She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

I'm going to have my dad write a private letter to Trump about the bone spurs and leaving his men to go die in Vietnam while he sat here when Daddy's gold toilet.

[Anonymous]

I love how 24 years of service isn't good enough for Republicans. Lol
Please tell me again how many months Trump served his country in a war either at home or abroad?

Stop using a different system to measure the Democratic candidates. By then you do the Republican ones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

How long did he have that title while serving?

I think I read that it was two years.

All false. Walz never was officially promoted because he dropped out of the Sergeant Major Academy in Texas. You have to successfully attend and graduate from the academy to be a SGM or CSM.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Fact checks say you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Boring candidate. Should have picked the astronaut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

How long did he have that title while serving?

I think I read that it was two years.

“I think I read it was two years.”

link? Citation?

Do you know what the process is for promotion to SGM and CSM?

Use Google. Do you understand how retirement and retirement benefits work?

[Anonymous]

So Republicans want people to continue to do their jobs even after they retire from them. Weird.

Better let my 95-year-old grandma know she better call and get a ride to work on Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to have my dad write a private letter to Trump about the bone spurs and leaving his men to go die in Vietnam while he sat here when Daddy's gold toilet.

STDs were Trump’s personal Vietnam. What a guy.

[Anonymous]

The attempted Swiftboating has fallen flat this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

No. You make the E9 list. You must attend the SGM academy in Texas to actually be promoted.

Walz dropped out of the academy. He has never explained why he didn’t complete his academy training and graduate. Without graduating, he couldn’t have ever been promoted to E9. That’s why he retired as an e8.

Why are you repeatedly spreading misinformation and outright lies?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of retirement? It usually means you don’t continue whatever you’re doing in your job at the time.

You people would try to Swiftboat Eisenhower if he opposed Trump, it’s quite a look.

And their hyper focus on small details is just socially awkward. If they're on the spectrum maybe they can't help it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Republicans want people to continue to do their jobs even after they retire from them. Weird.

Better let my 95-year-old grandma know she better call and get a ride to work on Monday.

Nope. Presuming 95 year old granny is a "post-menopausal female," Senator Bowman-Hamel-Vance says her whole purpose now is to raise children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

No. You make the E9 list. You must attend the SGM academy in Texas to actually be promoted.

Walz dropped out of the academy. He has never explained why he didn’t complete his academy training and graduate. Without graduating, he couldn’t have ever been promoted to E9. That’s why he retired as an e8.

Why are you repeatedly spreading misinformation and outright lies?

Your sh it is not going to stick. The man served 24 years. 24 YEARS! He was ready to do something differently. It’s not like he signed up and 6 months later decided to bail.

As many posters have been saying Tim Walz is well loved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

No. You make the E9 list. You must attend the SGM academy in Texas to actually be promoted.

Walz dropped out of the academy. He has never explained why he didn’t complete his academy training and graduate. Without graduating, he couldn’t have ever been promoted to E9. That’s why he retired as an e8.

Why are you repeatedly spreading misinformation and outright lies?

Your sh it is not going to stick. The man served 24 years. 24 YEARS! He was ready to do something differently. It’s not like he signed up and 6 months later decided to bail.

As many posters have been saying Tim Walz is well loved.

+1 And he retired because he'd decided to run for Congress. It's not complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attempted Swiftboating has fallen flat this time.

As did the bUrNing CiTies with Trumps call praising Walz’ handling of the riots.

It’s almost like the Harris team understood what vetting entails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boring candidate. Should have picked the astronaut.

Boring is good. Look at the flaming dumpster fire on the other ticket. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

No. You make the E9 list. You must attend the SGM academy in Texas to actually be promoted.

Walz dropped out of the academy. He has never explained why he didn’t complete his academy training and graduate. Without graduating, he couldn’t have ever been promoted to E9. That’s why he retired as an e8.

Why are you repeatedly spreading misinformation and outright lies?

Wrong. He got a conditional promotion. It becomes permanent after completing Academy within 24 months. And I think part of why he dropped out is because he had to have reconstructive surgery done on his ear to fix hearing damage due to working heavy artillery for years.