She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know that Walz is far left when the DSA is celebrating and taking credit for this choice.

I read printed newspapers, not twitter. Who are “DemSocialists” and why should I care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz is being accused of stolen valor.

Claiming he went to war. Claiming he achieved a rank in the military that he didn't.

People who actually served honorably in the military do not appreciate his dishonesty.

This is a bunch of baloney. It's a lame Swift Boat attempt by two MAGA Minnesota Guard guys sleazily claiming Walz "slithered away" from serving in Iraq when THEY TOO bailed out of the National Guard and didn't go to Iraq. And WTF anyhow, someone isn't allowed to retire after 24 years? My dad served as an Army NCO for 21 years, that's enough of a lifetime of military service.

Serving in the National Guard is very different from active duty.
He bailed when his unit got the orders for Iraq. The guy who took his place has choice words for him. And, claiming that you are a rank higher than you actually are and also claiming you went to war are just plain lies by Tim.

FFS he served 24 years including several overseas deployments. Isn't 24 years enough???????

And THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON OF THE MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD who has a crapload more authority in the matter than you or any online pundit said he did in fact get a conditional promotion to CSM and that there is nothing wrong with calling himself a former CSM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason so many people have left the state of Minnesota.

That is what happens when the Boomers retire and move to the warm weather areas.

+1

Up in here acting like Amtrak doesn’t have a Snowbird Express from northern Virginia to coastal Florida.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spokesperson for the Minnesota National Guard says that it is legitimate for Walz to say he was a Command Sergeant Major because he was indeed given a conditional promotion to CSM.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/03/tim-walz-national-guard-career-minnesota-governor-race

That's as official as it gets. End of story.

Republicans are so weird.

What do you expect them to say? Waltz is the sitting governor and can retaliate or grant favors to those who help him. No one wants to pizz off the governor.

No, only the GOP believes in wielding power inappropriately as you are suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz is being accused of stolen valor.

Claiming he went to war. Claiming he achieved a rank in the military that he didn't.

People who actually served honorably in the military do not appreciate his dishonesty.

This is a bunch of baloney. It's a lame Swift Boat attempt by two MAGA Minnesota Guard guys sleazily claiming Walz "slithered away" from serving in Iraq when THEY TOO bailed out of the National Guard and didn't go to Iraq. And WTF anyhow, someone isn't allowed to retire after 24 years? My dad served as an Army NCO for 21 years, that's enough of a lifetime of military service.

Serving in the National Guard is very different from active duty.
He bailed when his unit got the orders for Iraq. The guy who took his place has choice words for him. And, claiming that you are a rank higher than you actually are and also claiming you went to war are just plain lies by Tim.

FFS he served 24 years including several overseas deployments. Isn't 24 years enough???????

And THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON OF THE MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD who has a crapload more authority in the matter than you or any online pundit said he did in fact get a conditional promotion to CSM and that there is nothing wrong with calling himself a former CSM.

It's an oldie but goodie from the right. They denigrated Max Cleland's service, even though he had both legs and one arm blown off in Vietnam, then they went after John Kerry's service. It's despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz is being accused of stolen valor.

Claiming he went to war. Claiming he achieved a rank in the military that he didn't.

People who actually served honorably in the military do not appreciate his dishonesty.

This is a bunch of baloney. It's a lame Swift Boat attempt by two MAGA Minnesota Guard guys sleazily claiming Walz "slithered away" from serving in Iraq when THEY TOO bailed out of the National Guard and didn't go to Iraq. And WTF anyhow, someone isn't allowed to retire after 24 years? My dad served as an Army NCO for 21 years, that's enough of a lifetime of military service.

Serving in the National Guard is very different from active duty.
He bailed when his unit got the orders for Iraq. The guy who took his place has choice words for him. And, claiming that you are a rank higher than you actually are and also claiming you went to war are just plain lies by Tim.

Are you all really trying to pull a Max Cleland or John Kerry again? So much for your support of vets. LOL

And regardless, it is STILL more service than Captain Bone Spurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz is being accused of stolen valor.

Claiming he went to war. Claiming he achieved a rank in the military that he didn't.

People who actually served honorably in the military do not appreciate his dishonesty.

This is a bunch of baloney. It's a lame Swift Boat attempt by two MAGA Minnesota Guard guys sleazily claiming Walz "slithered away" from serving in Iraq when THEY TOO bailed out of the National Guard and didn't go to Iraq. And WTF anyhow, someone isn't allowed to retire after 24 years? My dad served as an Army NCO for 21 years, that's enough of a lifetime of military service.

Serving in the National Guard is very different from active duty.
He bailed when his unit got the orders for Iraq. The guy who took his place has choice words for him. And, claiming that you are a rank higher than you actually are and also claiming you went to war are just plain lies by Tim.

dp.. you really don't want to bring up the subject of serving in the military or infidelity when Trump is your leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here...I think he was the wrong pick. This election will be won by convincing never trumpers like me to vote for Harris....and this was a bad pick.

DP. I’m like you and I agree. Kelly would have been a much better choice to convince me. Now I’ll likely just not vote for president. First time since I’ve been eligible.

And in 2016 you voted for TFG because you just couldn't get behind Hillary, and now you're not sure why people make such a big deal about January 6 or classified documents, but you're not going to stand for burning buildings because the police murdered a guy.

Actually no. I supported and voted for Hillary.

I just don’t get why so many posters here think insulting independents like me is a good idea.

From what I read above, you see that there is a greater evil in Trump, and yet you won't do the bare minimum of voting for a Democrat to help protect your friends and neighbors from the greater evil, merely because you had a different preference for Vice President. And, even though you are willing to hang your friends and neighbors out to dry over such a petty thing, you are surprised that you are getting insulting responses?

DP but also tepid about Harris (and enthusiastic about Walz). We will vote for Democrats. There will be many Democrats running for downballot seats. We just aren’t convinced we want to vote for this Democrat. At least for me, I am open to being convinced, but tactics like the ones you’re using don’t educate me about your candidate, they just annoy me.

Go ahead and be annoyed. You've got two choices. One is terrible by any measure. I think the other one is a good choice; but maybe you don't. Fair enough. At the end of the day though, you either help stop the greater evil or you don't. It's just not as complicated as some people make it.

I wish it were more complicated. I wish we had ranked choice voting and didn't have a first-past-the-post system. That would allow for more nuanced decision making at the ballot box. But we don't.

I have three choices, not including those running as third-party:

Trump/Vance

Harris/Walz (presumptive)

Abstain from casting a POTUS vote

I vote based on policy. I am withholding a decision pending information from the Harris campaign about her plans for executive leadership, because so far, none has been published. Walz would have my vote in a heartbeat because we know his record as an executive, but he isn’t at the top of the ticket. Harris has no such record, nor has she shared a plan.

Because I have just as much fear as you do, but I have no confidence that Harris will do the right things to prevent them coming to pass. I’m willing to change my mind, but the information I need on that has not been forthcoming. And your hectoring, peer pressure, and threats are not information, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here...I think he was the wrong pick. This election will be won by convincing never trumpers like me to vote for Harris....and this was a bad pick.

DP. I’m like you and I agree. Kelly would have been a much better choice to convince me. Now I’ll likely just not vote for president. First time since I’ve been eligible.

And in 2016 you voted for TFG because you just couldn't get behind Hillary, and now you're not sure why people make such a big deal about January 6 or classified documents, but you're not going to stand for burning buildings because the police murdered a guy.

Actually no. I supported and voted for Hillary.

I just don’t get why so many posters here think insulting independents like me is a good idea.

From what I read above, you see that there is a greater evil in Trump, and yet you won't do the bare minimum of voting for a Democrat to help protect your friends and neighbors from the greater evil, merely because you had a different preference for Vice President. And, even though you are willing to hang your friends and neighbors out to dry over such a petty thing, you are surprised that you are getting insulting responses?

DP but also tepid about Harris (and enthusiastic about Walz). We will vote for Democrats. There will be many Democrats running for downballot seats. We just aren’t convinced we want to vote for this Democrat. At least for me, I am open to being convinced, but tactics like the ones you’re using don’t educate me about your candidate, they just annoy me.

Go ahead and be annoyed. You've got two choices. One is terrible by any measure. I think the other one is a good choice; but maybe you don't. Fair enough. At the end of the day though, you either help stop the greater evil or you don't. It's just not as complicated as some people make it.

I wish it were more complicated. I wish we had ranked choice voting and didn't have a first-past-the-post system. That would allow for more nuanced decision making at the ballot box. But we don't.

I have three choices, not including those running as third-party:

Trump/Vance

Harris/Walz (presumptive)

Abstain from casting a POTUS vote

I vote based on policy. I am withholding a decision pending information from the Harris campaign about her plans for executive leadership, because so far, none has been published. Walz would have my vote in a heartbeat because we know his record as an executive, but he isn’t at the top of the ticket. Harris has no such record, nor has she shared a plan.

Because I have just as much fear as you do, but I have no confidence that Harris will do the right things to prevent them coming to pass. I’m willing to change my mind, but the information I need on that has not been forthcoming. And your hectoring, peer pressure, and threats are not information, either.

2 of these three things essentially results in votes for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did JD Vance endorse a book that salivates over Franco? Describes progressives as “unhuman”? This? This is why people keep calling him a fascist. It’s not the eyeliner.

Vance is part of the festering stew of tech bros, incels, crypto grifters, Gamergaters, white supremacists, misogynists, and right wing podcasters. Is he selling supplements yet?

[Anonymous]

Wow the disinformation machine has really cranked up on Walz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow the disinformation machine has really cranked up on Walz.

Literally the same playbook and team

And I am not sure how this works given Trump and his bonespurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz is being accused of stolen valor.

Claiming he went to war. Claiming he achieved a rank in the military that he didn't.

People who actually served honorably in the military do not appreciate his dishonesty.

This is a bunch of baloney. It's a lame Swift Boat attempt by two MAGA Minnesota Guard guys sleazily claiming Walz "slithered away" from serving in Iraq when THEY TOO bailed out of the National Guard and didn't go to Iraq. And WTF anyhow, someone isn't allowed to retire after 24 years? My dad served as an Army NCO for 21 years, that's enough of a lifetime of military service.

Serving in the National Guard is very different from active duty.
He bailed when his unit got the orders for Iraq. The guy who took his place has choice words for him. And, claiming that you are a rank higher than you actually are and also claiming you went to war are just plain lies by Tim.

FFS he served 24 years including several overseas deployments. Isn't 24 years enough???????

And THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON OF THE MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD who has a crapload more authority in the matter than you or any online pundit said he did in fact get a conditional promotion to CSM and that there is nothing wrong with calling himself a former CSM.

It's an oldie but goodie from the right. They denigrated Max Cleland's service, even though he had both legs and one arm blown off in Vietnam, then they went after John Kerry's service. It's despicable.

And they’re voting for Donald Trump, the man who not only didn’t serve, but said “avoiding VD” was his Vietnam, denigrated POWs and wounded warriors. I think it’s safe to say they’re not wholly believable as “honorable” people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Three choices:

1. Trump/Vance
2. Harris/Walz
3. Abstain from casting a POTUS vote

The only way that choices 1 or 3 (or third party voting) make any rational sense is if you think that there is some possible way that Harris/Walz are equal to or worse than Trump/Vance. If you do, then there is some logic to choosing 1 or 3.

But we know what a spectacularly disastrous leader Trump is. His four years were chaos. He's a rapist and a felon. He's ancient and he can't complete a sentence to save his life. So, if you've been paying any attention at all, the particulars of Harris/Walz scarcely matter. If they rise to the level of even normal and mediocre, they are a far superior option. And, more importantly, they are *at worst* the lesser evil. That makes the choice straight forward. Protect the world from the greater evil.

[Anonymous]

Compare:

to

where Vance has more media than voters watching.