what Trump said again. Do you really think he's doing the same?
Did you even read the edit? I was being sarcastic about him being "right". A broke clock is still right twice a day...
You're being downvoted because you're ignoring the current issue in the world right now. Right now this is a post where he said we need to hide the disabled veterans so nobody can see them. You said he's right about that and went on about how we need to just make war go away.
War is not going away right this second. So write this second you're only real point is that yes we must hide the veterans. We can work towards making more go away in the future but that's going to be centuries. If we even survive that long.
That's not what that says. He didn't say we need to hide the injured veterans. He said "No one wants to see that". It's understood he meant hide them from sight. Hence the broken clock reference. I was saying the statement is correct, that nobody wants to see injured veterans. I then add that the primary way to accomplish that would be to reduce the number of injured vets. The second goal would be to ensure good healthcare if they become injured despite the primary goal.