Kamala Harris selects Tim Walz as VP

They wanted him to DIE in Iraq.

 

Of course that doesn’t include Walz’s many years training the secret elite group of jihadis in the basement of the Afro Deli in Riverside Avenue.

I’ve currently been tasked to go meet up with my IRA contacts in Belfast to learn how to make potato bombs for the cadre

 

Thanks for sharing those tweets and his take is spot on in that Walz wasn’t guilty of stolen valor (and I never said he was either), but letting people think he was something he wasn’t is still shady (this is where I've been at). Meijer’s experience highlights the importance of honesty, especially with military service. We should hold all candidates to the same standard without exaggerations, no exceptions.

Lol obviously! I don't think Butler PA was an actual battlefield

 

Walz served as a CSM, but didn’t retire as one. The MN National Guard said he retired as an MS due to incomplete coursework. The claim his rank was reduced "months after retiring" is incorrect because his retirement rank was always Master Sergeant which is why the correction happened on the campaign website. You can even read it in this article, despite the author's attempt at saying otherwise throughout it, the very last paragraph says this: https://www.startribune.com/walzs-m...y-as-vance-gop-question-his-service/600960236

Minnesota National Guard officials have said that Walz retired before completing coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, along with other requirements associated with his promotion.

So if he retired BEFORE completing coursework necessary for promotion, how the hell was he demoted months later after retiring supposedly? That's not what the MN National Guard is saying. We can agree to disagree here.

 

Your statement was that that he claimed to use such weapons “in combat”. Accuracy matters, yes? Did he say combat, or did you mischaracterize his words?

“In war” doesn’t necessarily mean in literal combat. Most people understand this. If you are training someone in an official military capacity during wartime, you are a participant “in war”, even if not in “combat”.

 

the things conservatives focused on and nitpick is just weird. Man achieved CSM, but didn't retired as one. Man was a participant of war, but wasn't in active combat. Like u figure these same folks would go berserk when trump gets exposes for making sht up or outright lying.
Im still waiting for mexico to pay for our wall and him replacing obamacare with something better.


Dont get me started on how conservatives are hot and bothered about Walz DUI 30 years, while ignoring the sht ton of lawsuits and recent conviction of their orange one. like if u wanted to vote trump just go for it, trying to make up sht reason to justify voting for trump is just funny.

 

I think you are a bit confused. My understanding of the Minnesota National Guard statement is that he retired before completing the coursework, not that he didn’t retire as a CSM. Everything I’ve read says he retired as a CSM and was later reduced in rank since he didn't complete the coursework.

Your linked article also stated that: "Harris' campaign has referred to Walz as a 'retired Command Sergeant Major,' one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. He did, in fact, achieve that rank, but personnel files show he was reduced in rank months after retiring."

Anyhow, this commitment to honesty and truth should be made very clear. One campaign has made a correction to prevent potential misinformation. Meanwhile, the other campaign is awash in misinformation and lies and, to my knowledge, has never made any corrections when these are pointed out; instead, they double down on them. The differences between these two choices are very clear to me.

 

To remind all the people outside of Minnesota Walz was elected multiple times and the last time by a comfortable margin even after these claims came out. Most of Minnesota doesn’t care about this.

 

damn, Pelosi and CSPAN stole his valor too.

 

PA is not MN.

 

All I know is, if Trump did the same thing (which he has), he’d be attacked to no end (which he was and should have been). It’s okay to say Walz messed up with that statement about using 'weapons of war.' No need to defend him on everything, he isn't perfect

 

Maybe not but it’s got similar demographics.

 

dissimilar politics.

 

I’m not an expert on PA but I suspect it’s not that dissimilar. There are similar farm and urban issues. There is a rural urban divide and the race likely will be decided by the suburban vote like Minnesota

 

Trump didn't serve, full stop

He has been attacked for far worse things that he has said and done.

Walz is an innocuous old fart running for VP.

Maybe the tell that you don't like Vance is your deflection of number two to the man who smells like number two?

 

I've literally said several times here Vance gave off "handmaid tale's" vibes initially, so it's no secret I thought he was weird

I understand where you’re coming from, but how can you retire as something if you haven’t completed the necessary steps required to retire at that rank? You can’t.

As for honesty, I agree that both campaigns need to be held to high standards. Just because one campaign makes corrections doesn’t mean the initial mistake didn’t matter. If we’re going to hold one side accountable, we should do the same across the board.

I hear you, and I get that Minnesota voters might not care as much about this issue, but sometimes local or state issues that seem minor can become bigger national issues. Not saying this is one of those but with national eyes on Walz, this is probably just the start.

 

At most, you could say that Walz used ambiguous language that was misleading in those instances. Pointing out that he could have been more careful in choosing his words in some instances in the past is fine, but it’s a criticism you could levy against virtually any politician and does not justify the personal attacks against him.

I also think it’s rather ridiculous to try to draw an equivalence between this and Trump’s long history of fraud and disregard for truth, as it seems you want to do. But I get that’s what some people need to do to rationalize casting a vote for such a contemptible person.

 

Yes it’s certainly fair to say Walz wasn’t absolutely accurate and it was fair for his CO to be upset that Walz went over his head and wasn’t straightforward with him. That’s a big difference though then claiming he had “stolen valor” or “betrayed his country”.

this is a point I will repeat again it’s these type of over the top attacks they erode credibility and increase cycnicism.

I will also add that I don’t think it’s helpful when democrats do it and didn’t like it when Walz made a couch joke about Vance. There is plenty substantial to go after him than just push unverified and salacious rumors.