Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It would have just been so easy not to embellish anything. Why allow this drama when his actual record is good enough? Stop giving Reps easy wins!

He didn’t embellish. He achieved that rank. He just retired too soon to keep it in retirement. MAGAs are playing semantics and holding democrats to an entirely different standard than republicans. They are desperate for drama and will find it anywhere they can. They would try to scandalize him forgetting to feed a parking meter at this point.

Anonymous wrote:Regulations governing E9 promotion required Master Sgt. Walz to complete the Sergeant Major Academy to attain this rank. A critical aspect to attend this academy was his signed agreement to serve an additional two years of service in uniform at that rank, were he to successfully graduate. Walz’s deceit continued when he was elected to the House of Representatives and had a challenge coin made depicting the rank he did not earn.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4830359-tim-walz-military-deception/amp/

When Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz chose to leave the military on the eve of his deployment to Iraq, Thomas Behrends went in his place.

“I needed to hit the ground running and take care of the troops — and tell them we were going to war,” Behrends said of the 500 soldiers under his command. “For a guy in that position, to quit is cowardice.”

Behrends, a 63-year-old farmer in Brewster, Minn., called the Democratic vice presidential candidate “a traitor” for retiring from their Minnesota National Guard unit just before their deployment to Iraq in 2005.

Anonymous wrote:Regulations governing E9 promotion required Master Sgt. Walz to complete the Sergeant Major Academy to attain this rank. A critical aspect to attend this academy was his signed agreement to serve an additional two years of service in uniform at that rank, were he to successfully graduate. Walz’s deceit continued when he was elected to the House of Representatives and had a challenge coin made depicting the rank he did not earn.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4830359-tim-walz-military-deception/amp/

When Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz chose to leave the military on the eve of his deployment to Iraq, Thomas Behrends went in his place.

“I needed to hit the ground running and take care of the troops — and tell them we were going to war,” Behrends said of the 500 soldiers under his command. “For a guy in that position, to quit is cowardice.”

Behrends, a 63-year-old farmer in Brewster, Minn., called the Democratic vice presidential candidate “a traitor” for retiring from their Minnesota National Guard unit just before their deployment to Iraq in 2005.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You “think?”

Link your citations. We want to see your evidence.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/how-howizter-rockets-left-tim-walz-with-hearing-problems/ar-AA1olp5k

But also he was running for congress

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.

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.

You “think?”

Link your citations. We want to see your evidence.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It would have just been so easy not to embellish anything. Why allow this drama when his actual record is good enough? Stop giving Reps easy wins!

The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos survey found
39 percent of respondents said they either have a “strongly” or “somewhat” positive view of Walz. By comparison,
32 percent of those surveyed said they either have a “strongly” or “somewhat” positive view of Vance.

Additionally,
30 percent said they have a “strongly” or “somewhat” negative view of the Minnesota governor, while
42 percent say they have a “strongly” or “somewhat” negative view of the Ohio senator.