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

Regnad Kcin said:
With respect, Scopedog appears to be making an informed and therefore interesting contribution to the thread.
Click to expand...

Informed? Yes.

Interesting? Hell no.

Sometimes the devil is in the details. Other times, the details are insignificant minutiae.

The important aspects of Tim Walz's military career is that he honorably served our nation for almost a quarter of a century. A man we all owe a debt of,gratitude to. He has earned our respect. A man who stepped up and said I'll do it. When so many of us had our own priorities.

Not this petty picayune crap peddled by partisan politicians.

But go ahead if you like. Wallow in ****. Pigs do and they love it.
 
Last edited:
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.





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.
Click to expand...
It's swift boating all over again. Confected outrage that's mostly innuendo. Until now, no one cared. He's a governor and no-one cared. Now it's a scandal and causing conniptions. Trump is a self confessed pussy grabbing abuser of women. That's just Trump being Trump and he hates the people we hate.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's swift boating all over again. Confected outrage that's mostly innuendo. Until now, no one cared. He's a governor and no-one cared. Now it's a scandal and causing conniptions.
Click to expand...
There's no comparison between local and state scrutiny and national scrutiny, where the populations of 49 more states are now in the mix.

Speaking of innuendo, he objectively made a statement in 2021 that could only be interpeted by the audience at the time as him having deployed to Afghanistan with the National Guard:
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14382741&postcount=235

The only way to interpret it differently is if you knew he went to Afghanistan as a Congressman but never with the National Guard or if you found that out later. All he had to do was say, " ... as a Congressman, I stood one night in the dark of night on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base ... " There are many instances of statements he's made where all he had to do was a add a couple of words to dispel any possible incorrect inferrence but they're instead conspicuous by their absence. If this is innuendo on my part then he seems to invite it.

It also occurs to me that the published version of the speech, where it says, " ... I had the privilege of serving in this state's national guard. I stood one night in the dark of night on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base ... ", with only a period between the reference to National Guard service and Bagram, is probably the original version of the speech, or closer to it, than the video version, and it would have to have been approved by Governor Walz. The evidence that it's probably the original approved version of the speech is that in the longer video version the comments between the reference to National Guard service and Bagram seem adlibbed. He first mentions the previous speakers he just watched. Why would that have been written in to the version of the speech for the event? How would the writer know who was speaking before Governor Walz? It's possible they received a schedule of speakers and threw the reference in there but I think that strains credulity. There's definitely conniption in this thread but it isn't emanating from me.
 
Last edited:
If only Walz had done the right thing, and had his rich daddy pay a doctor to declare him unfit for duty.
 
Scopedog said:
There's no comparison between local and state scrutiny and national scrutiny, where the populations of 49 more states are now in the mix.
Click to expand...

There's no comparison between hypocritical POS and the Pigs wallowing in it.
 
Why does Walz need to be defended at all? Why even bother? Let scope and others have this win. The conversation has been circular now for at least a page.

People who think it's stolen valor will never think differently. That's it. You aren't going to change scope, or others of his mindset, from thinking what they already do. If this is the one thing that they can dig up based on a paid article (whether they paid to have it published or got paid) then I say quit letting them make it a big deal.

Move on, Walz has a bunch of great attributes, from being a well loved teacher, to being admired by people he served with. Sounds like a few miserable ***** wants to whine about it. Let 'em.
 
In case you haven't noticed, Scopedog, most other posters here aren't mad about the thing you want them to get mad about, nor do they care that you are. Perhaps you are wasting your time.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
In case you haven't noticed, Scopedog, most other posters here aren't mad about the thing you want them to get mad about, nor do they care that you are. Perhaps you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...

Yup.

If he had served at that rank but was demoted or dishonourablly discharged, that would have been different, but as far as I understand, he reached that rank and served at it for 7 months before retirement.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
In case you haven't noticed, Scopedog, most other posters here aren't mad about the thing you want them to get mad about, nor do they care that you are. Perhaps you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm making on topic posts, prolonging the slow death of a discussion forum.
 
Scopedog said:
There's no comparison between local and state scrutiny and national scrutiny, where the populations of 49 more states are now in the mix.

Speaking of innuendo, he objectively made a statement in 2021 that could only be interpeted by the audience at the time as him having deployed to Afghanistan with the National Guard:
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14382741&postcount=235

The only way to interpret it differently is if you knew he went to Afghanistan as a Congressman but never with the National Guard or if you found that out later. All he had to do was say, " ... as a Congressman, I stood one night in the dark of night on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base ... " There are many instances of statements he's made where all he had to do was a add a couple of words to dispel any possible incorrect inferrence but they're instead conspicuous by their absence. If this is innuendo on my part then he seems to invite it.

It also occurs to me that the published version of the speech, where it says, " ... I had the privilege of serving in this state's national guard. I stood one night in the dark of night on the tarmac at Bagram Air Base ... ", with only a period between the reference to National Guard service and Bagram, is probably the original version of the speech, or closer to it, than the video version, and it would have to have been approved by Governor Walz. The evidence that it's probably the original approved version of the speech is that in the longer video version the comments between the reference to National Guard service and Bagram seem adlibbed. He first mentions the previous speakers he just watched. Why would that have been written in to the version of the speech for the event? How would the writer know who was speaking before Governor Walz? It's possible they received a schedule of speakers and threw the reference in there but I think that strains credulity. There's definitely conniption in this thread but it isn't emanating from me.
Click to expand...

Snopes fact check...

No, Tim Walz Did Not Lie About Being at Bagram Airfield or Claim It Was in Iraq

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-walz-bagram/

The search took 4 seconds.
 
Frank Newgent said:
Snopes fact check...

No, Tim Walz Did Not Lie About Being at Bagram Airfield or Claim It Was in Iraq

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-walz-bagram/

The search took 4 seconds.
Click to expand...

What did he convey to the audience? How would you have understood his statement if you were in the audience? That article is part of the reason I made my post.

If you want to play the Snopes game, explain this one:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/

People are allowed to disagree with Snopes.
 
Last edited:
Scopedog said:
Frank Newgent said:
Snopes fact check...

No, Tim Walz Did Not Lie About Being at Bagram Airfield or Claim It Was in Iraq

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-walz-bagram/

The search took 4 seconds.
Click to expand...

What did he convey to the audience? How would you have understood his statement if you were in the audience?
Click to expand...

He might have been speaking impromptu not realizing what he said would be misinterpreted years later.

Though had I been puzzled I would have looked further into it. Seems so much more of a rush for some people to assume the worst.

ETA: Snopes game? Grow up.
 
Frank Newgent said:
He might have been speaking impromptu not realizing what he said would be misinterpreted years later.

Though had I been puzzled I would have looked further into it. Seems so much more of a rush for some people to assume the worst.

ETA: Snopes game? Grow up.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Snopes conclusion. Maybe "lie" in the question makes their conclusion somewhat accurate but it's clear that Governor Walz must have approved versions of the speech that ambiguously connected his National Guard service to Bagram. Most people would only ever see the published version. This use of ambiguous language techniques isn't an isolated incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom