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

Gulliver Foyle said:
You should take your crocodile tears to somewhere like Infowars where they'll get a sympathetic hearing. Coming onto a reality based forum and pushing your nonsense does you no favours
Click to expand...

The thread is titled: "The Tim Walz campaign, and the ******** attacks upon him." I think this is the right place for my posts. The reader can decide if the posts have merit.
 
Scopedog said:
No, in my opinion he isn't and not in the opinion of three retired Command Sergeants Major who served with him. The ones who he insults every time he identifies as a retired Command Sergeant Major. He forfeit the conditional rank when he retired. But I accept your disagreement.
Click to expand...

But you said the day before he retired he was a Command Sergeant Major when I asked you about it. What has changed since you said he was?
 
Scopedog said:
The problem isn't that Governor Walz no longer holds a rank, it's that his retired rank isn't the one he says it is. He has repeatedly, intentionally leveraged and invoked the prestige of being a retired Command Sergeant Major for 19 years. Being a retired Master Sergeant is beneath him, apparently.
Click to expand...
Bollocks.
 
CarbShark said:
He was Command Sergeant Major when he retired. But, by National Guard rules, since he was not CSM for three years he retired at his previous rank. That matters only in terms of pension and military record keeping. It does not change the fact that he attained that rank before retiring.
Click to expand...
There you go, bringing facts into an argument based purely on lies on rhetoric.
 
Scopedog said:
There are now three retired Command Sergeants Major that have a grievance with Governor Walz.

The two from the paid endorsement:
Thomas Behrends (worked with him and replaced him)
Paul Herr (worked with him, apparently)

A new one:
Doug Julin (his enlisted superior at the time)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ire-from-national-guard-his-superior-officer/

They all seem to think he's a jerk for the way he led them on about the deployment and didn't tell them he was retiring and for calling himself a retired Command Sergeant Major. Others who worked with Governor Walz have defended him. However, It's been said that NOBODY cares and yet here we have three retired Command Sergeants Major with firsthand knowledge of Governor Walz who do care. This isn't evidence that anybody else cares or should care but I think calling the case closed is premature. I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...
This is just pathetic. Why not talk about policies? Or are you scared?
 
Ziggurat said:
I agree.

But misrepresenting that service is a problem. And he did misrepresent it.
Click to expand...

He didn't. Walz retired from the military with the E9 grade he said he did. However, he never received the benefits of a retired E9 because he didn't hold the grade of an E9 for the requisite 3 years. So, you're beating him up over a minor technicality that really only makes a difference over the size of his pension.

But I get it. He doesn't has a D after his name. And therfore must be held to a higher standard.
 
Darat said:
But you said the day before he retired he was a Command Sergeant Major when I asked you about it. What has changed since you said he was?
Click to expand...
Nothing has changed, we simply disagree. I administer military pay. A few weeks ago, I took almost $3,000.00 from a Captain over a technicality. I took over $30,000 from a Sergeant last year. I once gave over $170,000 to a Gunnery Sergeant, who was retiring, because he'd been paid incorrectly for over 10 years (he was a deserter for several years, got arrested and turned over to the Marine Corps, then was allowed to continue his service- very unusual case). I say I took or gave because it was my decision, based on military regulations, and because I'm the one who found the problem and I'm the one who fixed it. There are hundreds of other examples from my own work experience involving $100s to $10,000s. On a daily basis I deal with technicalities that change peoples lives, sometimes drastically, for better or worse. And you don't have to be impressed by any of that or see it my way or agree with me.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many civilians could actually tell the difference between the sergeant types. I mean I watched the recent mikeburnfire story about an acting First Sargent who took has acting rank too seriously and ended up in some trouble. In the video a lot of different Sargent ranks are thrown around and the only way an uninformed person could tell is from how impressed the two guys are.
 
BREAKING NEWS!!! It's just been revealed that when he was in high school Walz took a midterm test on Scantron and left a stray mark outside the bubbles. Senior Democrats are urging Harris to drop Walz from the ticket, and the public is rioting all over the country with fifty-three people dead and over thirty billion dollars in property damage so far. Walz's former school principal committed suicide in shame, the members of the school board have fled to Venezuela, and the pope has issued an interdict over the whole region. God himself is readying multiple plagues, and Naomi Campbell threw a phone at Walz.
 
acbytesla said:
He didn't. Walz retired from the military with the E9 grade he said he did. However, he never received the benefits of a retired E9 because he didn't hold the grade of an E9 for the requisite 3 years. So, you're beating him up over a minor technicality that really only makes a difference over the size of his pension.

But I get it. He doesn't has a D after his name. And therfore must be held to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

You can hold him to whatever standards you want to, I don't care. But fair or not, he's got a PR problem because of his misrepresentations. You seem to think that the only issue here is his rank, but it's not. For example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ed-using-weapons-war-campaign-says-rcna166038

By his own admission, this was a misrepresentation, and it had nothing to do with rank. Nor is whether or not he saw combat something most people would consider a "minor technicality". And it's not the only such issue he faces. If you thought that the entire issue was just about his rank, you're out of the loop.
 
kookbreaker said:
I wonder how many civilians could actually tell the difference between the sergeant types. I mean I watched the recent mikeburnfire story about an acting First Sargent who took has acting rank too seriously and ended up in some trouble. In the video a lot of different Sargent ranks are thrown around and the only way an uninformed person could tell is from how impressed the two guys are.
Click to expand...

None. He's still Sergeant Walz either way. Whether he's an E8 or E9 Sergeant, he was still an NCO and worked for a living.
 
TragicMonkey said:
BREAKING NEWS!!! It's just been revealed that when he was in high school Walz took a midterm test on Scantron and left a stray mark outside the bubbles. Senior Democrats are urging Harris to drop Walz from the ticket, and the public is rioting all over the country with fifty-three people dead and over thirty billion dollars in property damage so far. Walz's former school principal committed suicide in shame, the members of the school board have fled to Venezuela, and the pope has issued an interdict over the whole region. God himself is readying multiple plagues, and Naomi Campbell threw a phone at Walz.
Click to expand...

You're kidding? The man is a total disgrace!
 
Scopedog said:
No, in my opinion he isn't and not in the opinion of three retired Command Sergeants Major who served with him. The ones who he insults every time he identifies as a retired Command Sergeant Major. He forfeit the conditional rank when he retired. But I accept your disagreement.
Click to expand...

When anyone retires they forfeit any rank.
 
Minor distinctions matter some times.

And some times they don't.

Does it matter that one says that they retired after reaching the rank of Command Master Sergeant without making the distinction that they retired as a lesser grade?

Is that like saying you didn't rape that woman, you only penetrated her without her consent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom