Mothra said:
sombear said:
Frank Galvin said:
I voted for Bush 1 in 1992 and for Clinton in 1996. I voted for Bush II both times and his service was more questionable than Walzs'.
There are more important things when choosing. What is odd is saying Walz's explanation of his military service is somehow more troubling than Trump's avoidance of service.
100%. Trump pays a doc to make something up, and never serves a day. Walz serves 24 years honorably and exaggerates on an issue or two, and that's somehow disqualifying. MAGA logic is weird.
Disqualifying? Nah that's a bridge too far. There are a lot of things that should disqualify Walz, but this isn't one of them.
However, again, when you brag about your service, run on your service, crap on another guys service (Vance) and then we come to find you've lied about your service, you just might be a POS. That's the point you seem to be missing.
It's interesting to see how willing you are to defend the guy now that you're voting for him. It's pretty pathetic actually. I get that you hate Trump, but where the hell did your purported conservative values go? Walz is looney tunes.
A few things.
Mostly, as I've posted for days, I just think this (and Kamala's race and giggles and crowd size and affair in her 20s) and . . . ) are not going to move the electorate. Again, Trump has one and only one advantage: Policy, namely the economy and inflation. I think the social issues mostly even out. Abortion hurts Trump. Crazy wokeism hurts Harris. FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT MATTER THEN FOCUS ON THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Relatedly, I'm 55 and have worked in law, business, and politics, and there is a principle I've seen play out repeatedly in my career. If an issue is too nuanced or it takes over 2 minutes to explain it to someone off the street, it probably should not be a focal point.
I did not serve. A lot of my family and closest friends have. I have the utmost respect for those who have served. Walz volunteered out of high school. He served honorably for 24 years. Admittedly, I have not drilled down on this issue as some of you probably have. But I have not seen anything that comes close to making those 24 years of service a net negative.
In a gun control debate, he referred to a weapon he carried in war. I think he was simply trying to say it's a weapon of war. He referred to serving Enduring Freedom when he "only" supported Enduring Freedom. In numerous interviews, he has been clear on his roles.
I will give any veteran (on either side) the benefit of the doubt. I despised John Kerry, but I was not comfortable with the swift boating. I wanted to punch Trump when he minimized/questioned Desantis' service. I defended W on his National Guard service. I could go on and on.
Seems to me, at worst, Walz exaggerated. If so, and I think he probably did, he should not have. But, serious, question, do you know anyone who hasn't exaggerated their accomplishments? They say, what, at least 10% of a typical resume is a flat lie or at least embellished?
Finally, when you compare all this to Trump avoiding service altogether, not only is it a losing political issue, but it is laughable from any sort of moral perspective. MAGA really thinks it is worse to serve 24 years and, at most, embellish, than to dodge service altogether based on a fictional medical condition? If so, that is MAGA logic to the extreme.
BTW Walz makes it more likely I'll change my mind before voting day. But it has nothing to do with this issue. Rather, he seems a far left lunatic.