• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

zeke said:

View: https://x.com/kisstheblade_/status/1823011716453499123
Click to expand...


Here's the thing though...the whole bone spurs thing only came about because Trump tries to portray himself as a tough guy. If he was just anti war and basically refused service like Ali or something, that would be one thing. If he was anti war and used his privilege to get a doctor to write him off for bone spurs, most people would understand and that would be another thing altogther. But he of course chooses the Trumpiest way of talking tough and bitching out.

The truth of the matter with Walz is that the worst interpretation of the actual facts is that he read the tea leaves that deployment was a possibility in the future and being 40+ years old with a new little one at home, decided to move on and run for Congress. It's easy to mischaracterize this 20 years after the events but when he started talking about running for Congress in mid 2004, public opinion of the war had already started dropping heavy (from low 70's approval to low 50's by sept 2004, and then low 30's by the middle of 2005 and obviously much lower among Democrats). It was an unpopular war among Democrats by then, and got even worse over the next 8-12 months.
 
LeafGm said:
Everyone else won’t buy it.

But MAGA will eat it up like it’s a tub of horse paste at the height of Covid.

…if he’s smart enough to take that angle, that is. He very well might fuck it up instead.
Click to expand...

nah there's one thing this pretend macho culture won't take, and this is it.
 
MindzEye said:
Here's the thing though...the whole bone spurs thing only came about because Trump tries to portray himself as a tough guy. If he was just anti war and basically refused service like Ali or something, that would be one thing. If he was anti war and used his privilege to get a doctor to write him off for bone spurs, most people would understand and that would be another thing altogther. But he of course chooses the Trumpiest way of talking tough and bitching out.

The truth of the matter with Walz is that the worst interpretation of the actual facts is that he read the tea leaves that deployment was a possibility in the future and being 40+ years old with a new little one at home, decided to move on and run for Congress. It's easy to mischaracterize this 20 years after the events but when he started talking about running for Congress in mid 2004, public opinion of the war had already started dropping heavy (from low 70's approval to low 50's by sept 2004, and then low 30's by the middle of 2005 and obviously much lower among Democrats). It was an unpopular war among Democrats by then, and got even worse over the next 8-12 months.
Click to expand...

there's actually 3 prongs to the attacks on walz, and the only one that holds any water is the most meaningless one.

1. That he "stole valor" by saying he was in active combat. But he clearly never said anything remotely like this, went out of his way to say he wasn't in combat, and nobody who heard him speak ever thought he was in combat. What I hope he makes note of when Vance tries this again during their debate, is that i'm pretty sure that everyone who heard about Vance being a "marine in the iraq war" was under the impression that he was in active combat, even though he never was close. I know i did.

2. That he retired early to chicken out of Iraq. But he had already retired years earlier, came back out of pure sense of duty after 9/11, and while he was likely aware of the possibility of deployment to iraq at some point, was already in the process of retirement when any actual notification of possible deployment was issued, and was retired literally years before his unit actually deployed. The criticism seems to be that he should have stayed on indefinitely in his mid 40s and postponed his run for congress just on the possibility he might be deployed at some point. It's weak weak sauce.

3. That he falsely claimed rank. This one actually has some credibility. It seems he did let himself be referred to as a "Retired CSM" and not just "Served as CSM". But i don't think anyone actually cares about that kind of distinction, given that he never actually claimed a rank that he didn't have.
 
LeafGm said:
I don’t know much about the hippity hop, but was curious why this dude would be such an enthusiastic Trump supporter.

Then I quickly noticed from looking at his Twitter profile that he’s running an obvious crypto scam, and it all made sense.
Click to expand...
I totally LOL’d at “the hippity hop”
 
i mean him posting on twitter should have caused more than a 7% dip.

except that almost all the current investment is just a money laundering op anyways.
 
I bet it doesn't truly die till Trump loses the election. If he wins and the broader market environment is healthy and robust, there could be a wild squeeze to the upside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top