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

I think the democrats should handle these ridiculous assertions in the same way they did when Walz ran for, and won, his previous elections.
 
zooterkin said:
Did he have to give back pay when he left? Does his record get changed to show he was never a Command Sergeant Major, or does it show he reverted to Master Sergeant on the day he retired?
Click to expand...
He forfeit the rank based on signing a statement of certification and agreement, according to retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends, who replaced Governor Walz, and retired Command Sergeant Major Paul Herr. Is there a point where we can just agree to disagree?
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think the democrats should handle these ridiculous assertions in the same way they did when Walz ran for, and won, his previous elections.
Click to expand...
They should be pointing out how these attacks are part of a disgraceful pattern of attacking people whom have served in the military.
 
jadebox said:
Wow. Right in the headline of the linked article it says that the Harris/Walz campaign admits that he misspoke.
Click to expand...

The not correcting mistakes was in reference to other press reports that weren't direct quotes from Walz himself. I linked to examples upthread, but since people seem to have missed it, here it is again:

https://www.dossier.today/p/stolen-valor-tim-walz-launched-political

Plus, of course, admitting a mistake after you get called out isn't really correcting the record.
 
Ziggurat said:
The not correcting mistakes was in reference to other press reports that weren't direct quotes from Walz himself. I linked to examples upthread, but since people seem to have missed it, here it is again:

https://www.dossier.today/p/stolen-valor-tim-walz-launched-political

Plus, of course, admitting a mistake after you get called out isn't really correcting the record.
Click to expand...

Trump falsely claimed that he almost died in a helicopter crash with Willie Brown.

You have forgiven him for this false statement, even though he has never corrected himself.

Why wont you forgive Walz?
 
Hercules56 said:
Trump falsely claimed that he almost died in a helicopter crash with Willie Brown.

You have forgiven him for this false statement, even though he has never corrected himself.

Why wont you forgive Walz?
Click to expand...

I'm not discussing my opinion. My opinion isn't relevant. What's relevant is voter opinion. Are you claiming voters won't care about these things? Maybe they won't. But maybe they will.
 
This "stolen valor" nonsense is a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal. When called out on how dumb and desperate it is, they step back and say "we'll leave it to the voters."

It's like they think they should be given a free pass to say the most absurd things without consequence. Fortunately, people see how dumb it is and I believe that it is only helping the Harris/Walz campaign highlight Walz's prestigious military record.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not discussing my opinion. My opinion isn't relevant. What's relevant is voter opinion. Are you claiming voters won't care about these things? Maybe they won't. But maybe they will.
Click to expand...

Yes, voters will care a lot about Trump's constant lies and embellishments.
 
Scopedog said:
He forfeit the rank based on signing a statement of certification and agreement, according to retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends, who replaced Governor Walz, and retired Command Sergeant Major Paul Herr. Is there a point where we can just agree to disagree?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't care about that either.

Because you would know that their manufactured outrage is just that. Manufactured.

You would understand that if these men actualy cared about this technicality. And didn't care that they were doing this so called act of conscience for a convicted felon, who staged a violent insurrection against the very country those men swore to defend. Well, you would know that their opinions wouldn't be worth the equivalent of a bucket of warm spit.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Why is Walz responsible for the words of reporters? He's not their editor.
Click to expand...

He's rather obviously responsible if he's the one who gave them that false information. But supposing he isn't, he's still a politician campaigning for public office. If the press says something about you that's not true, you should correct the record. If you don't, people may take that silence as an endorsement of the falsehood. They may even assume that you're the source of those falsehoods, even if you aren't. Which can then lead to PR problems.
 
Ziggurat said:
He's rather obviously responsible if he's the one who gave them that false information. But supposing he isn't, he's still a politician campaigning for public office. If the press says something about you that's not true, you should correct the record. If you don't, people may take that silence as an endorsement of the falsehood. They may even assume that you're the source of those falsehoods, even if you aren't. Which can then lead to PR problems.
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of words for "He isn't."
 
ponderingturtle said:
So he held the rank, but even at the time he held it he didn't really really hold it? Would he have been addressed as Command Sergeant Major or not?
Click to expand...
He was conditionally promoted, like any job where you need certifications or training to be permanently hired and you sign a statement of certification and agreement acknowledging that you'll be demoted or fired if you fail.

ponderingturtle said:
It seems two guys who also got the whole timeline wrong about his retirement as he put in to run for congress in February and put in to retire in March and was out in May and in July they got orders to deploy. I know the concept of linear time is confusing to people.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the three primary sources that worked with him said they don't know when or how he requested retirement but he kept going along with deployment discussions, as if he would be around for the inevitable deployment order, then abruptly (to them) retired during May 2005. The earlier he requested retirement the worse it makes him look. Both for accepting the conditional rank (which could have been taken by someone else), possibly already knowing he would violate the terms of his agreement and for going along with the deployment discussions without saying, "by the way, I'm retiring in May". There are very few E9s in the military. An available spot shouldn't be tied up unneccessarily.

I knew a Master Sergeant who had the opportunity to be promoted to Master Gunnery Sergeant (pay grade E9). He declined the opportunity and he told me that since he planned to retire soon, the available spot should go to someone who would actually remain in service with it.
 
Scopedog said:
He forfeit the rank based on signing a statement of certification and agreement, according to retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends, who replaced Governor Walz, and retired Command Sergeant Major Paul Herr. Is there a point where we can just agree to disagree?
Click to expand...

Where are the independent records of such an event?
 
Scopedog said:
He was conditionally promoted, like any job where you need certifications or training to be permanently hired and you sign a statement of certification and agreement acknowledging that you'll be demoted or fired if you fail.
Click to expand...

He held the rank, and left before the conditional criteria mattered. Why make a big deal over that? Do you correct anyone who ever talks about general Custer?

From what I understand, the three primary sources that worked with him said they don't know when or how he requested retirement but he kept going along with deployment discussions, as if he would be around for the inevitable deployment order, then abruptly (to them) retired during May 2005.
Click to expand...

They might not know, but we have the paperwork we know. He was certainly planning it since february when he submitted the paperwork to run for congress.
 
This is the counterattack for the sofa ******* thing? Because it's pretty weak sauce compared to the sofa *******. ******* sofas, man, that's headline material. Which paperwork entitles the applicant pursuant to Form 182-B to rank in lieu of appropriation in context of Line 3 on Form 14-C09 prior to 2008 but not before 1995 when Subsection C is in effect...yawn. Even if it's all true it's dull. Bring out the sofa ******, maybe he'll get busy with an armchair. I bet he likes them overstuffed. All that pillowy fluff, upholstery practically bursting at the seams...whew! Now that's public interest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom