Are these the folks pictured? Why did they agree to that, and smile?
No.
Ok, could you clarify then? Who the heck were they then? It adds to the issue if some randos posed with the grave
Edit why was this downvoted? I am actually interested if those people are trump staff or something
The article does a better job of explaining it. But the people mentioned who are complaining were the family of another soldier whose gravestone was in the picture. The people giving the thumbs up posing with Trump are another family of a different soldier.
The Trump campaign is saying that they were invited there and given permission to take a picture. The invite and permission came from the family in the picture, but there is a federal law against taking campaign photos there for situations just like this. It’s incredibly tacky and disrespectful to take thumbs up photos for a political campaign on other people’s graves, even if a few living people said it was ok.
The worst part of all this is Trump set up the conditions for Abbey Gate. By the time Biden took office there wasn’t anything he could do short of throwing a couple infantry divisions back into the Afghanistan and telling everyone to leave right away because the ANA wouldn’t hold. At which point he needs more infantry divisions because that announcement would create chaos in the country. And that presupposes they successfully figure out just how badly the Afghan National Army’s readiness was misreported and they get honest reporting from their contractors about the loyalty of the governors, after 4 years of replacing anyone who didn’t report good things.
Trump is the worst kind of grifter, he killed that man and told his family that it was Biden’s fault because Biden got stuck with Trump’s grenade after Trump pulled the pin.
Yeah, but see that family that invited him there was “special” and the laws don’t apply to them or to Trump when they say they don’t. Typical fucking MAGAts.
why was this downvoted?
Because instead of reading the article you made assumptions and are now asking other commenters to spoon feed you the information that is in the article.
If you’re actually interested then RTFA.
It is not indicated in the article who the people from the popularized thumbs up photo are in relation to the family complaining. The article indicates the family was unhappy their family’s gravesite was included in the photo. I was curious if those in the photo were intimidated or coerced into posing, or if ANOTHER family is discussing ANOTHER gravestone, which is what I asked for clarity on. Getting a one word “no” is not useful, so I followed up.
Edit also this is a discussion forum, and my comment could also indicate I didn’t understand something. It’s not unreasonable to ask people to clarify.
Your reply is toxic, and assumes the worst of others.
The first paragraph:
A New York Times reporter joined CNN on Wednesday night to discuss her reporting on the family of a Green Beret buried in Arlington National Cemetery expressing concern that former President Donald Trump’s campaign filmed at his gravesite without permission and in an area where campaign photos are banned.
Strongly implies it’s not the family in the picture.
If we continue reading:
His family told the Times that Marckesano’s gravesite was caught in pictures with Trump.
While another family said they wanted Trump there, this family did not.
“The Marckesano family was not contacted or asked for this, but his gravestone is now in that TikTok video from behind,” said Times reporter Maggie Haberman on CNN, noting the front of the gravestone with his name is in pictures posted online with Trump giving a thumbs-up.
Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, told the Times in a statement that “the campaign will continue to respect the wishes of the Gold Star family members who invited President Trump.”
Haberman noted Gold Star families are not a “monolith” and have differing political opinions. The “broader issue” in this case is whether Trump violated federal law.
“So far the Trump campaign has yet to provide documentation of its claim that it was permitted to do this and that there was an agreement,” she said.
It’s all very clear from the article if you tried reading it in the first place before asking others to explain it to you.
As I said, I did read it. I’m not taking a test here, I’m not held to academic rigor. I didn’t get it. I wasn’t satisfied with the implied conclusion you mentioned. I asked. This is an appropriate place to ask, and no one is obligated to respond.
There is nothing in your quoted text that definitely clarifies the following question: " was the pictured family the family that did not want the gravesite pictured? If so, were they coerced into taking that photo?" If not then we can assume the gravesite of the family in question is in the background and my question would have also been solved.
You are displaying very negative behavior, you could just not be involved, but have chosen to do so.
Edit for clarity: none of your responses have clarified who the family in the popularized photo is, that’s all I cared about, to see if that family was forced into that photo, which would be terrible
none of your responses have clarified who the family in the popularized photo is, that’s all I cared about
Your first comment was:
Are these the folks pictured? Why did they agree to that, and smile?
Clearly from reading the article they are not.
When you didn’t bother to read the article in the first place before making comments on it people are going to assume you also haven’t bothered to find the information of “who the family in the photo was” on your own before asking others to find out for you.
you could just not be involved, but have chosen to do so.
You asked why you were receiving downvotes. I explained.
You responded that the article was not clear, I quoted relevant sections.
Don’t ask questions you don’t want answers to. If you don’t want to interact with me you could not reply, but have chosen to do so.
Removed by mod
Removed, civility.
It isn’t in the words, it’s implied, so finding it would indeed be hard.
Edit Beyond that, it is apparently hard for this group to just say
"My read is that the family form the article isn’t the one in the picture. "
Were they the ones posing with the orange miscarriage?
No.
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
One family was mad Trump was there. Meanwhile, multiple families there later drafted a statement thanking Trump for attending.
It doesn’t matter because IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR TRUMP TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT IS A CRIME TO STOP HORRIBLE FUCKING PEOPLE LIKE TRUMP FROM DOING THE LOWEST SHIT ON EARTH LIKE USING A MILITARY MEMBERS DEATH AS A PROP AND TOOL. IT IS ILLEGAL.
Not just that, it shows his moral character to a T. It also shows the moral character of those families that thanked him.
IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR TRUMP TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
So is he going to actually get charged with something? It’s only illegal if you get punished for doing it.
So is he going to actually get charged with something?
Ha ha, no.
The family may have invited him, but taking campaign photos is disallowed. The inviting family DOESN’T make the rules and their invitation doesn’t change the rules.
The thing is though, OP’s article isn’t really about the rules, it’s about one family’s displeasure with his appearance. I’m pointing out that this one family seems to be alone in being upset that Trump was there, in contrast with others who were happy he is there.
Again, it is not Trump’s PRESENCE, it is taking pictures for his campaign that is an issue here.
Even if the families who wanted Trump there (vomit) are OK with him breaking every rule anywhere he goes, it does not make it right
I don’t disagree with you there.
There’s no voting on the rules. One family (and this is just the one family that spoke up about it) vs one or two families that wanted Trump there means zip. The article focusing on the complaining family is just making it about human interest. Rules is rules.
No. You do not get to use our dead friends for political stunts. Is that really so hard to understand?
Fuck your fuhrer and his anti-human bullshit.
