HawkShack.com

We get an election of pretty far left and pretty far right.

Democrats:
Kamala Harris: San Francisco/California Liberal. The most liberal of liberals from perhaps the most liberal state.

Tim Walz: Minnesota governor. Career teacher. Command Central for the defund the police movement in Minnesota. Minnesota has always been a bit of an odd state when it comes to left wing politics. They've voted Republican and Democrat and Reform Party.

These two are pretty far left, maybe a little less far than The Squad.

Republicans:

Trump: We have Trump. He does things the Trump way, but does have to serve the Republican Party as well catering to their extremes for votes. 1980 Trump who supported universal healthcare and was a social liberal might have been ok, but full on MAGA trump catering to the anti-immigrant and crazier elements of the Republican Party not so great.

JD Vance: He was a moderate until he bent the knee to Trump and MAGA. Now he seems to be supporting the fairly far right.

These are pretty far right, though Trump used to be a moderate before he went full on Trump Republican catering to the crazies to win the Republican Party over.


Not a lot of room for a moderate to vote.

Main thing this sets up is a bad situation if Congress goes Democrat. So I have to hope for a split Congress.

If Congress goes Democrat and Kamala and Walz win, the age of far left policy is born. We'll see taxes raised and environmental and social policy change in the extreme. Some good like legalization of weed and a final solution to the abortion issue might occur, but the taxes and environmental policy might be a nightmare for moderate and conservative voters in terms of pain to businesses and harming the economy. The Democrats seem incapable of a good universal healthcare policy, but maybe they could manage one with sufficient Congressional support.

If Congress goes Democrat and Trump wins, Trump will be impeached and likely removed with JD Vance as president. Vance as president is a complete unknown and would put a crazy young, inexperienced politician in charge that is a complete unknown.

So gotta hope the Congress splits again.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We get an election of pretty far left and pretty far right.

Democrats:
Kamala Harris: San Francisco/California Liberal. The most liberal of liberals from perhaps the most liberal state.

Tim Walz: Minnesota governor. Career teacher. Command Central for the defund the police movement in Minnesota. Minnesota has always been a bit of an odd state when it comes to left wing politics. They've voted Republican and Democrat and Reform Party.

These two are pretty far left, maybe a little less far than The Squad.

Republicans:

Trump: We have Trump. He does things the Trump way, but does have to serve the Republican Party as well catering to their extremes for votes. 1980 Trump who supported universal healthcare and was a social liberal might have been ok, but full on MAGA trump catering to the anti-immigrant and crazier elements of the Republican Party not so great.

JD Vance: He was a moderate until he bent the knee to Trump and MAGA. Now he seems to be supporting the fairly far right.

These are pretty far right, though Trump used to be a moderate before he went full on Trump Republican catering to the crazies to win the Republican Party over.


Not a lot of room for a moderate to vote.

Main thing this sets up is a bad situation if Congress goes Democrat. So I have to hope for a split Congress.

If Congress goes Democrat and Kamala and Walz win, the age of far left policy is born. We'll see taxes raised and environmental and social policy change in the extreme. Some good like legalization of weed and a final solution to the abortion issue might occur, but the taxes and environmental policy might be a nightmare for moderate and conservative voters in terms of pain to businesses and harming the economy. The Democrats seem incapable of a good universal healthcare policy, but maybe they could manage one with sufficient Congressional support.

If Congress goes Democrat and Trump wins, Trump will be impeached and likely removed with JD Vance as president. Vance as president is a complete unknown and would put a crazy young, inexperienced politician in charge that is a complete unknown.

So gotta hope the Congress splits again.

Nope. Try again. Walz is pretty damn moderate. He is a veteran and once had the support of the NRA. The only reason he stopped with the NRA is because of the crazy gun violence in this country. Very midwest - but with a heart. He was considered a blue collar democrat in Minnesota congress; however, he did become more left as governor.

Trump and Vance are liars, weak, but they are going to make things very nasty and inappropriate. America is not that stupid. Trump has no message and continues to spew nonsense lies. While Walz was the safe choice, he is also the best for the ticket.

IMHO Kamala will be the next president of the USA. And the election won’t be very close.

Agree with Stream. Kamala is fairly left but not nearly as much so as the true progressives of the Democratic party. She's downright moderate compared to the 4 Trump told to "go back where they came from". I'd characterize her as a pretty straight up Liberal, which is how I identify (using that terminology intentionally). Walz however, like Andy Beshear, is about as moderate as any Democrat you'll find. I like the ticket personally and will cast my blue vote enthusiastically.

I was a little surprised that Harris took Waltz. He won't help her in his home state as Shapiro or Kelly would have as Minnesota is not considered to be in play and he's too far left to create a wide appeal to moderates and conservatives that will be needed to win in places like PA and MI. Trump will hit them hard on their positions on law enforcement as both have a pretty questionable track record. Waltz does have a folksy, down-home feel to him, but his progressive stances make him too easy of a target. This was a selection that a nominee who feels comfortable in their election than it does a strategic one designed to help them win.

What's becoming more of an issue is Trump's age and fitness to serve. With Biden out of the race, Trump's problems will get magnified.

River Dog wrote:I was a little surprised that Harris took Waltz. He won't help her in his home state as Shapiro or Kelly would have as Minnesota is not considered to be in play and he's too far left to create a wide appeal to moderates and conservatives that will be needed to win in places like PA and MI. Trump will hit them hard on their positions on law enforcement as both have a pretty questionable track record. Waltz does have a folksy, down-home feel to him, but his progressive stances make him too easy of a target. This was a selection that a nominee who feels comfortable in their election than it does a strategic one designed to help them win.

What's becoming more of an issue is Trump's age and fitness to serve. With Biden out of the race, Trump's problems will get magnified.

I recall both you and Asea were pumped up about JD Vance selection. That was a much bigger mistake. Walz pulls everyone to the middle, especially from the Midwest.

As we have said many times in this forum, the home state guarantees almost nothing. Shapiro while an excellent orator, had too many skeletons.

River Dog wrote:I was a little surprised that Harris took Waltz. He won't help her in his home state as Shapiro or Kelly would have as Minnesota is not considered to be in play and he's too far left to create a wide appeal to moderates and conservatives that will be needed to win in places like PA and MI. Trump will hit them hard on their positions on law enforcement as both have a pretty questionable track record. Waltz does have a folksy, down-home feel to him, but his progressive stances make him too easy of a target. This was a selection that a nominee who feels comfortable in their election than it does a strategic one designed to help them win.

What's becoming more of an issue is Trump's age and fitness to serve. With Biden out of the race, Trump's problems will get magnified.

Stream Hawk wrote:I recall both you and Asea were pumped up about JD Vance selection. That was a much bigger mistake. Walz pulls everyone to the middle, especially from the Midwest.

As we have said many times in this forum, the home state guarantees almost nothing. Shapiro while an excellent orator, had too many skeletons.

I beg your pardon! I was not "pumped" about JD Vance's selection. I merely said that it was a good strategic decision. I am steadfastly opposed to both him and Trump.

I've since soured on Vance's selection even as a strategic one. Given some of his stances, I don't think he's going to add anything to the Trump ticket that Trump couldn't garner on his own. As a matter of fact, given some of Vance's statements lately, he could be counterproductive and draw out more votes against the ticket than he does for. There's been some scuttle butt going around that Trump might dump him before the election.

I agree with you about Shapiro. Especially since that mini scandal surfaced of his office brokering an out of court settlement with a sexual harassment accuser of a staff member of his, and now with the possibility of war breaking out between Israel and Iran, he's become a liability.

The Midwest is pretty much all red and untouchable. There are no battleground states in the Midwest. Where Harris needs help in is the Great Lakes states, ie Wisconsin and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina. I don't see Waltz helping with the electoral college nearly as much as Mark Kelly would have. He has too many progressive positions that he's taken over the years.

The other thing about Kelly is that he would have been virtually impossible for Trump to attack personally like he does so many other people. Like Trump, Kelly's wife was the victim of an assassination attempt but unlike Trump, she wasn't just grazed by a bullet, she was shot in the head. Plus, Kelly is a war veteran and an astronaut, as close to a "hero" as any current office holder.

A selection of Kelly would have shown voters that Harris was serious about border security, something that is now going to be a huge weak spot as Senator, she advocated de-criminalization of illegal border crossings and the abolishment of ICE, two very liberal positions. That's one of the top issues in this election, and I think she missed a golden opportunity to negate some of that criticism. I hope it doesn't result in her defeat.

Stream Hawk wrote:I recall both you and Asea were pumped up about JD Vance selection. That was a much bigger mistake. Walz pulls everyone to the middle, especially from the Midwest.

As we have said many times in this forum, the home state guarantees almost nothing. Shapiro while an excellent orator, had too many skeletons.

Pumped? No, not pumped. I think he is a good selection for Trump because he checks a lot of boxes. Military service. Check. Married to Indian woman to soften the anti-immigrant Trump stance. Check. Yale education. Check. Strong tie to the tech industry. Check. We'll see how he does in debate and campaigning. Young. Check.

I mainly have an intellectual interest in the election at this point. I have no horse in this race.

Not sure Walz is a good pick for Harris. I actually listened to Walz and Shapiro and I liked Shapiro better. We'll see if he runs for president, but Shapiro appeals more to me than Walz does. Shapiro seems like a real moderate, though I haven't delved too deeply into his politics.

Walz seems like a liberal or a moderate that caved to liberal forces in Minnesota. Either way, gonna be easy to find footage of Minnesota burning while Walz was governor. Harris/Walz and Trump is going to be a reprosecution of the pandemic era trash with all that occurred. Vance is going to be a dressed up puppet for Trump there to pump him full of hot air.

I'm about as un-pumped for this election as I have been since 2016 or 2020. I don't intend to cast my vote for Trump or Harris/Walz. Probably write in some independent or vote no confidence as I have been doing.

You got no real conservatives to argue with on this board, so I tend to operate as the proxy conservative with no Idwhawkman or real Trump, supporting conservatives as Riverdog and I disagree on quite a bit, but neither of us is looking forward to this election. To put it in vulgar terms, it's like looking at two turds emanating awful stink that you can't seem to get rid of because their source is a bunch of crazy red and blue dogs who just keep dropping them all over the country in which you live that you have to tolerate because you live there. Personally. I wish the red and blue party would stop ruining this nation and making it an unpleasant and crazy place to live. The first thing I'd do if I had the power is absolutely hammer the political media with regulation to ensure they are no longer able to put out the trash they put out. I would lock them down hard. Both sides, especially news agencies like Fox News and MSNBC. A return to quality journalism with integrity should return, not Jerry Springer style, echo chamber journalism for ratings. I have no patience for that type of media.

River Dog wrote:I beg your pardon! I was not "pumped" about JD Vance's selection. I merely said that it was a good strategic decision. I am steadfastly opposed to both him and Trump.

I've since soured on Vance's selection even as a strategic one. Given some of his stances, I don't think he's going to add anything to the Trump ticket that Trump couldn't garner on his own. As a matter of fact, given some of Vance's statements lately, he could be counterproductive and draw out more votes against the ticket. There's been some scuttle butt going around that Trump might dump him before the election.

I agree with you about Shapiro. Especially since that mini scandal surfaced of his office brokering an out of court settlement with a sexual harassment accuser of a staff member of his, and now with the possibility of war breaking out between Israel and Iran, he's become a liability.

The Midwest is pretty much all red and untouchable. There are no battleground states in the Midwest. Where Harris needs help in is the Great Lakes states, ie Wisconsin and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina. I don't see Waltz helping with the electoral college nearly as much as Mark Kelly would have. He has too many progressive positions that he's taken over the years.

The other thing about Kelly is that he would have been virtually impossible for Trump to attack personally like he does so many other people. Like Trump, Kelly's wife was the victim of an assassination attempt but unlike Trump, she wasn't just grazed by a bullet, she was shot in the head. Plus, Kelly is a war veteran and an astronaut, as close to a "hero" as any current office holder.

A selection of Kelly would have shown voters that Harris was serious about border security, something that is now going to be a huge weak spot as Senator, she advocated de-criminalization of illegal border crossings and the abolishment of ICE, two very liberal positions. That's one of the top issues in this election, and I think she missed a golden opportunity to negate some of that criticism. I hope it doesn't result in her defeat.

I'll see how this rolls in the next few months. It is my understanding that Vance is appealing to young, conservative voters, mostly males, who want a bigger push into tech into areas like cryptocurrency and more advanced use of technological devices in government. It's a niche, how a big a niche I don't know. But he's the only one of the candidates appealing to this tech bro conservative group.

Walz is an old union Democrat in a liberal state with folksy appeal, but not much appeal to crypto people or tech savvy people. He apparently was chosen to appease some squad members like Ilhan Omar, who is not a popular national figure.

Harris is a California/Frisco liberal that is fairly far left and will appeal to minorities, women, and general liberal voters on the environment, alphabet sexuality, and other liberal issues. She maintains the Democrat vote.

Trump is MAGA. MAGA voters will vote for Trump. He covers the immigration issue though even Ann Coulter had turned on him, but not sure where else she has to go if not Trump. He is supported by pro-business people who don't care about social issues.

Vance is an appeal to young conservative males and females, crypto enthusiasts, conservative military voters, and tech billionaires like Peter Thiel to provide a moderating personality to Trump's toxic babble. Not sure he captures the Evangelical vote like Pence, but where else do the religious conservatives have to go as they'll find no help from Harris/Walz.

I'm not sure how all this will play out. I'm interested to see how this final election goes.

I think it will be another tight one in the electoral college with the usual popular vote going to the Democrat due to California and New York providing the majority of the vote differential as they have in almost every tight election where the Republican loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college. To some this is a failure of the system, but to me it clearly shows the system is working after hundreds of years to prevent overly populous states from exerting too much power over Federal elections per The Founders design. It was intentional that the electoral college act as a means to limit tyranny of the mob. One of the tyrannies popular vote advocates forget exists.

Mainly I want this election over. I don't care who wins at this point. I was pressed at work by a Democrat crying to me about Project 2025 and claiming Trump was Hitler. Just utter rubbish. Where have I heard this pitch before? 2004 when Bush Jr. and Cheney were going to use constant war to hold the United States presidency forever. When did I hear it again? When Obama ran when Republicans were comparing Obama's messaging to some Hitler messaging that sort of sounded similar. Just utter rubbish. I'm tired of the Armageddon politics. It's foolishness. A divisive political media successfully keeping a human population at each other's throats to the benefit of a wealthy political class and a ratings driven, for profit media.

I was reading up on these four candidates, Trump is the only one with international negotiation experience on a global level. Trump has been at the table with international politicians, billionaires, kings, sheiks, and other moguls most of his business life.

Harris, Walz, and Vance are neophytes in global politics at a time when we really need someone skilled in global politics. I doubt other world leaders respect Harris, Walz, or Vance. They better pick a very good Secretary of State if Harris/Walz wins.

Immigration none of the candidates handle well. Trump stoking immigrant hate is irresponsible and a bad image. Harris is too permissive. Walz is from Minnesota and is too far from the border to have much experience. Vance the same as well as being too young.

Trump is better on the economy. Harris and Walz are all about tax and spend economics. California is losing status as a business center with a lot of people moving out due to the taxes. Minnesota I'm not real sure about. But knowing a few folks from Minnesota, they say the job market is not particularly strong or varied there. I guess Wells Fargo is one of their big businesses, but not much tech or strong industry. Low cost of living though. If you can work from home for a big tech company, you can buy a nice piece of property in the suburbs there. Vance has very little economic experience other than work in the tech field. Trump followed by Walz are probably best at managing an economy since being governor is basically economic management on a smaller scale. Harris and Walz are definitely going to be need some good economic managers.

Harris, Walz, and Vance are all better in public as far being the face of the nation. Vance isn't quite as professional as Pence or as careful, but he is better than Trump. Harris very careful and good about putting on various faces to appeal to her audience, similar to Trump but without the antagonoism. Walz has the folksy appeal to the Middle Class Democrats. Trump puts a dishonest, rambling, crazy uncle face on the nation that spouts insults when angry and engages in petty fights for no reason. Though I guess he's good at working a crowd and making himself seem like a victim garnering sympathy.

Abortion is obviously favors Walz and Pence, though Trump would gladly sign a bill legalizing it because he doesn't give a crap if he didn't need to play up to the Evangelicals. Vance I don't really know his real position, only what he says publicly which is he is against abortion. So that is going to heavily hurt them with the female vote.

No one on the right or who is concerned about the 2nd Amendment is trusting Walz or Harris on the 2nd Amendment no matter how much they try to sell Walz as a gun owner. Trump would sign a bill to ban weapons if he could get away with it which he may do if he wins a second term and doesn't have to care any more. Never heard Trump as pro gun ever until he ran for president. Vance is probably fairly pro 2nd Amendment as a Marine.

Taxes obviously favor Trump and Vance. No one will believe Harris and Walz aren't going to severely raise taxes if they can. So if you're concerned about keeping your money, you'll vote Trump and Harris.

Morality? Well, Trump's morality revolves around him winning and whatever selfish desire he has at a given time, though he does not like war surprisingly. Vance? So far I haven't heard he cheated on his wife or done much, but I'm sure the Democrats will dig something up and ride it into the ground whether it's true or not. Walz seems like a decent moral man. If anything is in his past, it will get dug up. I'm sure they vetted him well enough to avoid a serious surprise. Harris seems vanilla for morality other than the stupid claims of her sleeping her way up the political ladder, which is just low class and rude when most of the men and women I hear making fun of this have slept around for nothing other than being too drunk or just wanting to cheat because they can. Kamala worked hard to reach where she is at and that should be respected regardless of political affiliation. She is too left for me, but her morality is way above Trump though she does the usual political flip flopping necessary to reach the top level of politics.

These are four very different candidates. At least that part is interesting. 3 months and this will be decided and I don't have to hear the sky is falling and we're all gonna die because such and such won for another four years. I can't believe how fragile Americans believe America is and how they think they're living hard lives while they watch football, eat too much and get fat, drink too much, watch too much Netflix, and tell themselves we're headed for Armageddon and these political parties are going to tyrannize them. How do you reach that mental conclusion given the real way America operates? What about humanity causes them to ignore the factual information around them to buy into Armageddeon theory for politics, religion, and economics? It is utterly ridiculous. More Americans need to read history books on what it takes to create a state of tyranny and we're nowhere close to it.

The first surveys on the Waltz selection are out, and barely a third thought that he was a good choice:

When it comes to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, a majority of Americans said they were not sure of him or viewed him as a bad pick or the worst possible pick, a YouGov poll released Wednesday showed.

The survey of 3,003 adults taken Tuesday showed that 35% of registered voters said they weren’t sure whether Walz was a good or bad pick and 17% said he was a bad pick or the worst possible pick. Just 35% said it was a good pick or the best possible pick, and 14% said he was neither good nor bad. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Among Democrats, 61% said he was a good pick or the best possible pick, 26% were not sure, and 12% said he was neither good nor bad. Just 1% said he was a bad or the worst possible pick. Among independents, 40% said they were not sure, 29% said he was a good or the best possible pick, 16% said he was neither good or bad and 15% said he was a bad or the worst possible pick.

Among Republicans, 34% said he was a bad or the worst possible pick, 40% said they were unsure, 13% said he was neither good nor bad and only 12% said he was a good or the best possible pick.

Overall, 45% said they don't know enough about Walz to form a favorable or unfavorable opinion about him. Just 35% said they have a very or somewhat favorable opinion about him, and 20% have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion.

Among Democrats, 62% have a positive opinion of Walz. Among independents, 54% said they don’t know enough about Walz, and only 28% said they have a favorable opinion of him. Among Republicans, 40% said they have an unfavorable opinion about Walz, 47% said they don’t know enough about him, and just 12% have a favorable opinion about him.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic ... t-tim-walz

Of course, that's just a random sampling, but it corresponds with my reaction to the pick. Waltz and his liberal leanings is sure to excite the base voters, but those aren't the ones that will win or lose the election. This was a pick designed to help the nominee govern rather than helping her win the election. I think it was a mistake.

I liked Kelly, too. He would have been a solid choice. She had plenty of good options, and I think she chose a good one. Walz is about as midwestern values as you can get, so it's not about his home state per se. Like Riv said 45% don't know enough to have an opinion, but I just saw a video compilation of him being a regular guy, like coaching a nigh school football team, eating corndogs with students...he just comes across as the nicest neighbour you could ever ask for, and he's not a dogmatic blowhard like so many on the right unfortunately are. He says his midwetern values are 'mind your own damn business'. Sounds good to me. Vance talks a big game, but I don't think there's anything he can do to paint Walz as anything but a moderate. As for being painted as an extreme liberal, Walz himself says if that means filling student's empty bellies and protecting women's autonomy, he's happy to take that label.

Some rumors about Waltz's military career are beginning to surface. Granted, it's from Fox News, but if there's any truth to them, it could spell trouble for the Harris/Waltz campaign, another John Kerry/Swift Boat incident:

A veteran who served with Harris running mate Gov. Tim Walz accused him of embellishing his time in the service and abandoning his unit just before they deployed.

In an interview Wednesday on "The Ingraham Angle," Ret. Command Sgt. Maj. Thomas Behrends, who said he was a member of Walz's battalion, scolded the Minnesota governor for misleading the American public about his military career. His service concluded when he retired from his unit in the Minnesota National Guard right before they deployed to Iraq in 2005, the New York Post reported.

Asked about Trump running mate Sen. JD Vance's accusation that Walz is guilty of "stolen valor," the National Guard veteran (Behrends) told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that it's "far darker than a lot of people think." "He's used the rank that he never achieved in order to advance his political career," he said. "I mean, he still says he's a retired command sergeant major to this day, and he's not. He uses the rank of others to make it look like he's a better person than he is."

Questions emerged about Walz's rhetoric surrounding his time in the service after Vice President Kamala Harris announced him as her running mate on the 2024 Democratic ticket.

Ingraham, however, said the Minnesota National Guard told the "Angle" he retired as a master sergeant. "To most people, that would mean that he was actually in combat, carrying a weapon in a combat zone and getting combat pay and in a dangerous and hostile environment where he is getting shot at," Behrends said. "I mean, if he thinks Italy was a combat zone or a war zone and he was carrying that in war, he's delusional," he added.

Behrends said Walz had been promoted to command sergeant major in 2004, but claimed he was required to serve two additional years or the promotion would be void. His early retirement terminated the promotion, reducing his rank to master sergeant, Behrends said.

What he did, basically, was he quit. He didn't complete that condition of doing two years after graduation, so he gets reduced to a master sergeant, and that's what he is right now, is a retired master sergeant."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/veter ... dea4&ei=10

When I go to Fox News and CNN/MSNBC, neither organization even pretends to be objective journalism any longer. Fox New is the political voice of Republicans and the Right. CNN and MSNBC are the political voice of the left. They both just put out tons of attack articles against each other with rare balanced reporting. I don't remember the media being this way when I was young. Journalists used to seem professional and interested in honest, balanced journalism putting voices from different sides together on the same program to debate in earnest issues without the bombastic foolishness I see today.

Aseahawkfan wrote:When I go to Fox News and CNN/MSNBC, neither organization even pretends to be objective journalism any longer. Fox New is the political voice of Republicans and the Right. CNN and MSNBC are the political voice of the left. They both just put out tons of attack articles against each other with rare balanced reporting. I don't remember the media being this way when I was young. Journalists used to seem professional and interested in honest, balanced journalism putting voices from different sides together on the same program to debate in earnest issues without the bombastic foolishness I see today.

There's other sources that have picked up this story. The Washington Post, hardly a conservative rag, has picked it up, as has the AP and Newsweek:

Earlier this week Harris’ campaign circulated on X a 2018 clip of Walz speaking out against gun violence, and saying, “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” That comment suggests that Walz portrayed himself as someone who spent time in a combat zone.

In 2003, he deployed to Italy in a support position of active military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he was not in a combat zone himself.

https://apnews.com/article/walz-nationa ... 20552155d7

The Minnesota National Guard is disputing Governor Tim Walz's military biography, saying that the Democratic vice presidential candidate did not hold the rank of command sergeant major at the time of his retirement.

And, it's something that the Harris campaign did know or should have known about Waltz when they vetted him and the other possible candidates:

It is not the first time that Walz has faced scrutiny over his military background.

When he first ran for governor in 2018, two retired senior officials with the Minnesota National Guard wrote an open letter criticizing Walz for retiring shortly before his battalion was to set for an active-duty deployment in Iraq, quitting months after they were ordered to mobilize and "leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging."

"He had the opportunity to serve his country, and said 'Screw you' to the United States. That's not who I would pick to run for vice president," Thomas Behrends, one of the retired officials who signed the letter, told the New York Post on Tuesday.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard ... hy-1936038

River Dog wrote:Some rumors about Waltz's military career are beginning to surface. Granted, it's from Fox News, but if there's any truth to them, it could spell trouble for the Harris/Waltz campaign, another John Kerry/Swift Boat incident:

A veteran who served with Harris running mate Gov. Tim Walz accused him of embellishing his time in the service and abandoning his unit just before they deployed.

In an interview Wednesday on "The Ingraham Angle," Ret. Command Sgt. Maj. Thomas Behrends, who said he was a member of Walz's battalion, scolded the Minnesota governor for misleading the American public about his military career. His service concluded when he retired from his unit in the Minnesota National Guard right before they deployed to Iraq in 2005, the New York Post reported.

Asked about Trump running mate Sen. JD Vance's accusation that Walz is guilty of "stolen valor," the National Guard veteran (Behrends) told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that it's "far darker than a lot of people think." "He's used the rank that he never achieved in order to advance his political career," he said. "I mean, he still says he's a retired command sergeant major to this day, and he's not. He uses the rank of others to make it look like he's a better person than he is."

Questions emerged about Walz's rhetoric surrounding his time in the service after Vice President Kamala Harris announced him as her running mate on the 2024 Democratic ticket.

Ingraham, however, said the Minnesota National Guard told the "Angle" he retired as a master sergeant. "To most people, that would mean that he was actually in combat, carrying a weapon in a combat zone and getting combat pay and in a dangerous and hostile environment where he is getting shot at," Behrends said. "I mean, if he thinks Italy was a combat zone or a war zone and he was carrying that in war, he's delusional," he added.

Behrends said Walz had been promoted to command sergeant major in 2004, but claimed he was required to serve two additional years or the promotion would be void. His early retirement terminated the promotion, reducing his rank to master sergeant, Behrends said.

What he did, basically, was he quit. He didn't complete that condition of doing two years after graduation, so he gets reduced to a master sergeant, and that's what he is right now, is a retired master sergeant."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/veter ... dea4&ei=10

I haven't read much of the attack ads on Walz military career, but Trump is a draft dodger. Vance's military career seems fine, though he was a military writer. That is a necessary profession as well. Walz seems like a career reservist. Kamala is a woman and we don't hold women to the same standards for military service as we do men. Rightfully so as women in battle is a bad idea if a serious war occurs that depletes your population. Even ancient man understood that protecting your female population to ensure reproductive capacity so your people survive is necessary to long-term survival as a people. Sending women to die in war is an incredibly irresponsible and a bad idea given that women require 9 months to produce even a single child and a man can do his reproductive function in minutes for multiple females if necessary.

Walz looks fine compared to draft dodger. Might sway a few votes, but not enough to matter. Waste of time line of attack on Walz. If I were the Republicans, I'd focus on his left leaning economics, handling of Minnesota during the Floyd protests, and lack of experience in international affairs during a very bad time in global politics with an aggressive Russia, a China seeking to expand its economic influence, war in the Middle East, Bangladesh going crazy, Venezuela going crazy, and a lot of the global issues going on. Even in Great Britain they are having problems. We need a strong president who can handle the international turmoil.

River Dog wrote:There's other sources that have picked up this story. The Washington Post, hardly a conservative rag, has picked it up, as has the AP and Newsweek:

Earlier this week Harris’ campaign circulated on X a 2018 clip of Walz speaking out against gun violence, and saying, “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” That comment suggests that Walz portrayed himself as someone who spent time in a combat zone.

In 2003, he deployed to Italy in a support position of active military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he was not in a combat zone himself.

https://apnews.com/article/walz-nationa ... 20552155d7

The Minnesota National Guard is disputing Governor Tim Walz's military biography, saying that the Democratic vice presidential candidate did not hold the rank of command sergeant major at the time of his retirement.

And, it's something that the Harris campaign did know or should have known about Waltz when they vetted him and the other possible candidates:

It is not the first time that Walz has faced scrutiny over his military background.

When he first ran for governor in 2018, two retired senior officials with the Minnesota National Guard wrote an open letter criticizing Walz for retiring shortly before his battalion was to set for an active-duty deployment in Iraq, quitting months after they were ordered to mobilize and "leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging."

"He had the opportunity to serve his country, and said 'Screw you' to the United States. That's not who I would pick to run for vice president," Thomas Behrends, one of the retired officials who signed the letter, told the New York Post on Tuesday.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard ... hy-1936038

Never a great idea to claim you were in battle when you were not. No one respects that. Sounds like they are overplaying it a bit, but time will tell.

I did not read he was a Command Sergeant Major when he retired. I read he was a Sergeant Major. Command Sergeant Major is a special rank only one or maybe a few enlisted personnel hold to my knowledge. It's a special designation for an enlisted Sergeant Major. I imagine some of the military guys would know for sure. It's a bit like Master Chief versus a Command Master Chief. Technically, same rank, but one is a special designation. When they add that Command to your enlisted rank, you are one of the most senior enlisted personnel. I did not read that Walz was a Command Sergeant Major.

River Dog wrote:The first surveys on the Waltz selection are out, and barely a third thought that he was a good choice:

When it comes to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, a majority of Americans said they were not sure of him or viewed him as a bad pick or the worst possible pick, a YouGov poll released Wednesday showed.

The survey of 3,003 adults taken Tuesday showed that 35% of registered voters said they weren’t sure whether Walz was a good or bad pick and 17% said he was a bad pick or the worst possible pick. Just 35% said it was a good pick or the best possible pick, and 14% said he was neither good nor bad. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Among Democrats, 61% said he was a good pick or the best possible pick, 26% were not sure, and 12% said he was neither good nor bad. Just 1% said he was a bad or the worst possible pick. Among independents, 40% said they were not sure, 29% said he was a good or the best possible pick, 16% said he was neither good or bad and 15% said he was a bad or the worst possible pick.

Among Republicans, 34% said he was a bad or the worst possible pick, 40% said they were unsure, 13% said he was neither good nor bad and only 12% said he was a good or the best possible pick.

Overall, 45% said they don't know enough about Walz to form a favorable or unfavorable opinion about him. Just 35% said they have a very or somewhat favorable opinion about him, and 20% have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion.

Among Democrats, 62% have a positive opinion of Walz. Among independents, 54% said they don’t know enough about Walz, and only 28% said they have a favorable opinion of him. Among Republicans, 40% said they have an unfavorable opinion about Walz, 47% said they don’t know enough about him, and just 12% have a favorable opinion about him.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic ... t-tim-walz

Of course, that's just a random sampling, but it corresponds with my reaction to the pick. Waltz and his liberal leanings is sure to excite the base voters, but those aren't the ones that will win or lose the election. This was a pick designed to help the nominee govern rather than helping her win the election. I think it was a mistake.

Maybe, but I'm kind of looking for Shapiro to step up at some point and try for president. I don't know why, but I really liked that dude. I like that he got up there and cursed a bit. Seems like he has some fire. I can see why he won Pennsylvania big, He may yet cost Trump an election. He does not sound like he is going to let Trump take Pennsylvania. That's his state and he plans to defend it from the Republicans taking it. Shapiro is a more formidable politician than I thought. He is someone to watch.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I haven't read much of the attack ads on Walz military career, but Trump is a draft dodger. Vance's military career seems fine, though he was a military writer. That is a necessary profession as well. Walz seems like a career reservist. Kamala is a woman and we don't hold women to the same standards for military service as we do men. Rightfully so as women in battle is a bad idea if a serious war occurs that depletes your population. Even ancient man understood that protecting your female population to ensure reproductive capacity so your people survive is necessary to long-term survival as a people. Sending women to die in war is an incredibly irresponsible and a bad idea given that women require 9 months to produce even a single child and a man can do his reproductive function in minutes for multiple females if necessary.

Walz looks fine compared to draft dodger. Might sway a few votes, but not enough to matter. Waste of time line of attack on Walz. If I were the Republicans, I'd focus on his left leaning economics, handling of Minnesota during the Floyd protests, and lack of experience in international affairs during a very bad time in global politics with an aggressive Russia, a China seeking to expand its economic influence, war in the Middle East, Bangladesh going crazy, Venezuela going crazy, and a lot of the global issues going on. Even in Great Britain they are having problems. We need a strong president who can handle the international turmoil.

People aren't going to be looking at Trump's draft deferments from some 60 years ago and compare them to Waltz's lying about his service record. Waltz has made public statements that are at the very least extremely misleading that suggest he was in a war zone. Heck, the Harris campaign just this week circulated a video clip from Waltz's 2018 Gubernatorial run speaking out about gun control and saying "“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” How can anyone defend those remarks as being anything but intentionally giving voters the impression that he is a war veteran? It's indefensible.

If you're going to go up against characters like Trump and Vance and call them out as liars, you'd better be holier than thou yourself or it's just going to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This has the potential of being a huge distraction, a liability that in a close election could cost Harris the White House and saddle us with another 4 years of the Orange Baboon. I can't believe that Harris knew about all of this and decided to choose him anyway when she had guys like Kelly and Shapiro available.

I guess we'll see. Both parties lie. They are caught up in a heated election. I think Shapiro would have been a better choice myself after hearing Shapiro speak, but Walz is the VP. Really, this election is mostly going to be about Trump versus Kamala. Both Trump and Kamala have gotten their post-convention hype poll bumps. Now it is the down and dirty part of campaigning and crapping on each other while trying to sell the swing voters on their handling of the issues. Not sure this will matter much come November. It's a three month race with lots of back and forth banter.

We're getting the debate we all knew was going to happen.

I'm so tired of these divisive politics of the past eight years that I want November to come and go. This crap is making life unpleasant for politics with each party selling the other as The Great Evil to destroy America.

I do not love negative sales pitches myself, but seems that's mainly what we're getting. I read an article on Fox News paining the Dems as using the Justice Department against their political opponents and how the Democrats took out Biden illegally because they're trying to take over the country.

Some Democrat would tell me that all lies while trying to sell me Trump is Hitler and I should be worried about Project 2025.

Both of them would claim better evidence arguing the other side is a fool. To someone like me they both look like fools. I'm tired of them making America such an unpleasant place to live.

This is the kind of thing you’d take issue with if someone says you claimed you fought in battle by saying you carried a weapon. I’m surprised you’d pick it up. Carrying a weapon and using it are not the same thing. If you use nuance in your statements, you can acknowledge it in others.

As for China, going there 30+ times didn’t seem to stop him from pissing off the Chinese govt, from inviting dissidents to supporting Hong Kong’s struggle against totalitarianist China. Check his bank account. Did he get rich like Ivanka did? Yeah, no. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgewpzyd91o

As for lying about being in a war, Riv, this is the kind of thing you’d take issue with if someone says you claimed you fought in battle by saying you carried a weapon. I’m surprised you’d pick it up. Carrying a weapon and fighting on the battlefield it are not the same thing. If you use nuance in your statements, you can acknowledge it in others.

As for China, going there 30+ times didn’t seem to stop him from pissing off the Chinese govt, from inviting dissidents to supporting Hong Kong’s struggle against totalitarianist China. Check his bank account. Did he get rich like Ivanka did? Yeah, no. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgewpzyd91o

I-5 wrote:This is the kind of thing you’d take issue with if someone says you claimed you fought in battle by saying you carried a weapon. I’m surprised you’d pick it up. Carrying a weapon and using it are not the same thing. If you use nuance in your statements, you can acknowledge it in others.

I didn't say that he claimed that he fought in a war or used a weapon. What I said was that he claims to have been carrying a weapon in a war zone:

“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

You can't spin that any other way than to say that Waltz was trying to convince voters that he was at the very least serving in a war zone and hence a war veteran.

Wartime service, or active duty during a war, is different from battlefield service. If he'd said he carried his weapon in battle that would have been a lie. Semantics I know, but it's still an important distinction.

You can absolutely be in a war but not in a war zone. Happens all the time. I didn’t get the implication that you do.

c_hawkbob wrote:Wartime service, or active duty during a war, is different from battlefield service. If he'd said he carried his weapon in battle that would have been a lie. Semantics I know, but it's still an important distinction.

Come on, man! Rather than giving us a dictionary description of active duty vs. battlefield service, use your common sense. When he said that he carried a gun "in a war." What does that mean to you? The clear implication to me is that if not engaged in actual combat, that he at least did one tour in a theatre of operations where there was "a war." Waltz never came within a thousand miles of Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, it's compounded by the fact that he misstated his rank and that he voluntarily left his unit just before they deployed to Iraq, leaving him open to accusations of being a chicken hawk.

If he said something like that in a debate or impromptu news conference/interview, I might have some sympathy for him. But they were prepared remarks made in reference to the subject of gun control, creating this impression of Waltz as this grizzled war veteran, a Rambo-like figure with an ammo belt wrapped around his neck crusading against the sale of military-style weapons. He was intentionally inaccurate about his military service in order to enhance his public appeal.

This is exactly what the Harris campaign doesn't need, a distraction that puts them on the defensive. It takes the spotlight off of Trump, Vance, and their many flaws. They can't with a straight face call Trump and Vance liars when they have one as the #2 man on their ticket. They're going to use this to beat them over their heads for the next 3 months.

River Dog wrote:Come on, man! Rather than giving us a dictionary description of active duty vs. battlefield service, use your common sense. When he said that he carried a gun "in a war." What does that mean to you? The clear implication to me is that if not engaged in actual combat, that he at least did one tour in a theatre of operations where there was "a war." Waltz never came within a thousand miles of Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, it's compounded by the fact that he misstated his rank and that he voluntarily left his unit just before they deployed to Iraq, leaving him open to accusations of being a chicken hawk.

If he said something like that in a debate or impromptu news conference/interview, I might have some sympathy for him. But they were prepared remarks made in reference to the subject of gun control, creating this impression of Waltz as this grizzled war veteran, a Rambo-like figure with an ammo belt wrapped around his neck crusading against the sale of military-style weapons. He was intentionally inaccurate about his military service in order to enhance his public appeal.

This is exactly what the Harris campaign doesn't need, a distraction that puts them on the defensive. It takes the spotlight off of Trump, Vance, and their many flaws. They can't with a straight face call Trump and Vance liars when they have one as the #2 man on their ticket. They're going to use this to beat them over their heads for the next 3 months.

How much do you really think this stuff will affect the election? People have known Trump was a liar for years, doesn't seem to stop him from contending. You think this will do much to Walz?

Aseahawkfan wrote:How much do you really think this stuff will affect the election? People have known Trump was a liar for years, doesn't seem to stop him from contending. You think this will do much to Walz?

I don't know. How much did John Kerry's swift boat controversy affect his campaign? This is eerily similar, albeit it the #2 man, not the top dog. I suppose it depends on how close the election is, how the Dems handle it, what else happens between now and November. All I know is that it's an avoidable distraction that Harris doesn't need. They've gifted Trump and Vance a club.

Immediately after the selection was announced, the Harris campaign had Waltz's 20+ years of military experience front and center, advertising him as this down-home country boy that had served his country honorably. Now, they're circling the wagons. On Tuesday when the announcement was made, the campaign had listed as part of Waltz's biography a "retired" command sergeant major, which is untrue. Yesterday, they quietly edited that description to "once served as" command sergeant major, a subtle change indicating that they recognized their own inaccuracy and acknowledging Waltz's false and misleading statements.

c_hawkbob wrote:Wartime service, or active duty during a war, is different from battlefield service. If he'd said he carried his weapon in battle that would have been a lie. Semantics I know, but it's still an important distinction.

River Dog wrote:Come on, man! Rather than giving us a dictionary description of active duty vs. battlefield service, use your common sense. When he said that he carried a gun "in a war." What does that mean to you? The clear implication to me is that if not engaged in actual combat, that he at least did one tour in a theatre of operations where there was "a war." Waltz never came within a thousand miles of Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, it's compounded by the fact that he misstated his rank and that he voluntarily left his unit just before they deployed to Iraq, leaving him open to accusations of being a chicken hawk.

If he said something like that in a debate or impromptu news conference/interview, I might have some sympathy for him. But they were prepared remarks made in reference to the subject of gun control, creating this impression of Waltz as this grizzled war veteran, a Rambo-like figure with an ammo belt wrapped around his neck crusading against the sale of military-style weapons. He was intentionally inaccurate about his military service in order to enhance his public appeal.

This is exactly what the Harris campaign doesn't need, a distraction that puts them on the defensive. It takes the spotlight off of Trump, Vance, and their many flaws. They can't with a straight face call Trump and Vance liars when they have one as the #2 man on their ticket. They're going to use this to beat them over their heads for the next 3 months.

Oh you come on man. The context of what he was talking about was that the guns in question were weapons of war and he was emphasizing that he had a strong familiarity with them. The conversation was gun control and as Walz had been a Gunnery Sergeant and chief of the firing battery of his battalion he was establishing the grounds of his expertise, not "lying on his resume" to get a job he already had. There is no stolen valor here and you're grasping at straws.

Military service Breakdown:

Tim Walz
Military Job Description:
Command Sargent Major Service Time: 24 Years Highest Rank Attained: E-9 (Highest Enlisted Rank Available in the U.S. Army)
Awards:
- Army Commendation Medal
- Army Achievement Medal (2)
- Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (2)
- National Defense Service Medal (2)
- Global War on Terror Service Medal
- Armed Forces Reserve Medal (5)
- NCO Professional Development Ribbon
- Army Services Ribbon
- Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon (4)

J.D. Vance
Military Job Description:
Correspondent
Service Time: 4 Years
Highest Rank Attained: E-4
Awards:
- Navy and Marine Corps Service Medal
- Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal

Thank you for your service Vance, but Military service is not a winning argument for your side.

“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

It was a poor choice of words. I don't know how many combat veterans you guys know, but my brother (E7) and my best friend (Major) have both served in middle east tours (Afghanistan and Iraq). They came under fire and had to fire back. They take exception to this type of claim from servicemen who were nowhere near any fighting. Walz could have easily said something to effect of "I had to train with and trained others to use". The backlash is understandable.

As for implications from a political standpoint, Trump lies and everyone knows it. It's expected. The Democrats are going to use that, so they need to not give any ammunition to the Trump camp. If they appear that they aren't being truthful, too, then it takes some of the spotlight off Trump's lying. How much is hard to say. It could be forgotten pretty quickly. The debates will mean more than this.

c_hawkbob wrote:Thank you for your service Vance, but Military service is not a winning argument for your side.

It's not a losing argument either. No one's questioning the accolades you listed. After 24 years in the national guard, it's not surprising he accumulated those commendations. Harris' team changed his bio from retired command sergeant major to retired sergeant major. He did not complete the coursework for the promotion since he left the NG to run for congress. While understandable, that's also a sticking point for some in that he left his unit 10 months prior to them being deployed in Iraq. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but it's leaving him open to criticism.

Vance hasn't made a questionable claim regarding is service, so far. Should he do so, you can guarantee Harris' team will jump all over it.

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh you come on man. The context of what he was talking about was that the guns in question were weapons of war and he was emphasizing that he had a strong familiarity with them. The conversation was gun control and as Walz had been a Gunnery Sergeant and chief of the firing battery of his battalion he was establishing the grounds of his expertise, not "lying on his resume" to get a job he already had. There is no stolen valor here and you're grasping at straws.

Weak defense. He was emphasizing that he had a strong familiarity with military weapons, yet he felt the need to be at the very least misleading in where he used them. Yeah, right.

If Donald Trump or JD Vance had made such a claim, you'd have gone through the roof, but since it's a Democrat, you're defending the indefensible. Your political bias is showing.

I'm a little more sympatric to Waltz's mis statement of his rank than I am his purported service in a battle zone. Personally, I wouldn't have noticed the difference between the ranked he last served as and his retirement rank, and I doubt that anyone outside of military folks would have, either.

He made no such claim about fighting in a war zone. If I put words in your mouth or interpret what you say, you'd correct me on it 100%. John Kerry was smeared, but that kind of sliming doesnn't work today. I think it's an example of the other party looking desperate. It's not going to move the needle for them.

I-5 wrote:He made no such claim about fighting in a war zone. If I put words in your mouth or interpret what you say, you'd correct me on it 100%. John Kerry was smeared, but that kind of sliming doesnn't work today. I think it's an example of the other party looking desperate. It's not going to move the needle for them.

How can you be in a war but not in a war zone? Are they not one and the same? And I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by not suggesting that he was claiming to have been in combat, which also could be read into that statement.

Honestly, guys, I don't know how you can escape the same conclusion that not only I, but publications like Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other liberal leaning sources have come to, that he was at the very least misleading in what his role was during his time in the military. I can only attribute your blind defense of him it to your belief that a Democrat can do no wrong.

And now, another incident of Waltz's embellishment of his service record:

In 2004, Tim Walz organized a protest outside a rally for President George W. Bush where he held up a sign that read “Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran 4 Kerry” — referencing the US fight against terrorists in Afghanistan.

The trouble is, in his 24 years in the Minnesota National Guard, Walz never deployed to combat zones in Afghanistan or Iraq. The closest he got was thousands of miles away in Italy. But it’s a label he used again and again — including in his official biography when he ran for Congress two years later in 2006.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/08/us-news/t ... ely-false/

Personally, I think that one isn't as outrageous as the one that suggests that he carried a weapon "in war", that you can be a veteran of a specific military operation and not physically be in that theatre. There's tens of thousands of men and women who are part of an operation and work behind the lines far away from any battlefield. But once again, we're not talking about the specific correctness of his statements, rather the perception that he's intentionally creating to enhance his image. There's a pattern of deception with him.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:It was a poor choice of words. I don't know how many combat veterans you guys know, but my brother (E7) and my best friend (Major) have both served in middle east tours (Afghanistan and Iraq). They came under fire and had to fire back. They take exception to this type of claim from servicemen who were nowhere near any fighting. Walz could have easily said something to effect of "I had to train with and trained others to use". The backlash is understandable.

As for implications from a political standpoint, Trump lies and everyone knows it. It's expected. The Democrats are going to use that, so they need to not give any ammunition to the Trump camp. If they appear that they aren't being truthful, too, then it takes some of the spotlight off Trump's lying. How much is hard to say. It could be forgotten pretty quickly. The debates will mean more than this.

Command Sergeant Major is a serious title. I did not hear it claimed initially. Makes me wonder if some campaign staffer wanting to punch up Walz's military service added it when writing his military information and looked up highest enlisted rank without realizing that Command is a special designation for the highest enlisted rank. I don't think it will have much of an effect myself, but should be corrected for the sake of honesty.

River Dog wrote:I don't know. How much did John Kerry's swift boat controversy affect his campaign? This is eerily similar, albeit it the #2 man, not the top dog. I suppose it depends on how close the election is, how the Dems handle it, what else happens between now and November. All I know is that it's an avoidable distraction that Harris doesn't need. They've gifted Trump and Vance a club.

Immediately after the selection was announced, the Harris campaign had Waltz's 20+ years of military experience front and center, advertising him as this down-home country boy that had served his country honorably. Now, they're circling the wagons. On Tuesday when the announcement was made, the campaign had listed as part of Waltz's biography a "retired" command sergeant major, which is untrue. Yesterday, they quietly edited that description to "once served as" command sergeant major, a subtle change indicating that they recognized their own inaccuracy and acknowledging Waltz's false and misleading statements.

John Kerry did serve in combat. George Bush Jr. did not endorse the Swift Boat veteran message and did speak out about it in support of Kerry asking the Swift Boat veterans to discontinue that line of attack. It is pretty different as Kerry was a combat veteran and the Swift Boat Veterans were wrong to question his service. I personally found the attacks on Kerry very low class. It really pissed me off that they did that once I read on Kerry's military career. Kerry was not a draft dodger and went into combat to support his country. While George Bush Jr. worked for some Congressman and was in the Air National Guard avoiding combat duty during Vietnam. I'm glad Bush Jr. spoke out against the messaging against Kerry and showed he had respect for Kerry's military career.

Trump did not do he same thing when he was insulting McCain and other military vets. Trump seems to have no respect for military service.

Still don't think it will affect the election much as it doesn't seem affect Trump, but Walz would do well to make sure his listed military service is accurate as it does him no favors to list it falsely. I still think it was likely an over-zealous campaign staffer.

Even though Walz is a governor and now VP candidate, he's a relatively modest income individual who doesn't come from the wealth of the other three candidates. Trump is obviously the wealthiest of the three. Vance or Kamala second. Walz to my understanding is a genuinely almost regular income earner. They say his net worth is a million dollars including his home. That's downright low for a national level politician. Not sure how much experience he has with managing a national campaign.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Command Sergeant Major is a serious title. I did not hear it claimed initially. Makes me wonder if some campaign staffer wanting to punch up Walz's military service added it when writing his military information and looked up highest enlisted rank without realizing that Command is a special designation for the highest enlisted rank. I don't think it will have much of an effect myself, but should be corrected for the sake of honesty.

It wasn't the decision of some low-level staffer to list Waltz as a Command Sergeant Major. Waltz has referred to himself as having held that rank for years, dating as far back as 2006 and including when he was in Congress.

There are similarities between Waltz's scandal and that of John Kerry and the swift boat debacle. Both had a group of veterans who served with them come out and say that their recollection of events differed from that of the candidate's. One of Kerry's other unexplained phenomena was a medal he earned and that appeared on his Senate desk yet there are videos of him supposedly throwing that same medal in a fire during an anti-war protest.

I don't think this is going to make a huge difference, either, at least not directly. But it has put the Harris campaign on the defensive, and given the Republicans a very useful weapon and will distract from much larger and more outrageous lies and distortions that Trump has been and will continue to be making.

River Dog wrote:It wasn't the decision of some low-level staffer to list Waltz as a Command Sergeant Major. Waltz has referred to himself as having held that rank for years, dating as far back as 2006 and including when he was in Congress.

There are similarities between Waltz's scandal and that of John Kerry and the swift boat debacle. Both had a group of veterans who served with them come out and say that their recollection of events differed from that of the candidate's. One of Kerry's other unexplained phenomena was a medal he earned and that appeared on his Senate desk yet there are videos of him supposedly throwing that same medal in a fire during an anti-war protest.

I don't think this is going to make a huge difference, either, at least not directly. But it has put the Harris campaign on the defensive, and given the Republicans a very useful weapon and will distract from much larger and more outrageous lies and distortions that Trump has been and will continue to be making.

That's not great to claim you are a Command Sergeant Major if you were not. I don't understand how you read what he said as anything other than claiming he went to war, which it seems he did not. I guess we'll see how it plays out, but I already knew the Democrats were liars or truth stretchers. Trump is too obvious, but they're all kind of the same insofar as they talk a lot, say a lot, forget what they say, and it often doesn't check out when you look more deeply at it or just doesn't make sense or it didn't say much when you analyze the actual words. Just rhetoric meant to sound good without any actual meaning.

If you're voting for politicians due to honesty, boy, you are voting for the wrong reasons.

I searched for news on this topic, and it's NOT picking up steam. Rather, there is substantial pushback on Vance's 'stolen valor' claims.

These kinds of attacks on a guy who served his country for over 20 years at a high level coming from a draft dodger and a private first class....just sounds weak and desperate. Walz was attacked the same way back in 2007, and he won. He's going to win again, this time as Harris' VP. Trump and Vance need a better line of attack.