Do Dems care about Tim's stolen Valor at all?

6,323 Views | 119 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:00p, 8/10/24
Mothra said:
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
The army didn't identify bone spurs. A private dr signed the physical.. Trumps bone spurs did not prevent him from marching in parades and participating in college athletics. I don't think it's affected the amount of golf he plays.


I'm not defending Trump's deferrals. But the distinction here is Trump didn't run on his military service.

Walz did, and when a candidate does that, he better be honest about it instead of lying as Walz did. That pisses a lot of veterans off.


Lying about seeing combat should end a political career. Dems don't care. They have zero honor. Trump treats them like the bad people they are, and that's why progressives hate Trump. He calls it like it is.
Reply Quote
4
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:05p, 8/10/24
Mothra said:
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
The army didn't identify bone spurs. A private dr signed the physical.. Trumps bone spurs did not prevent him from marching in parades and participating in college athletics. I don't think it's affected the amount of golf he plays.


I'm not defending Trump's deferrals. But the distinction here is Trump didn't run on his military service.

Walz did, and when a candidate does that, he better be honest about it instead of lying as Walz did. That pisses a lot of veterans off.
The kicker is that Walz attacked Vance on his military record.

Just how Walz thought that would work out well for him, I cannot tell you.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Reply Quote
4
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Forest Bueller • 7:35p, 8/10/24
Forest Bueller said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.


Clearly Frank Galvins post reinforces this view.


There you go. They simply do not care. Biden and Clinton were more than equal Trump in getting deferments.

Pretending to attain rank and battle duty when you didn't earn it or do it, then opting out once you are actually called to back up your commitment, is worse than a kid in college getting multiple deferments. If those guys are draft dodgers they were joined by millions.


I agree and n Trump, but for the same reasons I am good with Walz. He followed the rules of the time. Walz did not break one rule and was Honorably Discharged. He also did not lie on his combat time, he did deploy to Italy, carry a rifle during wartime. As a military member you can't choose where they send you. They sent him to Italy for support. Sorry, it was not his call. In the context of what he was talking about he can talk about combat weapons on the street. It is much to do about nothing.

His policies are horrible and he is a nightmare as an elected official. But his service, I am good.
Reply Quote
3
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:39p, 8/10/24
FLBear5630 said:
Forest Bueller said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.


Clearly Frank Galvins post reinforces this view.


There you go. They simply do not care. Biden and Clinton were more than equal Trump in getting deferments.

Pretending to attain rank and battle duty when you didn't earn it or do it, then opting out once you are actually called to back up your commitment, is worse than a kid in college getting multiple deferments. If those guys are draft dodgers they were joined by millions.


I agree and n Trump, but for the same reasons I am good with Walz. He followed the rules of the time. Walz did not break one rule and was Honorably Discharged. He also did not lie on his combat time, he did deploy to Italy, carry a rifle during wartime. As a military member you can't choose where they send you. They sent him to Italy for support. Sorry, it was not his call. In the context of what he was talking about he can talk about combat weapons on the street. It is much to do about nothing.

His policies are horrible and he is a nightmare as an elected official. But his service, I am good.


You can be good with it, but he lied about being in combat. Only a scumbag would do that. Pretend to whatever degree makes you comfortable with it.
Reply Quote
5
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to elayer • 7:43p, 8/10/24
elayer said:
Can't believe these gop hypocrites talking noise about Walz who actually served his country 24 years, and meanwhile you have trump private bone spurs who dodged the draft and called our pows and war dead losers and suckers and then you got Vance who was deployed............to Italy

Maga has no high ground here and they really need to stfu.
wait, did Trump lie about serving as a combat vet?

BTW, JD Vance was deployed to Iraq for six months from August 2005 and into 2006, based at Al Asad air base in western Iraq.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Reply Quote
3
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Whiskey Pete • 8:22p, 8/10/24
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.
Reply Quote
3
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TinFoilHatPreacherBear • 8:29p, 8/10/24
No he f'n did not. On many occasions he made crystal clear that his deployment was in a support role. The statement you are pearl clutching about was made in a gun control debate. He was explaining his view that civilians do not need access to the type of weapon he was familiar with. It was a policy point, not a self-congratulation point.
Reply Quote
5
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 8:30p, 8/10/24
Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.
Reply Quote
5
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 8:31p, 8/10/24
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.
Reply Quote
3
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 8:33p, 8/10/24
TDS logic is non existant.

Do you have evidence he paid a doctor to lie?
We have evidence that Walz deliberately lied to give the impression that he was in combat.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TinFoilHatPreacherBear • 8:47p, 8/10/24
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
TDS logic is non existant.

Do you have evidence he paid a doctor to lie?
We have evidence that Walz deliberately lied to give the impression that he was in combat.
It's not too hard to piece together.

He played football and baseball in high school, and by his own account, was a pro prospect, and played sports throughout college.

He had no reported injuries/conditions.

He passed his prior physical exam.

He received 4 student deferments.

When he graduated, he suddenly was diagnosed with a heel spur.

His doctor was a tenant of Trump Sr.

Trump admitted never having surgery or even treatment. "It just went away" he said.

It is well known that many of the wealthy received medical deferments.

Let's see . . . I'm gonna venture a guess . . . .
Reply Quote
3
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TinFoilHatPreacherBear • 9:02p, 8/10/24
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Forest Bueller said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.


Clearly Frank Galvins post reinforces this view.


There you go. They simply do not care. Biden and Clinton were more than equal Trump in getting deferments.

Pretending to attain rank and battle duty when you didn't earn it or do it, then opting out once you are actually called to back up your commitment, is worse than a kid in college getting multiple deferments. If those guys are draft dodgers they were joined by millions.


I agree and n Trump, but for the same reasons I am good with Walz. He followed the rules of the time. Walz did not break one rule and was Honorably Discharged. He also did not lie on his combat time, he did deploy to Italy, carry a rifle during wartime. As a military member you can't choose where they send you. They sent him to Italy for support. Sorry, it was not his call. In the context of what he was talking about he can talk about combat weapons on the street. It is much to do about nothing.

His policies are horrible and he is a nightmare as an elected official. But his service, I am good.


You can be good with it, but he lied about being in combat. Only a scumbag would do that. Pretend to whatever degree makes you comfortable with it.


He did not say he was in combat. He said he carried a weapon during a war. He did. He said it would in the case next of gun control.

As I said, there are a bunch of reasons not to vote for him. Saying his 24 year Honorably retired service is a reason is a reach. The guy deployed. He retired and it was accepted. Placing your expectations on someone else is a recipe for disappointment.
Reply Quote
3
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 9:03p, 8/10/24
Only rich kids received medical exemptions?
Don't remember him lying about his deferments or lying about being in combat. But a guy that punches out just before his brothers go off to combat, and then lies about being in combat, well that's the worst. Your TDS is showing here.
Lots of people avoid combat, Tampon Tim lies about being in combat.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 11:14p, 8/10/24
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.
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 11:18p, 8/10/24
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.
that is total bull*****
Reply Quote
2
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShooterTX • 5:21a, 8/11/24
ShooterTX said:
FLBear5630 said:
william said:
walz backtracks as scandal grows:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tim-walz-misspoke-discussed-using-weapons-war-campaign-says-rcna166038

- kkm

he needs to formally apologize to the people he quit on.

I don't see it that way. I know many that put in their paperwork when another deployment was coming or they were just done. He put in his paperwork, it was accepted and processed. What does his DD 214 say? That says it all - If it says "Honorable" he did his job and can hold his head high. If he didn't it would say General, which is what drug offenders and such get.

He is entitled to put his paperwork in anytime after 20 years, there is no shame in that. We are talking National Guard here. Even if Active Duty, if it was serious they wouldn't accept, they would extend him if his MOS was critical. So, the fact it was approved, tells me he was good with the Army.

The others are pissed he had options and was successful and they didn't. That is what this sounds like to me.

I agree, this part of the story is not a big deal at all. He saw an opportunity to get out and avoid possible death, while also shifting careers to become a politician. He had been in for decades, so he earned the right to leave on his own. This is a nothing burger.

It's the lying part that should be a problem. Saying you were in a combat zone, saying you carried a weapon in combat, letting people believe that you were "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan or Iraq... that is the part that should matter.

My goodness... 20 years of honorable service isn't enough? You have to lie about what you did and where you served? Why?

I don't ask people in uniform if they ever carried a weapon in a combat zone. I look them in the eye, shake their hand, say "thank you for your service", and then pay for their coffee or meal. Normal people don't really care if you were "tip of the spear" or not... you served and that's what matters. But for Timmy, it seems like it wasn't enough for him, and that's just sad.
I'd drop the issue. Your arguments look incredibly hypocritical when the same standard for lying is applied to Trump. Both men lack character on a grand scale.

Stick to policy as that's the only real difference worthy of touting and critiquing.
Reply Quote
1
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:16a, 8/11/24
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.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:38a, 8/11/24
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.
Must have missed it. When did Walz disparage Vance's Marine service?

Talked about carrying a rifle during war contrasting military weapons with civilian use in the context of a gun control argument.

He retired rather than deploy again, a not so uncommon action. Some may not like it, but he is not unique and was within his rights to do so. (Funny, how this Board is all about "protecting rights" until they are not...)

The only misstep I can see is that he used his Sgt Major rank after retiring, when his 214 says Master Sargeant because he didn't complete the two years. OK, maybe he should have been exact, but the guy was a Sgt Major. His apology is enough. (This is something that bothers me about the military I watched guys terminate their jump status due to family, education (whatever reason) be told they are not "Airborne" anymore and can't wear the wings. They completed Jump School, served in Division for 12, 20 or whatever jumps, but because they had a situation where the 82nd wouldn't work for them, they are ostracized. I always thought that was BS.)

As myself and others have said, there are a ton of reasons to keep this guy away from the VP seat and his 24 years of military service is not one of them. He has done a lot more than many on this Board.

Reply Quote
3
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:49a, 8/11/24
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.


"Purported conservative values" - those don't exist for anyone voting for the Harris ticket. Be real.
Just a product of the media. The Progressive Religionistas have total mind control of some people. The more they post, the clearer it becomes.
Reply Quote
1
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 8:59a, 8/11/24
J.R. said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.
that is total bull*****
It's 100% true. You not liking it because it hurts your preferred narrative holds no sway over its validity. It's like you're getting your news from 2018 MSNBC.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 12:10p, 8/11/24
J.R. said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.
that is total bull*****


Incorrect.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 12:13p, 8/11/24
Wangchung said:
J.R. said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.
that is total bull*****
It's 100% true. You not liking it because it hurts your preferred narrative holds no sway over its validity. It's like you're getting your news from 2018 MSNBC.
Well, I just listened to Vance on this. It is a loser for Trump. He had to spend 30 minutes explaining his position and the out come was so you don't disrespect his service only that he used it in a campaign speech. Too much energy and too much explaining without any progress. Made him look petty. First rule of PIO/Public Communication, if you are explaining, you are losing.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:32p, 8/11/24
" if you are explaining, you are losing."

Words Walz and Harris should consider, actually ...

This matter does not concern Trump or Harris, as neither served.

This concerns Walz, and the claims made by men in his unit which he ignored for going on 20 years now.

Pretending Vance is the one at risk or in a weak position here, is self-delusion and then some.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Reply Quote
3
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 8/11/24
No one cares. It is a cult of personality.

Democrats generally have zero principles - all decisions framed through the lens of the tribal T-shirt.
Reply Quote
2
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 11:34a, 8/12/24
sombear said:
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.
I understand what you are saying, but my point was a lot more narrow, and really has nothing to do with his service, which I commend.

My point is, a military guy shouldn't lie about his service, especially when he uses it for political purposes. Walz knew what he was saying was a lie. There is no question about that. But he said it because it helped him politically. And that really rubs veterans the wrong way, including the men that served with him and underneath him.

Does it mean his insane policies should not be a focal point? Of course not. But when you lie about your service, that to me seems fair game for critique, and I think Trump/Vance hitting on that issue is good politics.

Glad to hear you're starting to come to your senses on Trump.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:40a, 8/12/24
Mothra said:
sombear said:
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.
I understand what you are saying, but my point was a lot more narrow, and really has nothing to do with his service, which I commend.

My point is, a military guy shouldn't lie about his service, especially when he uses it for political purposes. Walz knew what he was saying was a lie. There is no question about that. But he said it because it helped him politically. And that really rubs veterans the wrong way, including the men that served with him and underneath him.

Does it mean his insane policies should not be a focal point? Of course not. But when you lie about your service, that to me seems fair game for critique, and I think Trump/Vance hitting on that issue is good politics.

Glad to hear you're starting to come to your senses on Trump.
I agree with you in principle. My issue is more pragmatic. It is an election, it is not having the effect they want on the demographic they need. At the very least it is not getting the attention of the needed demographic and at the worst it is making them look petty to the needed demographic. We are at a point where he needs to target suburban women and moderate independents. He has the Vets and his base.

Women I talked to over the weekend said the admired his decision to not go and stay with his family after 24 years. His wife deserved it. That is not what Trump wants coming from this that Walz put his family first. That WILL resonate with suburban women and moderate Independents.

Reply Quote
1
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 11:46a, 8/12/24
FLBear5630 said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
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.
I understand what you are saying, but my point was a lot more narrow, and really has nothing to do with his service, which I commend.

My point is, a military guy shouldn't lie about his service, especially when he uses it for political purposes. Walz knew what he was saying was a lie. There is no question about that. But he said it because it helped him politically. And that really rubs veterans the wrong way, including the men that served with him and underneath him.

Does it mean his insane policies should not be a focal point? Of course not. But when you lie about your service, that to me seems fair game for critique, and I think Trump/Vance hitting on that issue is good politics.

Glad to hear you're starting to come to your senses on Trump.
I agree with you in principle. My issue is more pragmatic. It is an election, it is not having the effect they want on the demographic they need. At the very least it is not getting the attention of the needed demographic and at the worst it is making them look petty to the needed demographic. We are at a point where he needs to target suburban women and moderate independents. He has the Vets and his base.

Women I talked to over the weekend said the admired his decision to not go and stay with his family after 24 years. His wife deserved it. That is not what Trump wants coming from this that Walz put his family first. That WILL resonate with suburban women and moderate Independents.
You'll get no argument from me Trump needs to hammer Harris/Walz on policy. and that should be the focal point.

But I have no problem with calling out a guy who lied like Walz did, and that critique was pretty effective, given that Walz had to backtrack and admit he made a "mistake" in describing his service.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:54a, 8/12/24
Mothra said:
FLBear5630 said:
Mothra said:
sombear said:
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.
I understand what you are saying, but my point was a lot more narrow, and really has nothing to do with his service, which I commend.

My point is, a military guy shouldn't lie about his service, especially when he uses it for political purposes. Walz knew what he was saying was a lie. There is no question about that. But he said it because it helped him politically. And that really rubs veterans the wrong way, including the men that served with him and underneath him.

Does it mean his insane policies should not be a focal point? Of course not. But when you lie about your service, that to me seems fair game for critique, and I think Trump/Vance hitting on that issue is good politics.

Glad to hear you're starting to come to your senses on Trump.
I agree with you in principle. My issue is more pragmatic. It is an election, it is not having the effect they want on the demographic they need. At the very least it is not getting the attention of the needed demographic and at the worst it is making them look petty to the needed demographic. We are at a point where he needs to target suburban women and moderate independents. He has the Vets and his base.

Women I talked to over the weekend said the admired his decision to not go and stay with his family after 24 years. His wife deserved it. That is not what Trump wants coming from this that Walz put his family first. That WILL resonate with suburban women and moderate Independents.
You'll get no argument from me Trump needs to hammer Harris/Walz on policy. and that should be the focal point.

But I have no problem with calling out a guy who lied like Walz did, and that critique was pretty effective, given that Walz had to backtrack and admit he made a "mistake" in describing his service.
I was surprised that Trump/Vance did not take the wife's view on the retirement and getting out into consideration. Anybody that has deployed knows that the family does not always agree with you being gone for so long. 6 months alone was enough for my wife.

Call it out, make some political hay and move on. He is spending too much time on it and from only one point of view.
Reply Quote
1
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:34p, 8/12/24
what is this abt a Gay Club??? apparently foisting tampons on young men wasn't enough.

after watching him impersonate Liberace walking on stage at the Vegas - it wouldnt be a surprise.

maybe bring a feather boa next time, Bagram Timmy.

- KKM

Sick.

Sick Sick Sick Sick Sick.

Sick.

pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 10:34p, 8/12/24
Wangchung said:
J.R. said:
Wangchung said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Tampon Tim lies about rank, lies about combat but in reality chickens out the eve before deployment, ugh. Do Dems care at all?

History shows that they do not care about anything unless the TV tells them to care. Lemmings.

But do Dem voting soldiers even actually care?
Dude, they were about to re-elect a man who took inappropriate showers with his own daughter and took bribes from foreign adversaries. The baby killing child groomers simply do not care.
that is total bull*****
It's 100% true. You not liking it because it hurts your preferred narrative holds no sway over its validity. It's like you're getting your news from 2018 MSNBC.

MSLSD?
Reply Quote
1
Wolf 359
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:31a, 8/13/24

Now, for your moment of Zen . . . .

Reply Quote
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nein51 • 10:38a, 8/13/24
nein51 said:
Porteroso said:
Probably about as much as Republicans care about the fake elector scheme.

It's all about winning these days. Either party can put up the most despicable candidates imaginable, and both sides will turn blind to their own party's mistakes, but of course, exist in a state of constant shock and outrage over the other party's mistakes.

What is truly interesting to me is how quickly either side will follow up on what I consider to be egregious errors made by the other. For instance, Republicans will say they are shocked and outraged over Trump's impeachment, but herald impeachment articles brought against Harris a few years later. Democrats will say they have taken the moral high road in a time when Trump only cares about himself and winning, but then they will put up a candidate nobody voted for and subvert the intention of democracy in order to give themselves the best shot at winning.

Morality is only a vague passing concern for these elites, and most of the electorate. I try to constantly call many of you zealots for this very reason. Zealotry is exactly what we have today in both parties. Most of you would gladly sell their own souls to win federal elections. Nobody cares about voting for a good guy or gal, they care about winning.

You can't call out anyone as a zealot when your first line is essentially a whataboutism. That eliminates discourse

It is a direct answer to a question posed in the OP. Nothing about it is whataboutism.

And the reason you and so many others are so offended by any possible whataboutism, is you need for this to be a fight between good and evil. Both sides do. You both are the same in so many respects, despite trying so hard to be your enemy's opposite. Sometimes you can probably even admit it to yourself, that your side sure seems to be doing the same things you rail on the others about. So you rail all the harder, and paint the other as more and more evil.

We all want to think we are on the moral high road. Every last one of us.

When we are actually in the moral swamp, the only salvation we can find is to think that at least the swamp is higher than the 9th level of moral hell the enemy is occupying.
Reply Quote
1
nein51
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 11:00a, 8/13/24
What are you on about? I literally said that both he and Trump were wrong. I have no morals and therefore no high ground to be concerned with.

I think Trump is a repulsive human being. I think dodging the draft was a super ****ty thing to do (and in spite of people trying to find ways to brush it off that's definitely what he did). I think lying about your service record is also a terrible thing to do.

Both sides suck!

I prefer the side that makes me more money and, historically, that's been the (R) candidates but they have just as many problems as the (D)s. Different problems but equal in number.
Reply Quote
1
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TinFoilHatPreacherBear • 11:02a, 8/13/24
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.
Reply Quote
1
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 12:03p, 8/13/24
Porteroso said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Nah, lying about being in combat is the lowest.
Lots of people avoid combat, only true slimeballs lie about being in combat.

He did not say he saw combat. You are a zealot saying zealous things and should not be taken seriously. His comment was out of place because it was not clear that he did not see combat, however it was not an actual claim to have seen combat.


Fair enough that you believe that it was "unclear" and unintentional.

I believe that he's repeatedly worded things unclearly to misrepresent his service. So him intentionally wording things to give the impression he was in combat is the same as lying about being in combat. You do you.

Across many threads, you keep zealously defending the indefensible. Hmmm
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.