The Tim Walz campaign, and the ******** attacks upon him.

Scopedog said:
He committed to six additional years of service in 2001 and said he would deploy with his unit as late as March 2005 then retired during May 2005. However, he had every right to retire, any time after 20 years, for whatever reason, if permitted, and he was permitted.

At least one of the costs of that permission to retire at 24 instead of 26 years was his recent conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. The retirement precluded his completion of the Sergeants Major Academy and the required additional two years of service as Command Sergeant Major. I think he knew that he shouldn't call himself a retired Command Sergeant Major, regardless of when the reversion to Master Sergeant was instated, yet he did. This seems like an insult to anyone who permanently earned the rank and verifiably calls themselves a retired Command Sergeant Major.

It's okay to think it's trivial or petty but I think it reflects poorly on him and that the military community might rightly bristle at it.
Click to expand...

It is trivial. And your post is campaign nonsense. It doesn't reflect poorly on him and I don't know a single person who has served in the military who thinks it does. And I am surrounded by them.

The percentage of Americans that have served this country in the military is about 5 percent. That is 1 out of 20. The number of people that have retired from the military after 20 years is about .05 percent or 1 out of 200.

That Governor Walz decided after 20 years to serve another 6 years and then decided 24 is enough because he wanted to pursue other interests is hardly a reason for denigrating the man.

All, anyone with any class would ever say to Sergeant Walz is, "Thank you for your service."

And leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Why is the USA so hung up on military service?


Why is your rank and qualification structure so complicated?

When did you become a military dictatorship?
 
arthwollipot said:
Guilt over how Vietnam vets were treated.
Click to expand...

I wish it were that reasonable. The military wasn't regarded that highly until Top Gun came out. As soon as Hollywood made the military sexy then a bunch of people got boners for it, and those boners never went away.
 
Stacyhs said:
Not according to this:
I see no statement by Walz that 'he would deploy with his unit as late as March 2005".
Click to expand...

I disagree with your interpretation but I understand it. Change my quote to "he would deploy with his unit, if called, as late as March 2005". I don't think he abandoned his unit. I think he forfeit his very prestigious, very conditional rank. Many say 'nobody cares'. I guess we'll see. I think there's more nuance to this then shemp and others suggest.

Stacyhs said:
George Armstrong Custer is known as "Gen. Custer". However, the rank of general was only during the Civil War: major general of volunteers and a brevet major general in the regular army. After the war, he was reduced to captain with the colonel being highest rank held in the Army. He was Col. Custer when he was killed.
Click to expand...

How about an example of a politician who made hay about the higher, more prestigious rank, as part of their campaign and political career, within the last 19 years?
 
Last edited:
He had that rank. It is well within his rights to say he was at that rank. He did not retire with that rank but that's not the first or last soldier to have that happen.

Complaining that someone served only 24 out of 26 years is a weird hill to die on.

I smell concern troll on the wind.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Why is the USA so hung up on military service
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it is. If it was, the US wouldn't have elected Bill Clinton instead of George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, or Obama instead of John McCain, or Trump.
Andy_Ross said:
Why is your rank and qualification structure so complicated?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is. But I don't know that much about the military structure and ranks of other nations.
Andy_Ross said:
When did you become a military dictatorship?
Click to expand...
It's never become that.

What you're hearing is a lot of fake noise. An attempt by a political party to paint their opposition as dishonorable. It's a veiled attempt to suggest that this man's man is really a coward because didn't go to war. That he saw what was coming down and bugged out.

Never mind that their own Presidential candidate avoided service by using his family's resources to obtain a medical deferment.
 
Scopedog said:
I disagree with your interpretation but I understand it. Change my quote to "he would deploy with his unit, if called, as late as March 2005". I don't think he abandoned his unit. I think he forfeit his very prestigious, very conditional rank. Many say 'nobody cares'. I guess we'll see. I think there's more nuance to this then shemp and others suggest.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can disagree with my interpretation as it's not my interpretation. It's what he actually said. "IF CALLED". He was not called. He retired before then.

How about an example of a politician who made hay about the higher, more prestigious rank, as part of their campaign and political career, within the last 19 years?
Click to expand...

How about you just take my anecdote about Custer for what it was? An interesting anecdote about a famous person who is commonly referred to with the rank of general yet was a colonel when he died on duty.
 
kookbreaker said:
Complaining that someone served only 24 out of 26 years is a weird hill to die on.
Click to expand...
Are you able to quote where I've complained about that?

kookbreaker said:
I smell concern troll on the wind.
Click to expand...
Concern troll: a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.

I think I've been clear in my opinions and I think my contributions are aligned with the thread topic.
 
acbytesla said:
I wouldn't say it is. If it was, the US wouldn't have elected Bill Clinton instead of George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, or Obama instead of John McCain, or Trump.
I don't think it is. But I don't know that much about the military structure and ranks of other nations.
It's never become that.

What you're hearing is a lot of fake noise. An attempt by a political party to paint their opposition as dishonorable. It's a veiled attempt to suggest that this man's man is really a coward because didn't go to war. That he saw what was coming down and bugged out.

Never mind that their own Presidential candidate avoided service by using his family's resources to obtain a medical deferment.
Click to expand...

And a medical deferment based on a fake diagnosis from Fred Trump's tenant.
 
Scopedog said:
I think I've been clear in my opinions and I think my contributions are aligned with the thread topic.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. Even if it is hypocritical and absurd. Picking **** and throwing it is beneath anyone with an ounce of patriotic pride.

Tim Walz served our country in the military 6 times longer than all the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in this election combined.
 
Scopedog said:
Are you able to quote where I've complained about that?


Concern troll: a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.

I think I've been clear in my opinions and I think my contributions are aligned with the thread topic.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid we're at the Saint Tim stage here; the guy can do no wrong. Note the thread title assumes that all attacks on him are ********.
 
Again the Trumpers inability to differentiate between "He's a functional human being who hasn't done anything wrong WORTH DISCUSSING" and "Durrr ya'll just think he's perfect durrrr" is your own problem to have.

I'm sure Walz is a perfectly human creation, full of all the foibles and follies that implies. He got a DUI, he opposed abortion funding, I'm sure there are others.

What us sane, normal people don't have to do is have a big performative song and dance of pretending anything he's done is worth talking about just to appease a bunch of trolls who spent the last decade supporting Trump, and man who has never done one single thing within the bounds of human decency.

Please, please, please keep pretending it's hard to get.

The fact that you're a member of cult of personality doesn't mean everyone else is.

We owe you no further explanation. Even this one was a courtesy you don't deserve.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I'm afraid we're at the Saint Tim stage here; the guy can do no wrong. Note the thread title assumes that all attacks on him are ********.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense.

Offer good criticism of him that is worth considering and I'm there. Criticizing a retired military man who served 24 years instead of 26 ain't that.
 
acbytesla said:
That's nonsense.

Offer good criticism of him that is worth considering and I'm there. Criticizing a retired military man who served 24 years instead of 26 ain't that.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the situation to comment, and neither do you. The defense of Walz here is knee-jerk. I'm more impressed with Walz's successor at the National Guard who said that he disagrees completely with Walz's politics but thinks he was fine as a soldier.

OTOH Walz signed into law the Transgender Refuge bill, which is aimed at "protecting [transgend people] from legal repercussions for traveling to or moving to Minnesota for gender-affirming care."

Gender-affirming care for adults is one thing. Gender-affirming care for children is quite another. Note the cute picture of the "6-year-old trans girl," accompanying the article. Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that little Asher will eventually be able to go on puberty blockers and become sterile?

That all said, I'm not voting based on Walz over Vance but Harris over Trump. But I do think Harris left some votes on the table by picking a leftie instead of a moderate. YRMV.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I don't know enough about the situation to comment, and neither do you. The defense of Walz here is knee-jerk. I'm more impressed with Walz's successor at the National Guard who said that he disagrees completely with Walz's politics but thinks he was fine as a soldier.
Click to expand...

Yes I do and SO DO YOU.
Brainster said:
OTOH Walz signed into law the Transgender Refuge bill, which is aimed at "protecting [transgend people] from legal repercussions for traveling to or moving to Minnesota for gender-affirming care."
Gender-affirming care for adults is one thing. Gender-affirming care for children is quite another. Note the cute picture of the "6-year-old trans girl," accompanying the article. Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that little Asher will eventually be able to go on puberty blockers and become sterile?
Click to expand...

I have NO PROBLEM with the law. Parents have to agree with all transgender affirming care Those decisions are probably difficult as hell and I doubt many parents arrive at them lightly. You want to tell them you know better what is best for their children than the doctors and the parents.

I don't.
 
Dems caring about military rank is a West Wing Thing, a desperation to be seen to be" just as cool as Republicans" when it comes to guns& soldiers.

Of course, as so many things, it's mostly pointless, when Fox and worse run 24/7 in Mess Halls.
 
acbytesla said:
Yes I do and SO DO YOU.
Click to expand...

No you don't and all caps just says you know you don't and think shouting will convince me. You have found some people who say it was alright and you chose not to look deeper. Neither of us has been in the National Guard and moreover neither of us was in his unit.

I have NO PROBLEM with the law. Parents have to agree with all transgender affirming care Those decisions are probably difficult as hell and I doubt many parents arrive at them lightly. You want to tell them you know better what is best for their children than the doctors and the parents.

I don't.
Click to expand...

Here's the obvious question--does that policy appeal to the middle? Or does it appeal to progressives?
 
Brainster said:
No you don't and all caps just says you know you don't and think shouting will convince me. You have found some people who say it was alright and you chose not to look deeper. Neither of us has been in the National Guard and moreover neither of us was in his unit.



Here's the obvious question--does that policy appeal to the middle? Or does it appeal to progressives?
Click to expand...

I don't speak for others. Maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom