this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
211 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3799 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For the younger folks: Kerry got some seriously badass medals for his military service in Vietnam. People who had been on the same boat as he did, but at a different time, worked with the Republican party to claim that he hadn't really done what he did. The press ate this up, and distributed it widely, costing him public support and likely the election.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 128 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

"Avoiding a Tour in Iraq" Walz: Serves 20 years, participates in Operation Enduring Freedom, awarded the Army Commendation Medal, retires honourably, re-enlists for another 4 years after 9/11 and finalizes retirement due to running for office fully achieving a rank of Master Sergeant.

"lucky to escape any real fighting" Vance: Corporal but really a glorified publicist (coined 'Sergeant Scribbles' in the article lol), earns the datta-boy Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. After discovering there ain't no couches in the marines he leaves the service after only a single 4 year tour.

Clearly a viable and totally-not-wierd attack vector for Vance 🙄

[–] homesweethomeMrL 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] TunaCowboy 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Although it helps with alliteration, Vance never made sergeant and left as a corporal (E-4).

[–] homesweethomeMrL 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Corporal Scribbles also works

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] TunaCowboy 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Corporal Couch reporting for booty.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's an extremely generous definition of booty if it includes furniture 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago

Walz also had a 4 year old daughter at the time of his retirement. His family wanted him home, it was time to get out.
Vance, like every republican ever, is just projecting.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

And for people not military adjacent, 20 years is the length of service for full retirement. That's how long people who go the distance with the military stay in. He was already 4 years past that.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Lol, how is Vance saying this about him? And with a draft dodger as his partner.

"After graduating from Middletown High School, Vance joined the US Marine Corps, where he served from 2003 to 2007 as a combat correspondent in a non-combative role, including a six-month deployment in the public affairs department in Iraq."

[–] Maggoty 3 points 3 months ago

It worked for Kerry who saw and led men in sustained combat versus Bush, who hid from the war in the national guard.

While we should keep making this comparison, do so in public too! But don't be surprised if the media keeps amplifying this.

Also, Walz had his retirement set before the unit knew it was deploying. That's not something you can typically take back, another sergeant major would already be lined up for the position. So to say he "avoided" is a complete lie. Vance knows this too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't remember much of the Kerry campaign, but didn't he lean into his service record? The stolen valor argument is much weaker seeing as Walz has never claimed he's seen active combat.

Regardless, it's incredibly disappointing to see reputable news outlets bat for Trump just because the Dems have two ever so slightly left-leaning people on the ticket.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek 41 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They are clutching at straws. Every step the Democrats have taken since Biden decided to withdraw from the race has tripped the Republicans out. They had no game plan for that contingency, and they are still several steps behind and frantically playing catch up. They are falling back on their old negative handbook tactics. Hopefully they don't work. Because that Swiftboat Vets thing against John Kerry was really stupid. The only thing that was more stupid back then was that so many idiot voters believed it.

ETA: Some of these newspapers / media outlets are really freaked out, but only about Walz. They were fine when it was just Harris because she's very moderate. Her choice of Walz (which was a smart choice because it reinvigorated liberal voters towards her) is the thing that they are stressing out over, because of the (tax) implication.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

There's a documentary about it because the Swift Boating was such bullshit.

Several of the swift boaters themselves recanted after the Questionable Victory of GeeDubz part II.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Can't find the documentary, here's a relevant article:

On Friday, the group, who served with Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, sent a letter to T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance the 2004 attack advertisements, taking him up on a challenge he issued last November: that he would give $1 million to anyone who could disprove a single charge the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made against Mr. Kerry.

. . . Mr. Pickens did not reply.

So Mr. Kerry’s veteran allies took up the cause. In a 12-page letter — with a 42-page attachment of military records to support their case — they rebut not one but several of the accusations of the Swift boat group.

The veterans offer to go through Mr. Kerry’s record and the video with Mr. Pickens “page by page, frame by frame.” And they demand an apology, to them “and to the American people.”

Of course, none of this is new. Extensive news media accounts undermined the Swift boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift boat critics had written statements in Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up. One critic had himself received a medal for heroism during a hail of gunfire he later claimed Mr. Kerry had concocted to win his third Purple Heart.

But that did not blunt the political impact.

Ah yes. Texas scumbag T. Boone Pickens, the Musk of his day, funded the whole smear campaign.

And it's a reminder that republiQans do not give one good goddamn how true something is or not. If it has "political impact" they'll use it.

[–] Wrench 8 points 3 months ago

The Republicans have never given a single shit about veterans, they just like the flag waving and faux patriotism. They nominated the guy who consistently insults veterans, calling those who fell in war "losers", and the rest of their elected officials consistently starve the VA so that veterans can't receive the care they were promised.

Like everything else the Republicans claim to "support", it's in name only, and no substance. They only support their billionaire overlords, and the orange fuhrer himself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I got a real Boone T' Pickens with that guy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Snapz 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And please not, this is literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

Grifters all the way down the trump camp

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's equally weak because it's all bullshit. The problem is that the press isn't willing to assess truth on this kind of thing, and then center that.

[–] draneceusrex 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remember Kerry was miligned by much of the veteran community because he protested against the war in Vietnam. The swiftboat claims helped to fit into a narrative that his service record was flawed, especially against GWB's controversial record with losing flight status with the Air National Guard.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 11 points 3 months ago

Snorting coke and going AWOL from the TANG was way more respectable to these idiots.

[–] aodhsishaj 42 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Bezos trying to keep his tax loopholes I see

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sulzburger too unfortunately.

[–] aodhsishaj 9 points 3 months ago

Absolutely, both grubby little dragons greedily gobbling up as much as they can to make number go up.

[–] CaptainSpaceman 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Bezos and Musk owned newspapers like the deregulation guy, more at 11

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This doesn't work very well when the top of your own ticket features someone who didn't serve in the military in any capacity whatsoever and probably has the thinnest skin of any US president in history.

[–] pjwestin 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, George W. Bush's proxies successfully ran the original swift boat attacks on Kerry even though he served in the Air National Gaurd while Kerry fought in Vietnam. Not saying it's an exact one to one comparison, but it wouldn't be the first time a veteran managed to smear someone who actually served.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

I think people operate on a belief of fairness that obviously does not actually apply in real life. Bush was a draft dodging rich kid and Kerry actually got injured and awarded for heroism, but media manipulation made Kerry's service an issue. That Trump is a big sack of lumpy turds isn't going to save us from hypocritical false attacks being drummed up because the media wants excitement.

[–] Snapz 6 points 3 months ago

It's literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

These grifters are so fucking transparent, if people would only pay attention.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But as long as Vance is out there lying on the campaign’s behalf, accusing a 24 year vet of “stolen valor” and “lying” about his service, anyone would be remiss not to note that Vance himself never saw combat. He spent his six months in theater as essentially a reporter. He was a public affairs specialist who spent his time writing articles about how Marines spent their days on base. In other words, a sort of Sergeant Scribbles, if you will. Actually corporal, but it doesn’t flow off the pen as nicely.

Corporal Couch-fucker

[–] thesohoriots 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt 9 points 3 months ago

Major Embarrassment

[–] Snapz 3 points 3 months ago

Lieutenant Loveseat

[–] Boddhisatva 27 points 3 months ago

Vance and the two MAGAts who made the claims in the first place are full of shit. Walz filed papers to run for Congress on Feb. 10 2005. He retired from the military on May 16, 2005. His unit didn't receive an alert order for mobilization until two months later.

Records show Walz officially filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 10, 2005.

In March 2005, the National Guard announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard, according to an archived press release from Tim Walz for U.S. Congress.

"I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the deployment," said Walz in the March 2005 statement.

The statement continued: "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or Iraq," said Walz, who indicated at the time he had no plans to drop out of the race. "I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic support and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq."

The Minnesota Army National Guard told CBS News that Walz retired on May 16, 2005. CBS News has asked Walz to clarify when he submitted his retirement papers.

The Minnesota National Guard told CBS News that Walz's unit — 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005 – two months after Walz retired, according to Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, who serves as the Minnesota National Guard's director of operations. The official mobilization order was received on August 14 of the same year, and the unit mobilized in October.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Having read them both, the Post does put a lot of focus on former colleagues, though I think they come across as having an agenda more than legit criticism. I don't really get the beef with the Times' coverage at all though. They cover literally the same points as TPM. No idea what leads them to say that the coverage is "more egregious and spurious than you’re probably able to imagine."

TPM:

The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

NYT:

But Mr. Vance’s comments were also reminiscent of the “Swift boat” attacks in 2004 that effectively cast doubt on the military exploits of Senator John Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee. A key strategist behind those attacks, which helped doom Mr. Kerry’s bid for the White House, was Chris LaCivita, who is a senior strategist for the Trump campaign.

TPM:

The overriding point here is that Walz didn’t just say, well, I might get deployed. I’m outta here. It is well-documented that he was already planning to run for Congress, had been discussing with fellow guardsmen for some time whether he would retire as part of his plans to run for Congress and in fact had already announced his run months before he retired.

NYT:

But Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the national guard who led the same battalion as Mr. Walz and served under him, said in an interview on Wednesday that the governor was a dependable soldier and that the attacks by his fellow comrades were unfounded . . . Mr. Eustice recalled that Mr. Walz’s decision to run for Congress came months before the battalion received any official notice of deployment, though he said there had been rumors that it might be deployed.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The NYT repeats the lie in the headline, but buries the truth down in the article. The result is that people see the lie, and not the truth.

Very few people encountering an article on social media actually read it; something like 2% do so much as click through.

This pattern basically guarantees that a huge numbers of people will have a false belief.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The times headline is stating what the news is, which is that a claim was made:

Vance Attacks Walz’s Military Record, Accusing Him of Avoiding a Tour in Iraq

Which is a factual statement of the news. The times piece presents the claim made, and the refutation of it and the evidence without ever making a direct claim one way or another. I e , unlike an opinion piece, the times isn't making a subjective assessment or value statement.

Given that, what other headline can they give? Adding adjectives like "spurious" or "misleading" would be editorializing unless they are quoting an independent authority on the subject.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Making a decision on the truthfulness of a claim is not "opinion". Paperwork was filed before his unit was given notification they were going to Iraq. Saying he left to dodge a deployment is a false accusation. No opinion necessary.

News reporting is not stenography. JD Vance has press releases and web sites to just broadcast his BS.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

In the general course of reporting news, most traditional news outlets don't make those sorts of determinations. Sometimes the editorial board will do specific fact checks of claims, but most NYT, AP, Reuters, etc, articles don't make those sorts of determinations. They do present verified claims from other authorities or named parties, which is why they included rebuttals from those sources.

And a campaign press release is not a news outlet. Proper news outlets have reporting guidelines.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RestrictedAccount 3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

They are the “Newspaper of Record”.

They can do some reporting and say:

Vance Falsely Claims That Walz is Was Not a Master Seargeant

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Against Captain Bonespurs? Ha ha! HA HA HA! Get out of here with that shit. "Democracy dies in we're going to do some cheerleading for the dictator anyway."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

CADET Bonespurs. FTFY

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Snapz 20 points 3 months ago

This is the important part, "The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign."

[–] Evotech 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What is this headline? Fucking garble. Every word capitalized, reads like shit. All the headlines are written in this weird way lately

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Title case or headline case - Wikipedia

But arguably that headline is garbage title gore. The "On" should be "on" the very least and "Swiftboating" would make it more comprehensible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Capitalizing every major word in a headline has been commonplace since the 18th century...

Aside from that, what's the issue?

Are you unfamiliar with The New York Times or The Washington Post?

Are you unfamiliar with the colloquialism "jump on board"?

Do you not know who the "Trump Camp" is?

Are you unfamiliar with the political neologism "Swiftboating"?

Do you not know who Tim Walz is?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Wogi 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He lost the election because he made a lot of lofty promises with the energy and enthusiasm of a half eaten grapefruit.

It was just hard to be excited for the guy.

Meanwhile Dubya comes out and lies through his teeth and you knew it but boy he could work a crowd.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›