US 2024 Presidential Election

[tstorm823]

ITMT: between stolen honor...

For what it's worth, I have not seen anything with him explicitly claiming stolen valor. It seems more like the news did that for him for years, and now the same people who claimed he went to Afghanistan will carefully explain that he never said that.

 

[Silvanus]

the same people who claimed he went to Afghanistan [...]

Who?

 

[tstorm823]

Who?

I do not have that in front of me, I'm away from computer for the rest of the weekend. I'll find you some links then.

 

[Schadrach]

Yes, the people that actually broke into the Capitol to actually try to change the election results would be traitors, but who from the Republican party actually did that? That's what I've been getting at the entire time.

If you are agreeing that they count as "traitors" despite typically being convicted of "obstructing an official proceeding" I would point out that those charges above that didn't count for Trump included 2 counts of doing that as part of his role in it happening.

empowering courts to over-ride a parent and have that parent's child sterilized and mutilated,

Want a source on this, preferably one that can point me at the law or policy in question so I can read what actually passed under his watch.

 

[tippy2k2]

 

[Eacaraxe]

I think you're mostly just looking at things solely at the lens over overturning the Reagan consensus and ignore every single other thing.

What you call the "Reagan consensus" has absolutely nothing to do with what's currently happening now. To what all the "Reagan consensus" amounted, was southern and conservative Democrats caucusing with Republicans for two reasons: one, they agreed with Republican policy, and two, Republicans had control over the pork faucet. That ideology (and inexhaustible thirst for pork) was there a long time before Reagan, and it's still there albeit more normalized than it has been. Look, I'll lay it clear from the perspective of a former party insider.

The contemporary party's fully back to its Gilded Age machine politics roots. Both Clintons spent twenty years rebuilding the old party apparatus and coalition-building between the Dixiecrat faction and liberal coastie PMC's, at the cost of throwing the Midwest and almost the entire rust belt to the wolves. Howard Dean's tenure as DNC chair was the New Deal coalition's/progressive Democrats' last gasp, and that culminated with the 2006 blue wave and Obama's nomination against the 21st Century's analog to Boss Tweed, Hillary Clinton.

Then it turned out Obama or any of his people couldn't administrate a party for shit (ironic for quasi-progressive technocrats), and they ran the party financially into the ground. The Clinton machine bailed the party out, and worked very hard since 2015 to consolidate power to entirely predictable results since. The machinery's different than it was in the 1800's, but the form and function are still the same. I mean if you want an outright bold-as-brass example of this political patronage in action, look no further than the PPP loan fraud by Democratic party insiders and influencers.

If anything, to what you refer as the Reagan consensus would be a significant step leftwards to where it currently is. What you don't realize is the country's already surrendered to the far right: the Democrats in charge of the party don't do shit, and won't stop Republicans, because they support Republican policy. They just won't come outright and say it, and instead ratfuck challenges from the left while killing any progressive legislation before it sees the light of day while putting forth just enough effort to merely appear as if they tried but failed.

All this shit you want to say Republicans will do if they win in 2024, has already been done over the past fifteen years. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Trunkage]

What you call the "Reagan consensus" has absolutely nothing to do with what's currently happening now. To what all the "Reagan consensus" amounted, was southern and conservative Democrats caucusing with Republicans for two reasons: one, they agreed with Republican policy, and two, Republicans had control over the pork faucet. That ideology (and inexhaustible thirst for pork) was there a long time before Reagan, and it's still there albeit more normalized than it has been. Look, I'll lay it clear from the perspective of a former party insider.

The contemporary party's fully back to its Gilded Age machine politics roots. Both Clintons spent twenty years rebuilding the old party apparatus and coalition-building between the Dixiecrat faction and liberal coastie PMC's, at the cost of throwing the Midwest and almost the entire rust belt to the wolves. Howard Dean's tenure as DNC chair was the New Deal coalition's/progressive Democrats' last gasp, and that culminated with the 2006 blue wave and Obama's nomination against the 21st Century's analog to Boss Tweed, Hillary Clinton.

Then it turned out Obama or any of his people couldn't administrate a party for shit (ironic for quasi-progressive technocrats), and they ran the party financially into the ground. The Clinton machine bailed the party out, and worked very hard since 2015 to consolidate power to entirely predictable results since. The machinery's different than it was in the 1800's, but the form and function are still the same. I mean if you want an outright bold-as-brass example of this political patronage in action, look no further than the PPP loan fraud by Democratic party insiders and influencers.

If anything, to what you refer as the Reagan consensus would be a significant step leftwards to where it currently is. What you don't realize is the country's already surrendered to the far right: the Democrats in charge of the party don't do shit, and won't stop Republicans, because they support Republican policy. They just won't come outright and say it, and instead ratfuck challenges from the left while killing any progressive legislation before it sees the light of day while putting forth just enough effort to merely appear as if they tried but failed.

All this shit you want to say Republicans will do if they win in 2024, has already been done over the past fifteen years. That's what I'm saying.

That's understandable. I too get thirsty for pork. Especially pulled but also bacon

Also: where are our polls that always includes bacon as an option? I miss those

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

 

[gorfias]

Given that his opponents are a guy who dodged the draft by paying a doctor to make up a fake foot condition, and another who spent 6 months writing propaganda safely in the rear trenches, I don't think Walz has anything to worry about from this accusation.

However it goes to show just how little respect Americans really have for their veterans.

Y'know what neither did? Steal valor. It matters. EDIT: PS, war journalists have been killed on the job. I don't know he if he never ever went to combat areas. My dad (a veteran) was in admin in Korea. There were times he had to put his life on the line. He tells me other troops in the area hated him until he did so for reasons. And me? I am a military veteran so you can lose the lack of respect BS when writing to me.

For what it's worth, I have not seen anything with him explicitly claiming stolen valor. It seems more like the news did that for him for years, and now the same people who claimed he went to Afghanistan will carefully explain that he never said that.

He claimed to have carried a weapon in combat. He did not. He claimed military grade that was not his specifying his combat which he didn't do though I think he temporarily had the title while training, but when that training was never completed didn't get to keep it.

 

[gorfias]

If you are agreeing that they count as "traitors" despite typically being convicted of "obstructing an official proceeding" I would point out that those charges above that didn't count for Trump included 2 counts of doing that as part of his role in it happening.



Want a source on this, preferably one that can point me at the law or policy in question so I can read what actually passed under his watch.

So far from a Brave Browser search.


There are links on this page that are supposed to take one to the legislation. Didn't work for me, maybe for you.

Tim Walz Took Historic Action To Protect Trans People, Now He's The Dem VP Choice

On Tuesday, news broke that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was the Kamala Harris' pick for Vice President on the Democratic ticket. He has been a vocal ally of trans people in his state.

www.erininthemorning.com

Tried again, reviewing chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://mn.gov/governor/assets/EO%2023-03%20Signed%20and%20filed_tcm1055-568332.pdf

 

[Silvanus]

He claimed military grade that was not his specifying his combat which he didn't do though I think he temporarily had the title while training, but when that training was never completed didn't get to keep it.

This is not true, you've misunderstood this.

He was serving as command sergeant major for his battalion at the end of his military career, not merely training. It was his rank.

What he didn't complete was the coursework, which is required for benefit purposes at the end of service but is not required to be completed to serve in the role.

If you claim to have respect for veterans, perhaps you shouldn't parrot inaccurate attacks against someone's military service.

 

[gorfias]

This is not true, you've misunderstood this.

He was serving as command sergeant major for his battalion at the end of his military career, not merely training. It was his rank.

What he didn't complete was the coursework, which is required for benefit purposes at the end of service but is not required to be completed to serve in the role.

If you claim to have respect for veterans, perhaps you shouldn't parrot inaccurate attacks against someone's military service.

Vance accused Walz of 'stolen valor.' What to know about Walz’s military record

Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz are both vets, but Vance has taken digs at Walz's service, accusing the Minnesota governor of one of the most grievous charges possible in military circles.

whyy.org

" The latest round of attacks on Walz stirred up another confusing point about his rank. Walz served as a command sergeant major, the highest enlisted rank. But his retirement papers put him one step lower – a master sergeant. The Minnesota National Guard told NPR that Walz retired before completing academic requirements to keep the higher rank. "

You are quibbling on behalf of a guy that said, " “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” when he had done no such thing.

And I don't just claim to respect veterans. Again, I am one. And I don't appreciate someone that would steal valor.

 

[tstorm823]

You are quibbling on behalf of a guy that said, " “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” when he had done no such thing.

The man certainly used guns in the army (in training), and meant that they should stay there only. He was attempting to turn a phrase, not write an autobiography.

 

[gorfias]

The man certainly used guns in the army (in training), and meant that they should stay there only. He was attempting to turn a phrase, not write an autobiography.

If you say so.

 

[Silvanus]

Vance accused Walz of 'stolen valor.' What to know about Walz’s military record

Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz are both vets, but Vance has taken digs at Walz's service, accusing the Minnesota governor of one of the most grievous charges possible in military circles.

whyy.org

" The latest round of attacks on Walz stirred up another confusing point about his rank. Walz served as a command sergeant major, the highest enlisted rank. But his retirement papers put him one step lower – a master sergeant. The Minnesota National Guard told NPR that Walz retired before completing academic requirements to keep the higher rank. "

You are quibbling

No, this is not "quibbling". You said he didn't have the rank or only held it while training. That's categorically wrong as your own link states. He served at that rank, and he even held it at the end of his service.

And I don't just claim to respect veterans. Again, I am one. And I don't appreciate someone that would steal valor.

Horseshit. People who served can disrespect veterans, as J.D. Vance does, and as you're doing here by lying about someone's record.

 

[gorfias]

No, this is not "quibbling". You said he didn't have the rank or only held it while training. That's categorically wrong as your own link states. He served at that rank, and he even held it at the end of his service.



Horseshit. People who served can disrespect veterans, as J.D. Vance does, and as you're doing here by lying about someone's record.

You are lying when you write you are not quibbling.

But this is like arguing about Kamala not being black. It does distract from what really matters. Until Covid, under Trump, things were great. Under Biden, it's been a dumpster fire. That's the message Trump needs to keep hammering away with.

 

[Silvanus]

You are lying when you write you are not quibbling.

What you said was categorically and in every sense wrong. Calling that a "quibble" is frankly pathetic, and shows how little respect you actually have for service.

But this is like arguing about Kamala not being black. It does distract from what really matters.

And yet you're the one who keeps bringing these lies up. If its a distraction from policy, then don't do that.

 

[gorfias]

What you said was categorically and in every sense wrong. Calling that a "quibble" is frankly pathetic, and shows how little respect you actually have for service.



And yet you're the one who keeps bringing these lies up. If its a distraction from policy, then don't do that.

Again, you are the one quibbling with the apparent goal of saying there's nothing here. Nonsense.

EDIT: More on his rank

"

The campaign also updated its online biography of Walz’s military service, noting on its website that he once served at the command sergeant major rank. The change, first reported by Politico, is a small tweak from its earlier reference to the vice presidential nominee as a “retired command sergeant major.”


The website for Walz’s gubernatorial office in Minnesota still describes him as “Command Sergeant Major Walz.”


Walz did serve as a command sergeant major while in the military but he retired one step down as a master sergeant as he had not completed required coursework for the higher rank."

https://thehill.com/homenews/4822265-gop-scrutiny-intensifies-over-walzs-military-record/

 

[Silvanus]

Again, you are the one quibbling with the apparent goal of saying there's nothing here. Nonsense.

There's nothing particularly meaningful here, no. He served in the role. It cannot be "stolen valour" if he literally did serve that role. And when you said he didn't, that was a lie about his service record, for a cheap political slur.

 

[tstorm823]

If you say so.

There is plenty to oppose in the things he's said explicitly. No sense getting caught up fighting about implications.