Impeach Biden
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts." - Ambassador Londo Mollari - Babylon 5
Connecticut families illegally messed with and rigged the bid process contrary to the sale order and should be punished. They can't assign a monetary value to embarrassing and laughing at Alex Jones and good feelings by selling InfoWars to the Onion.
it’s also the impermissible collusion with the onion and effort to rig
the auction with the goal of achieving a result desired by the
Connecticut families yes because they’re [fornicators] [maleoralsexacts]
absolute [maleoralsexacts] piece of [POS] [fornicators] I agree that
waiver should be determined to be you know what you guys want to
[fornicate] around fine $1.5 billion waiver [fornicate] you that’s it
you get nothing now you want to [fornicate] around with the money
collection we’re done that is how that should work that is how that
should work that is how that should work if they want to [fornicate]
around like this you know they want to [fornicate] around they should
learn they should get the reditor treatment
Why is Evolution separated from Abiogenesis when Abiogenesis is just the beginning of Evolution? Please list the scientific advancements based wholly on the giants and pure essence of science: paradigms/facts of evolution, the big bang and string physics?
Was spreading a poisonous and false conspiracy theory that
Russia rigged the 2016 election to get Trump in the White House a
violation of “norms?”
Was hiding the physical and mental decline of an incumbent President a violation of “norms?”
Was throwing open the U.S./Mexico border to allow historic levels of illegal immigration a violation of “norms?”
Was trying to prosecute a former President a violation of “norms?”
Does it become more or less a violation of “norms” when those
prosecutions are essentially abandoned when that President is
re-elected?
Was banning the sitting President from social media a violation of “norms?”
Was having members of his administration working to oppose a sitting President’s agenda a violation of “norms?”
Was the FBI spying on a Presidential candidate a violation of “norms?”
Was censoring and suppressing an accurate news story before the 2020 election a violation of “norms?”
Was handing the Democratic Presidential nomination to someone who never won a single primary a violation of “norms?”
Was a Defense Secretary going AWOL while the U.S. was involved in two major military conflicts a violation of “norms?”
Was having a baggie of cocaine show up in the White House a violation
of “norms?” How about the Secret Service stretching credulity beyond
the breaking point by telling us they couldn’t determine who brought the
cocaine into the White House…a violation of “norms” or nah?
How about an outgoing administration escalating a military conflict
with a hostile nuclear power after the American people elect a new
President with an entirely different view of how the conflict should be
handled? Does that violate any “norms?
Our political environment is never going to improve until people like
you, James Joyner, can admit you don’t really care about norms or rules
or decency or citizenship. You just care about people like you
remaining in charge no matter how frequently or how disastrously they
screw up.
You support Trump, an Epstein-bestie pedo who launched his toxic
political career with racist birher lies against the first black
president. Nobody cares about what you have to say about decency; you
and rapist Trump have none.
Yes, Russia interfered in the 2016 election, with Trump’s approval.
Yes, Biden continues to perform his job duties more effectively than
any of the younger presidents in recent memory, including obese and
elderly fascist Trump, who left office with mass death and record job
loss due to his incompetence.
No, Republicans do not care about illegal immigration except to
manipulate idiots with racist fearmongering, hence why they passed no
immigration bill under Trump and killed the bipartisan, Border Patrol
supported border bill under Biden.
No, it does not violate norms to prosecute an orange thug who
attempted a violent coup and illegally retained govt secrets. Phony
hypocrites that screamed “Lock Her Up” at Hillary know this.
Yes, private social media companies had every right to ban Trump for
using their platform to incite the Jan. 6 terror attack, violating their
TOS.
True, defeated traitor Trump urging Netanyahu and Putin to undermine Biden was abnormal (and illegal).
No, it’s not abnormal for the FBI to monitor Russian assets.
No, a private social media company taking 24 hours to vet an
irrelevant New York Post link about a private citizen was not abnormal.
It’s also not censorship.
Yes, parties have every right to choose their nominee however they please.
No, the Secret Service’s behavior of late has not been normal,
including the hundreds of Jan 6 text messages they magically deleted and
disappeared.
Yes, it’s normal for a US president to defend allies, not letting Putin’s nuclear blackmail control US foreign policy.
The political environment will improve once voters, currently addled
on amnesia, are reminded why they booted Republicans in 2018 and Trump
in 2020: the amorality, incompetence, treason, and chaos already on
display.
Y’all know that clock is ticking, hence why MAGA is still so angry and bitter despite Trump’s pyrrhic 1.5% victory. Delicious!
Here is a another Trump promise to add to the list: The US Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities needs the support, appropriate degree of subservience and complete, unquestioning obedience of citizens not a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" like the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Patriot Act II!!!!! Repeal FISA! because you have nothing to hide.
Trump’s third idea was about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts. These courts permit intelligence agencies to spy on people. He said, “We will totally reform FISA courts, which are so corrupt that the judges seem to not care when they are lied to in warrant applications.” He was critical of the FISA courts for their role in what he called “fraudulent warrant applications.” Trump said that many FISA judges are aware that these cases are wrong but don’t do anything about it. He promises to change this practice.
Trump wants to set up a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to find and report any hidden wrongdoing by government organizations. Trump says that this committee will work to get documents that show what he calls “deep-state buying, censorship, and corruption” out of secret and into the public eye. “We will set up a truth and reconciliation commission to declassify and publish all documents on the buying, censorship, and corruption by the deep state,” he said. He says that this move would make these powerful organizations more open by letting the public see how they work on the inside.
I will be blunt: I am tired of certain
commenters who feel the need to insult rather than argue. I would name
them here, but I get the impression that that would make them happy.
Despite their protestations about the uselessness of the authors of this
site, they clearly want us to pay attention to them.
Here’s the deal: we do this for free. It is an outlet and a hobby.
It serves certain needs and uses, but there is nothing that requires
this place to exist. We don’t need to have comment sections, nor is
there any requirement to engage.
I engage because I enjoy it. And, yes, I actually think I have
something to say. I know no one has to read it, let another engage me
over it. I can live with the fact that comments can sometimes be
annoying. I am self-aware enough to know that I, too, can be annoying.
This post is not about annoying.
I have no problem with disagreement.
I would honestly welcome a useful debate from a different perspective.
I understand that locking metaphorical horns with someone who disagrees with you can be cathartic.
BUT.
I do not enjoy sneering complaints and insults.
I see no need to constantly deal with people who can’t even be bothered to engage with the contents of the post.
I have tried to be patient.
I have tried, in some cases to point out that engagement is not happening.
In some cases over the years I have actively tried to help such people learn to engage.
I would note, as I have in the past, commenters are guests. I am not
asking for deference, but I am at the end of putting up with rudeness
and the derailing of conversation. Life is short and my time is
valuable, at least to me.
SO.
Starting right now I will delete any comment that is rude or simply oppositional for the point of being oppositional.
Anything deemed derailing will be gone. Anything that hints of insult will be trashed.
And soon, commenters who can’t act like adults will be banned.
We provide a free and open space for anyone who can behave.
I look forward to Republicans pushing universal background checks and mandatory gun buybacks just like the Democrats.
The Democrats will vote not to certify the count of the Electoral
College ballots during a joint session of the United States Congress,
pursuant to the Electoral Count Act.
A 15-member Electoral Commission (headed by legal juggernaut luminaries
of Laurence Tribe, Glenn Kirschner, Liz Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, George
Conway) will give the Presidency to Harris as occurred with the
Electoral disputes and Compromise of 1877 also known as the Wormley
Agreement, the Bargain of 1877, or the Corrupt Bargain .
an update on the j6 case before the debate got underway we read through a filing from Trump’s defense team and they were rubbing Jack Smith’s nose in his prior filings saying Jack how dare you want to release all of this material in the month before the election when months ago you said if Trump talked about any of these Witnesses or any of this evidence it was going to be the end of democracy, the administration of justice was going to be tarnished and we were all going to die well now they’re perfectly happy publishing it all.
Ann Althouse embraces the woke tankies attack on the Matt Walsh movie "Am I Racist?" <blockquote>"That sums up what bothered me about the movie. The filmmaker had an agenda, so I couldn't trust him to be fair to the people he was tricking. And of course, tricking them itself is unfair. "</blockquote> Whataboutism Same apply to Michael Moore's or Katie Couric's “Under the Gun,” excellent according to the commenters here documentaries? @<a href="#comment-2961818">charontwo</a>: This response made me smile. <blockquote>@liekitisnot Ted claims they lied and he read their testimony. I just provided their testimony. I'm not here to argue with your bullshit. If you want to live in a fantasy where facts don't matter, go right ahead, but don't expect me to join you in your delusional sandbox [litterbox] full of cat shit.</blockquote> Matt B. I am researching the Gish gallop pushed as a logical fallacy by you and Mehdi Raza Hasan. Listened to Mehdi's interview with Preet Bharara, It seems like a excuse and cope for someone having swatted/batted away every political narrative and tangent that was thrown at them to discredit them.
[Better job on your revision Paul. You’re getting closer to something
that is the ball park of addressing the topics of the post. It’s still
the gishiest of gallops, but at least you’re getting to something that
is human readable and on point.
Suggestion: it might be useful for you to explain which of my points
is whataboutism and whether or not you think Vance or Trump is correct
about the rhetoric being dangerous topic.
Keep at it and you’ll make it there. I believe in you! – Your Orwellian Overlord!
ps. also for transparency, this email address is now going to
moderation first, so we get to have these semi-public discussions
without anyone else seeing what you wrote. Again, you are free to write
your thoughts on your own site about this and share a link here. I will
never edit that out.]
And he deletes the response.
@<a href="#comment-2960774">Matt Bernius</a>: Most of that post was the 2nd second Trump shooter repeating Democrat talking points about saving Democracy. And you believe it was the closest that I have been to being on topic. <blockquote>You’re getting closer to something that is the ball park of addressing the topics of the post. It’s still the gishiest of gallops, but at least you’re getting to something that is human readable and on point.</blockquote> To refute part of your post. <blockquote> Republicans [and their allies in the gun lobby], have been a bit too successful for their own good when it comes to successfully getting the public to move on from mass shootings. In the past, to deflect discussions of gun control in the wake of mass shootings</blockquote> I don't see the Trump assassinations as mass shootings. A Mass shooting [Mass Murder by gun] implies that the shooter was using a weapon of war for its designed function of murdering "as many people as quickly as possible & to do the most damage [to any survivors](ask a doctor)." Not the definition that includes the NYCPD gunning down civilians for officer safety in the 2012 Empire State Building shooting as a mass shooting. <a href="https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/explainer">a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident. </a> I remember when the Republican baseball practice was attacked "for healthcare" and it was spun by the media and Democrats as it was a attack on all of Congress instead of just Republicans. Remember how to defeat and humiliate me and my Gish gallop. <blockquote>Mehdi Hasan, a British[/American/Muslim] journalist, suggests using three steps to beat the Gish gallop Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that the galloper has presented and tear that argument to shreds ("the weak point rebuttal"). Do not budge from the issue or move on until having decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made the counter point. <blockquote></blockquote> You have used point #3. Call out the strategy by name, saying: "This is a strategy called the 'Gish Gallop'—do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard."</blockquote>
@Paul L.:
See Paul, it might have taken a few rounds of edits, but you delivered a
comment that was coherent enough in unpacking your thinking that it
makes it through without any edits.
Most of that post was the 2nd second Trump shooter repeating Democrat talking points about saving Democracy.
For the record, because you don’t cite your sources, that isn’t clear to your reader. How hard is it to write:
“Here are some of the attempted shooters most recent posts from x:”?
Beyond that, the shooter did repeat Democrat talking points in…
checks notes… a tweet or two. And this is a huge challenge with your
reasoning process. You find a single example of someone writing
something and then project it out to be their only belief no matter how
much else the person has written that might contradict it. Which turns
everyone–including yourself–into a hypocrite. Which at the end of the
day is nihilistic and useless for having a discussion.
If you are advancing the idea that this person’s actions were created
by a democratic talking point, then there is a wealth of evidence that
the current campaign of terror on the community of Springfield OH is
based on things that Trump and Vance have said:
“Unfortunately, right now we have to focus on making sure
this rhetoric is dispelled, that these rumors are just—they’re just not
true. You know, Springfield is a beautiful place and your pets are safe
in Springfield,” Rue said, laughing slightly at how insane it all
sounded. …
Coates sighed, exasperated, while Rue shook his head. “If you could
speak to the former president what would you tell him?” Coates asked.
“We need help, not hate,” Rue repeated. He criticized lawmakers who carelessly cast the city of Springfield in a negative light.
“We have a beautiful city, and we need, we need the national stage to
pay attention to what their words are doing to cities like ours,” Rue
added. “We don’t need this pushback that is hurting our citizens and
hurting our community—I would say that to anybody who would take a mic
and say those things.” [source]
So I call whataboutism on your whataboutism and also hit you with the wild draw 4 card!
BTW, you haven’t told us of you come down on “rhetoric doesn’t cause
actions” (J. D. Vance) or “rhetoric causes actions” (Trump). So that’s
also a reverse card there. Which of the two views do you ascribe to?
To refute part of your post.
Republicans [and their allies in the gun lobby], have been a bit
too successful for their own good when it comes to successfully getting
the public to move on from mass shootings. In the past, to deflect
discussions of gun control in the wake of mass shootings
I don’t see the Trump assassinations as mass shootings.
I completely agree with you. The assassination attempts are
technically not mass shootings (though in the first one multiple people
were hit). They are still extraordinary shooting incidents. So,
unsurprisingly, the same general principles appear to apply in terms of
how people are processing them.
And I also suggested, through the Don Jr quote, that perhaps
Republicans haven’t taken past non-shooting political assassination
attempts particularly seriously. Sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.
A Mass shooting [Mass Murder by gun] implies that the
shooter was using a weapon of war for its designed function of murdering
“as many people as quickly as possible & to do the most damage [to
any survivors](ask a doctor).”
Not the definition that includes the NYCPD gunning down civilians for
officer safety in the 2012 Empire State Building shooting as a mass
shooting.
a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including
any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.
I remember when the Republican baseball practice was attacked “for
healthcare” and it was spun by the media and Democrats as it was a
attack on all of Congress instead of just Republicans.
Remember how to defeat and humiliate me and my Gish gallop.
Remember how to defeat and humiliate me and my Gish gallop.
Oh Paul, I’m not trying to humiliate you. My entire intent is how to
teach you to bring a coherent argument. Any humiliation you feel is
well… on you. In that process I’m not going to let you get away with
Gish Gallops anymore.
Mehdi Hasan, a British[/American/Muslim] journalist, suggests using three steps to beat the Gish gallop
Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose
one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument
that the galloper has presented and tear that argument to shreds (“the
weak point rebuttal”).
Do not budge from the issue or move on until having decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made the counter point.
You have used point #3.
Call out the strategy by name, saying: “This is a strategy called
the ‘Gish Gallop’—do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have
just heard.”
Yup. You are correct. That is exactly what I am doing. It’s great that you recognize it.
Once you stop galloping, I won’t have to do that any more. So develop
the self understanding to understand you are starting a gallop and stop
before you do it. Otherwise the same thing will keep happening. And
since I, for the moment, control the edit button, you’re never going to
win with a gish gallop. What I will always commit to is being honest
when I’m editing yours (or anyone else’s posts) and be transparent about
when I am taking the basic steps needed address bullshit being spread.
And as I say every time, if you don’t want to be edited, post something one your blog and put a link to it here.
Scheffler
is a model citizen accidentally detained by officers providing security
for a huge event in which Scheffler was a major participant.
Wrong. Scheffler was arrested for second-degree assault of a police
officer, a class-C felony, and three misdemeanors: third-degree criminal
mischief, reckless driving, disregarding traffic signals from an
officer directing traffic and should have been charged with contempt of
cop and obstruction. Far worst than misdemeanor speeding, not wearing a
seat belt, contempt of cop and obstruction.
Prosecutor dropped the case because he has tens of millions of dollars
and the US legal system favors the rich. Oh and the video showed the cop
was a liar.
Tyreek Hill was Insufficiently Servile and didn’t show complete,
unquestioning obedience that cops demand excusing bad cops abusing their
authority to show a rich black guy who is boss.
@Michael Reynolds:
The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed a rapist and
convicted felon whose thugs attacked police over the course of hours on
January 6. Thugs supporting a thug.
This is on topic because? Can I bring up the Miami cops who attacked and arrested someone recording them in a hotel?
The replacement of President Biden with Vice
President Harris atop the Democratic ticket has radically changed the
momentum of the race and undermined the years-long campaign strategy of
former President Trump. He’s not taking it well.
Don’t buy the public bravado.Former President Trump’s advisers
are deeply rattled by his meandering, mean and often middling public
performances since the failed assassination attempt. They’re pleading
with him to adopt a new “hard-hitting” stump speech to define Vice
President Harris as liberal and weak, advisers tell us. And praying
he’ll stop the recidivistic pull to simply improvise haphazardly.
Why it matters: Trump, who looked and felt like a
clear front-runner heading into last month’s Republican convention, has
fumed, stewed and stumbled in private and public ever since. Advisers
are telling him Harris will grow her lead coming out of the Democratic
convention, which begins a week from tomorrow — especially if they don’t
define her better, faster. Then just a week after the convention, it’s
already Labor Day.
What we’re hearing: Republican sources close to
Trump tell us he realizes he needs to bring new focus to a message that
can be meandering and self-indulgent. But it’s Trump. So a new script is
often fictional wishfulness. Trump “is struggling to get past his
anger,” a top Republican source tells us. Trump’s aides know he won’t
change. So they’re focusing “not on the need for him to change but on
the need to adapt his message to win,” the source said. “But he has to convince himself to leave the other garbage behind.”
“President Trump knows he’s the only one who can end the media’s
honeymoon with Kamala Harris,” a top Trump ally tells us, “and he sees a
significant opening to do so with Harris’ inability to defend her
record on inflation and the border.” “To get past the media force field
protecting Harris, however, he knows he needs to be very specific with
his policy contrasts and is planning on debuting a hard-hitting stump
speech very soon.”
The Atlantic‘s Peter Wehner (“Trump Can’t Deal With Harris’s Success“):
Biden’s abrupt departure deeply unsettled Trump. His entire campaign
was built to defeat Biden. Trump survived an assassination attempt, then
met a rapturous reception at the Republican National Convention, and
concluded that the race was won. And it was, until Biden stepped aside
and Harris stepped up.
Trump, enraged and rattled, is reverting to his feral ways. We see it in his preposterous claim that Harris’s crowds, which are both noticeably larger and far more enthusiastic than his own, are AI-generated; in his resentful attacks against
the popular Republican governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, and his wife,
because Kemp didn’t aid Trump in his effort to overthrow the election;
and in his attack on Harris’s racial identity.
At precisely the moment when Trump needs to elevate his performance,
to the degree that such a thing is even possible, he’s gone back to his
most natural state: erratic, crazed, transgressive, self-indulgent, and
enraged. One by-product of this is that Trump has provided no coherent
or focused line of attack on Harris. His criticisms are not just vile,
but witless. The prospect of not just being beaten, but being beaten by a
woman of color, has sent Trump into a frenzy in a way almost nothing
else could.
[…]
Something else, and something quite important, has changed. The whole
landscape of the campaign has been transformed. The rise of Harris
instantly cast Trump in a new light. He formerly seemed more ominous and
threatening, which, whatever its political drawbacks, signaled
strength; now he seems not just old but low-energy, stale, even
pathetic. He has become the political version of Fat Elvis.
Trump is much better equipped psychologically to withstand ferocious
criticisms than he is equipped to withstand mockery. Malignant
narcissists go to great lengths to hide their fears and display a false
or idealized self. Criticism targets the persona. Mockery, by contrast,
can tap very deep fears of being exposed as flawed or weak. When the
mask is the target, people with Trump’s psychological profile know how
to fight back. Mockery, though, can cause them to unravel.
His colleague Brian Stelter continues in the same vein with “Trump’s Latest Falsehood Is a Huge Tell.“
When Donald Trump is at his most vulnerable, when he feels most
threatened, he tells fans not to believe their own eyes and ears.
After the January 6 attack on the Capitol, he called the event a
“love fest,” denying the video evidence of the violence. After the
writer E. Jean Carroll accused him of sexual assault, he said he had
“never met” her, despite a photo showing them together.
And yesterday, after Kamala Harris finished a week of arena-size
rallies, he claimed that images of her crowds were “fake” and
AI-generated. Specifically, Trump embraced a conspiracy theory—touted by
pro-Trump social-media accounts known for peddling nonsense—that the
Harris campaign had posted a fake crowd photo from her August 7 event in
Romulus, Michigan.
“Has anyone noticed that Kamala CHEATED at the airport?” he wrote.
“There was nobody at the plane, and she ‘A.I.’d’ it, and showed a
massive ‘crowd’ of so-called followers, BUT THEY DIDN’T EXIST!”
The turnout at Harris events is entirely real, and political analysts
suspect that the crowds she has attracted are making Trump jealous and
nervous. But the AI lie is about more than Trump’s size anxiety—it
portends a dark and desperate chapter in this already distressing
presidential-election season.
[…]
Vulnerability seems to be the through line here—whether Trump is at
risk of trivial embarrassment, criminal exposure, or being caught in
lies. A public figure with truth on their side would say Roll the tape to show they’re right. Trump, instead, says, Don’t believe the tape. Just believe me instead.
While it’s possible that this is all evidence of further cognitive
decline, it strikes me as part of a longstanding pattern: Trump throws
tantrums when things don’t go his way. His instinct when COVID hit was
not that he needed to do everything in his power to prevent catastrophe
for the 330 million people for whom he was responsible but rather that
it was unfair that it was happening to him.
I see the same thing happening here. He had Joe Biden beaten. He’d
spent months telling us that Sleepy Joe was unfit for the job and one
debate (and some follow-up interviews) cemented that image in the public
mind. His own instinctive defiance in the immediate aftermath of an
assassination attempt provided a stark contrast that was likely to last
through the election.
Then, suddenly, Biden quit the race and handed the campaign over to a
considerably younger, more energetic candidate. That’s just unfair! And
Trump is melting down over it.
We’re inside three months to the election. Given how many plot twists
there have been, it’s a bit premature to declare this thing over. But
Trump seems to have no answers to the new reality he’s faced with.
Matt Bernius’s post “Reviewing 5 Claims About Tim Walz Military Record”
touches on several minor controversies about the presumptive Democratic
vice presidential nominee, some of which I’d not seen before but the
most important of which I had. I fully agree with Matt’s conclusion “I
don’t think its stolen valor, but Walz has played it lose when referring
to his service,” but have been steeped in the military culture most of
my almost six decades and have a different perspective on many of the
claims.
Some deck clearing first.
First, while I was only
barely aware of him before his name surfaced as a VP candidate, I mostly
like what I see. While I disagree with him at the margins on some
issues, he seems like a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. While I
roll my eyes at the lengths to which he goes to portray himself as an
“Everyday Joe,” he seems like a decent guy. He’s qualified to be VP and,
should it be necessary, to step up into the big chair. Given the
alternatives, I’ll vote for the ticket.
Second, and perhaps more
importantly, Walz being on the ticket will have almost nothing to do
with my vote or that of any other American. In 2008, I wrote multiple
scathing posts about the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s
running mate. I thought and continue to think that Joe Biden, the VP
alternative on the other ticket, was more prepared to serve. I still
voted for McCain. (While I thought about it much less, the same is true
in hindsight for Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle in 1988.)
Third,
while I opposed him for all manner of reasons (my then-strong allegiance
to the Republican Party first and foremost of them), I immediately and
vociferously defended John Kerry against the smears of the Swift
Boaters. While I thought his record of protests against the Vietnam War,
including throwing his war medals over the White House fence and some
smears against his fellow veterans before Congress were absolutely fair
game, the “stolen valor” claims were outrageous and I said so early and
often.
All that said, while I take @wr
and others’ point that politicians stretch the truth about their past
accomplishments as a matter of course, military service is a different
animal. Among veterans and active duty personnel, there is
simultaneously a fierce and often petty pecking order about who did what
but an honor culture that reacts—even over-reacts—to claims to honors
one didn’t earn. And Walz has clearly done the latter—and allowed others
to do the latter—repeatedly.
Let me take the claims Matt lists in the order in which he debunks them.
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
This
is the first I’d seen of the charge and I largely agree with Matt that
it’s not a big deal. He has frequently worn a camouflage baseball cap
with the De Oppresso Liber crest of the U.S. Army Special Forces, the
Green Berets. It was a gift given to him, as a Member of Congress, when
he visited the 1st Group. Given that he’s never claimed to be SF, it’s
certainly not a “stolen valor” issue.
That said: I wouldn’t wear
the hat outside the context in which it was given. When presented with
the hat, I’d have put it on and gotten photographed with the presenters.
Depending on my reading of the room, I might have left it on. I would
subsequently have put it on my mantle or wherever my SWAG was displayed
and never worn it again precisely because I’d be embarrassed to give
someone the impression that I’d been SF when I hadn’t earned that right.
More
than a decade ago, I was part of a delegation from the Atlantic Council
that did a distinguished visitor tour of the USS Eisenhower. We were
all presented Eisenhower ball caps with scrambled eggs on the visor. I
haven’t worn it since we left the carrier. While I suppose I have the
“right” to wear the cap, most people seeing me in it would naturally
assume that I had served in the Navy and been assigned to the Ike.
Similarly,
I’ve been working for the Marine Corps since 2013. It would never occur
to me to wear a hat, shirt, lapel pin, or anything else that said “U.S.
Marines,” “USMC,” or the like on it because it might give the incorrect
impression that I served in the Marines. (I served, but in the Army.) I
have plenty of SWAG that says “Marine Corps Command and Staff College”
and some that says “Marine Corps University.” Those, I’ve earned the
right to wear.
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
Matt
is right here: Walz deployed to his unit to Europe to backfill soldiers
who had been deployed to war zones. That’s honorable service and more
than most did. (It’s more than I did in terms of the GWOT.)
But,
to me, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war,
are only carried in war” goes well beyond puffery. It’s a goddamn lie.
While it doesn’t cross the line into “stolen valor,” it’s awfully
goddamn close. It’s, frankly, shameful.
And, frankly, in the
broader context of GWOT, I would hesistate to describe going to Germany
to relieve actual soldiers to go to actual combat as being “deployed.”
It’s technically correct but gives a misleading impression that I think
intentional.
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
This
is two claims, which I’ll dissect in order. Because it’s the most
damning and prominent of the claims, I’ll devote the most time to it.
Matt
presents the timeline that Walz’ defenders have put out and, to the
best of my knowledge, it’s accurate. Unlike the previous case, Walz
actually deserves some credit here: His press release
announcing his candidacy for Congress acknowledged that he was aware
that portions of his battalion would be deployed. But he’s shading the
truth here, too.
First off, if a significant portion of the
battalion is deployed, it’s a sure bet that the commander, command
sergeant major (CSM), and primary staff will go with them. Walz was the
CSM. So, it’s not like it was a random lottery he was avoiding.
Second,
I’m reliably informed that the practice in those days for Guard units
was to issue early warnings to the command team about probable
deployments precisely so that people who didn’t want to serve—or were
unfit to serve—could muster out before the orders came down. Unlike the
Reserve, the Guard has a very long history of cronyism. For much of its
history, it was a way to pretend to serve in the military without much
chance of having to actually go to war. Additionally, during that
period, there were severe manpower shortages, so Guard units allowed
people who were medically and otherwise unfit to serve to stay on the
rolls collecting (meager) paychecks and earning (rather significant)
retirement pensions. (It should be noted, this would very soon change.
The Guard would become an active reserve, expected to routinely deploy
to combat. Walz retired at the tail end of the former era.)
Third and relatedly, the rules for dropping retirement paperwork Matt cites are correct now. They weren’t then. It was pretty easy for Guardsmen to get out of their contracts and, certainly, to retire.
Does all of this constitute “abandoning his unit”? I’m of mixed minds.
Walz
had decided to run for Congress. While I’m sure his motives were
mixed—he clearly has a lot more ambition that his “aw shucks” persona
lets on—that’s a form of national service that’s arguably more important
than serving as CSM of an artillery battalion. And, while he never went
to combat, 24 years of service is, again, way more than most gave.
At
the same time, I can understand why some in his unit—his commander and
some of his subordinates—might feel bitter about their CSM dropping his
papers in the run-up to a combat tour. The unit would lose men in the
war and get many more wounded. If they felt abandoned, I wouldn’t blame
them.
It’s worth noting that, unlike the Swift Boat smears, these
charges seem to have been organic and to have emerged well before Walz’
selection for the VP bid. Again, I don’t think they’ll amount to much.
But they’re not manufactured outrage, either.
Walz
has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command
Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8)
Here
again, Walz is simply lying his ass off. He’s repeatedly claimed, in
official publications, to have retired as a CSM. Kamala Harris’
introduction of him played up this rank.
In fact, as Matt notes,
while he was promoted in-house to CSM (something that doesn’t happen in
the real Army), he was in fact a Master Sergeant, the next lower* rank.
He would have actually promoted to CSM had he completed (apparently, by
correspondence) the Sergeants Major Academy. He did not do so before
putting in his retirement papers.
It would be somewhat weasely but, in my judgment, acceptable, to say that he’d served as his battalion’s CSM. But to say that he’d achieved the rank of CSM, much less that he’d retired at that rank, is a goddamn lie.
In
the real Army, by the way, selection for Sergeant Major is a very big
deal. There are relatively few slots available and selection (as for
Sergeant First Class and Master Sergeant) is by a centralized Army-level
promotion board. In the Guard of Walz’ day, it was hand-picked by the
local commander. So, from my perspective (which is likely not Walz’)
it’s doubly dubious to claim the title. (Then again, I have trouble with
his claim that he “served 24 years in the Army” when his entire career,
save arguably the deployment to non-combat in Europe, was in the
Nebraska and Minnesota Guard.)
***
All
of that, though, is very Inside Baseball. Will there be some
significant number of veterans who have hard feeling over Walz’ claims?
Quite possibly. Will it matter in the election? I doubt it.
Relatedly,
as Matt’s post notes some “bothsides” discussions on these matters, I
want to note this graphic that I saw on the Facebook page of an esteemed
former colleague as a way of comparing the military service of the two
VP candidates:
It’s rather amusing at first blush but incredibly deceptive.
First,
I’m sorry, 24 years in the National Guard of Walz’ day is not 24 years
of real service. There was next to zero chance that we were going to
call up a Guard artillery unit for combat. Second, as already discussed,
he never attained pay grade E-9. He was an E-8 wearing CSM rank
insignia—and assigned to the CSM billet—in a Guard unit. Third, all of
the awards listed for Walz save the top two are what we call “I was
there” medals and ribbons. They’re all for simply being in the Guard
during certain periods of time or completing mandatory training. And,
frankly, an Army Commendation Medal is a paltry top award, indeed, for a
senior NCO.
Vance’s NAM is, simultaneously not all that
impressive and the highest award a corporal is likely to achieve absent
combat valor. And he actually received plenty of I Was There awards:
“Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on
Terrorism Service Medal, Letter of Appreciation (5th award), Meritorious
Mast Certificate of Appreciation, and various Campaign and Service
Medals.” That’s not bad for four years of service and, frankly, much
more impressive to anyone in the know that Walz’ rack.
In
fairness, some veterans will scoff that he was in public affairs rather
than a combat arms billet. But he did at least carry a rifle in a place
where he could be potentially called upon to use it. Walz, claims to the
contrary, did not.
Army
NCO ranks are a bit odd. At pay grade E-8, one can be a Master Sergeant
or a First Sergeant. The pay is the same but the latter is more
prestigious, as it’s a specific leadership billet: the senior enlisted
advisor in a company/battery/troop. At pay grade E-9, on can be a
Sergeant Major or a Command Sergeant Major. The latter is the senior
enlisted advisor at a battalion or higher formation. Making it more
confusing, 1SG and CSM are billet-specific. So, as was the case with my
late father, one can serve as a company 1SG and then subsequently be
assigned to a staff billet and revert to the default MSG rank. Usually,
but not always, one is allowed to retire in the more prestigious rank if
they’ve served in it.
First, I’m sorry, 24 years in the National Guard of Walz’ day is not 24 years of real service.
Yikes. What a patronizing, disdainful sentence. I expected better.
But,
to me, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war,
are only carried in war” goes well beyond puffery. It’s a goddamn lie.
This
still seems like a speechwriter used the “rule of threes” in writing
this sentence (which is why someone senior, including the person giving
the speech, should read it for accuracy and correct any rhetorical
flourishes that cross over into “nope, didn’t happen”). If we’re going
to parse this, we need to apply this same standard elsewhere, starting
with the lying jackass at the top of the Republican ticket. Let’s start
with his suggestions that the school he was sent to to correct his poor behavior as a teen was somehow “military service.”
This whole “debate” has crossed over into the ridiculous. I’m officially done with this topic, it isn’t worth anyone’s time.
So this is the Walz quote that the right is attacking hoim with:
“I
spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. I’ve been voting for common
sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do
background checks. We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can
make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried
in war,” Walz said in his speech, aiming toward voters who don’t want
guns on the streets.
There are lots of military vets here, I’m wondering what they think of this quote?
Before
I go any further, let me be clear: I have not served in the military
and cannot comment on this from a military perspective. I have spent
time over the last few days looking into this to try and disentangle
what facts exist and then offer my perspective on how they are being
interpreted.
Going back to @Lucysfootball’s comment, there are
three primary attacks and two minor ones that have emerged to date. I am
placing these in a rough order from the biggest claims to the smallest
ones:
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
Walz
has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command
Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8).
Walz claimed to have been in combat (tied to @Lucyfootball’s quote).
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
Here’s
what the facts say (with some commentary from a range of people who
have military experience). First, let’s get rid of the two minor ones:
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat. This
is the most out-there one and pretty easily dismissed. The hat was
gifted to him by a Special Forces unit when Walz was on the
Congressional Armed Services committee. Here’s context from the Stolen
Valor Xtter account (which is one of the sources for this article).
In
reference to the photo of Walz wearing a hat with the Special Forces
logo on it. This was a gift from the 1st SF Group when he visited them
as a member of Congress. He hasn’t claimed to be SF in any capacity.
This
argument is similar to saying that wearing a Yankee’s hat gifted to you
by the team is the same as claiming you played for the Yankees.
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror. This
is easily proven false. During his final tour of duty with the
Minnesota National Guard, Walz deployed to Europe in 2003 as part of the
Global War on Terror (aka Operation Enduring Freedom). From the Washington Post:
Walz,
asked by the oral history interviewer where his combat experience
occurred, said initially that his unit — the 1st Battalion, 125th Field
Artillery — had served “throughout the European theater with Operation
Enduring Freedom,” the name the Pentagon used to describe the war in
Afghanistan and other counterterrorism assignments. A Minnesota Army National Guard history of Walz’s battalion verifies that the unit deployed in 2003 to Italy, Turkey, Belgium and Britain in support of the war effort.
Walz
clarified later in the interview that he and his fellow Guard members
initially thought they would fire artillery, but later learned they
would be assigned in Europe to backfill other U.S. troops who were going
to war.
Now that the easily disproven claims are out of the way, we get into the thornier questions.
Walz claimed to have been in combat. At
no point in his career has Walz explicitly claimed to have been in
combat or served in a combat zone. As I just noted, his one OEF
deployment was to Europe. While it was in support of the Afghan war, he
and his unit, never got closer to Afghanistan than Turkey.
However, he did make statements like the one @Lucysfootball noted which, intentionally or not, implied combat:
Walz: “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”
The
phrase people have called attention to is “that I carried in war.” Walz
did carry a standard-issue rifle at times during his service and he
served during a war. He most likely didn’t carry it often during his
time in Europe. From the Washington Post:
Thomas
Behrends, a retired command sergeant major who also was on that
deployment, said it was very clear that their unit was not going to war.
“He’s
sugarcoating it to make it more than it was,” Behrends said. After
9/11, he added, the Air Force realized it needed to better safeguard its
airfields and requested the National Guard to assist.
“That was the mission from the get-go,” Behrends said. “There was nothing ever said about going to combat.”
I served during the Vietnam war but did not deploy there so I learned long ago not to declare myself a Vietnam vet.
In
using those words Walz hammered home his view that AR-platform rifles
are weapons of war. It would have been more accurate to say, “We can
make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in the National Guard, are only carried in war.” Rhetorically it doesn’t work as well. But that doesn’t excuse the ambiguity created by what he said.
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit. This
claim isn’t so much one of Stolen Valor as it is, I guess, cowardess.
At least that is the way that J. D. Vance has framed it:
“When
the United State Marine Corps, when the United States of America asked
me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it. I did what they asked me
to do, and I did it honorably and I’m very proud of that service. When
Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did?
He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him,”
April 2004: Walz returns to Minnesota with the
1/125th after a year-long deployment as part of Operation Enduring
Freedom in Turkey and Europe. Walz was stationed at Vicenza, Italy,
where the unit pulled guard duty on friendly military bases, which may
have been back-fill duty for active duty units deployed to Afghanistan.
He was promoted to command sergeant major of the battalion soon after
returning.
March 2005: Walz’s newly-formed campaign for a Congressional House seat releases a press release that indicates Walz is aware of a possible but unconfirmed deployment,
though no official orders have been announced. “The National Guard
Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of
roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard,” the press
release said. “The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified
that all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in
Iraq within the next two years… When asked about his possible
deployment to Iraq Walz said, ‘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 in Iraq.”
May 2005:
Walz officially retires from the Minnesota National Guard after 24
years of service, according to documents posted online that appear to be
his NGB Form 22, a Report of Separation and Record of Service. Walz
previously retired after 20 years of service but returned to service
after Sept. 11, he wrote in a Winona Daily News opinion piece,
re-enlisting for four years. However, his NGB Form 22 indicates his
“terminal reserve/military service obligation” date was September 2007.
One
important thing to note here is that, like most jobs, you don’t just
announce on the day you are leaving that you are retiring. While I
couldn’t find a document that gave guidance for when to submit the
request for retirement, I found the recommendations for Air Reservists and these mirror what I have seen people say about the National Guard (and most military branches):
Retirees
can apply no earlier than 12 months prior to their retirement effective
date. It is recommended that applications are submitted no later than
180 days prior (earlier the better) to their retirement effective date
to ensure payment and/or benefits are received on time.
Assuming Walz followed a similar recommended timeframe, he would have submitted his retirement papers sometime in September 2004
(180 days before his retirement date). Theoretically, Walz could have
known about the possible deployment as early as then, but there’s no
evidence to back that up. Here’s Task and Purpose on that part of the
timeline:
July 2005: The 125th Field Artillery Regiment receives initial call-up orders and, that fall, deploys for training in Mississippi as part of the 34th Infantry Divisions’ 1st Brigade Combat Team.
March 2006: The 125th deploys to Iraq, 10 months after Walz had separated from the unit. The unit will not return until September 2007.
Many
details of Walz’s decision process remain unclear. The press release by
Walz’s campaign indicates he knew a deployment was possible at least
four months before the unit received official orders and two before he
retired. But that timeline could have several missing pieces.
For
one, such advanced ‘heads-up’ notice is commonly provided to senior
leaders of deployable units, and can often change or fall through as
Pentagon planners shuffle deployment plans a year or more ahead of time.
A
second uncertainty lies in the May 2005 retirement date when Walz’s
retirement became official. It likely came many months after he ‘dropped
his papers’ to inform his chain of command he intended to retire,
beginning the process.
So here’s the tl;dr: Walz had
retired from the guard at the 20-year mark and then re-enlisted after
9/11. He served four years in the guard and was eligible for retirement.
By that time, he was 40, married, and had a young child at home. He had
already been deployed once in the Global War on Terror. He had also
made the decision that he was going to run for Congress and was in the
process of laying the groundwork for that. And, he most likely had filed
to retire in the fall of 2004. Also if he had chosen to stay in until
the unit was deployed, he would have had to wait until 2006 and would
not have been able to run for Congress.
As Task and Purpose notes, even some Walz critics have said he was well within his rights to make this decision:
At
least one soldier who knew Walz as well as any has defended him —
despite not being a fan. Joseph Eustice, whose personal Facebook page
today has anti-Walz posts, held the same job as Walz — command sergeant
major of 1st battalion, 125th Artillery Regiment.
When the retirement controversy flared up in 2022, Eustice told local media that Walz fulfilled his duty.
Several other soldiers from Walz’s unit echoed that sentiment, including a former brigadier general.
Walz
has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command
Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8) This
is another case where the facts are clear, but the way Walz’s office
has represented them isn’t very transparent. Starting with the facts
from Military.com:
Walz
enlisted in the Army National Guard in Nebraska in 1981 and retired
honorably in 2005 as the top enlisted soldier for 1st Battalion, 125th
Field Artillery Regiment, in the Minnesota National Guard, according to a
copy of his records provided by the Minnesota Guard. He reached the
rank of command sergeant major and served in that role, but he
officially retired as a master sergeant for benefits purposes because he
didn’t finish a required training course, according to the records and a
statement from the Minnesota Guard.
Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard at the young age of 17, and retired 24 years later as Command Sergeant Major.
Now
we get into a topic I didn’t know anything about before two days ago
(which, according to Xtter is just enough time to become a newly minted
expert): Military Retirement Ranks. When you retire from the military,
your retirement rank is used to determine benefits. At the time he
retired, he had the provisional rank of Command Sergeant Major (an E9
position) and was serving in that role. However, he did not complete the
coursework or the necessary service timeframe to be permanently given
the rank, so his retirement rank is one lower, Sergeant Major (E8).
As
with the “I carried in war” comment above, I think both bio entries are
playing loose with the truth. What they said is technically true, we
has serving in that capacity at the time of retirement, but don’t tell
the full story. Simply put, I think there is weasel wording happening here.
In
December 2019, after 25 years of distinguished service to his country,
Dr. Jackson retired from the United States Navy as a Rear Admiral.
On Jackson’s Veteran’s issue page he also repeats the claim:
As
a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military
service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen
and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their
needs, and that of their families.
From the Texas Tribune’s reporting on Jackson:
But
Jackson is no longer a retired admiral. The Navy demoted him in July
2022 following a damaging Pentagon inspector general’s report that
substantiated allegations about his inappropriate behavior as a White
House physician, a previously unreported decision confirmed by a current
defense official and a former U.S. official who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel move.
Jackson is now
a retired Navy captain, those people said — a demotion that carries
significant financial burden in addition to the social stigma of
stripped rank in military circles.
Despite the demotion, Jackson
has continued to refer to himself as a retired rear admiral, including
in statements released since the Navy reclassified him as a retired
captain. Former president Donald Trump and other Republicans have also
continued to publicly describe Jackson using his former rank; it’s
unclear if they were aware of his demotion.
One would
hope that the Trump campaign would be as concerned with this weasel
wording and getting retirement rank correct as they are with Walz.]
But is it Stolen Valor? From
a lay persons perspective, while Walz is using weasel words, I don’t
think it rises to my understanding of Stolen Valor (and definitely not
to the level of the 2013 amended Stolen Valor act).
Gonna piss off everyone with this take, but what the hell:
I
think Walz played fast & loose with his military bio to stay above
water as his congressional district drifted right. He let audiences
paint in their minds a deceptive picture. It was shady but not stolen
valor. (1/5)
Walz alluding to “weapons in war, that I
carried in war” to give credibility to his pro gun control stance
intentionally sought to paint this ‘deceptive picture,’ just like saying
‘deployed during OEF.’ But he didn’t claim unearned medals or lie about
being in IRQ/AFG. (2/5)
Some earlier reporting bought
the ‘deceptive picture’ I mentioned above, but that’s not Walz’ words.
I’ve had reporters say/write that I was a Marine, or an Afghanistan vet.
Trickier was ‘combat vet,’ which I didn’t claim but others have
described. His burden to correct. (3/5)
I’d try to
correct reporting on me- I definitely wasn’t a Marine, and though I
spent 18 mos in AFG vs 9 mos in Iraq, fact is I was a civilian in AFG +
not in uniform (tho in much more danger). Veteran of that conflict in a
sense, but not in the sense ‘Afghan vet’ connotes. (4/5)
Whether
the mobilization/retirement timing was coincidental or a dick move is
something I think only the enlisted soldiers in his unit can say. I know
one or two have spoken publicly it was a dick move, but I’d like to
hear from a plurality to account for personal beefs. (5/5)
Unrelated
to Walz, the ‘combat vet’ identifier has always made me wince. I
wouldn’t correct if someone called me one but I’m not comfortable
describing myself as a ‘combat vet.’ I served in a combat zone,
regularly left the wire, was on a number of smaller bases, and took
occasional on-base IDF (including at least one POI probably within a
CAB-qualifying <100m). But to me, ‘combat vet’ implies firing a shot
in anger, getting fired at, or frequently being in a position to
potentially have one or the other happen.
If I described myself as
a ‘combat vet’ it would create an inaccurate picture of my service- and
even if I met a technical definition and the underlying facts are
accurate, that’s still deceptive in my book.
Meijer would go on to add:
Guys,
I could not care less about Walz calling himself a ‘retired CSM’ versus
a ‘former CSM.’ It’s inaccurate, but where is the valor he’s trying to
steal? Close to zero civilians know or care about the difference, and
close to zero vets will be impressed by the difference. https://t.co/ZvJU1E9bDF
More
information may come out that changes my view, but for the moment I’m
aligned with Meijer. I don’t think this is a good look for Walz AND I
also think this is being blown out of proportion for political reasons.
That is, as I mentioned yesterday, normal politics. But I wonder if this
is a great long-term play, especially when the Republican running for President was a draft dodger.
Covid was a test which Farage - and many others - failed and failed utterly. You do not redeem yourself from such disgrace by shrugging your shoulders, muttering that mistakes were made and sighing ‘Ah. Next time, eh?’
Either you acknowledge that Covid was the largest scale assault on human freedoms in the history of the world - or you are part of the problem. You can’t redeem yourself by being quite sound on other stuff like immigration and the environment. It’s like being pro human sacrifice but expecting some leeway because you once gave some money to a lovely rehabilitation centre for injured capybaras.
To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race | Editorial
Biden
had a horrible night Thursday. But the debate about the debate is
misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.
President
Donald Trump at the first presidential debate Thursday. Trump’s
performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and
unfit for office.Gerald Herbert / AP
President Joe Biden’s debate performance was a disaster. His disjointed responses and dazed look sparked calls for him to drop out of the presidential race.
But lost in the hand wringing was Donald Trump’s usual bombastic litany of lies, hyperbole, bigotry, ignorance, and fear mongering. His performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and unfit for office.
In fact, the debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.
Trump, 78, has been on the political stage for eight years marked by chaos, corruption, and incivility. Why go back to that?
To build himself up, Trump constantly tears the country down. There is no shining city on the hill. It’s just mourning in America.
Throughout the debate, Trump repeatedly said we are a “failing” country. He called the United States a “third world nation.” He said, “we’re living in hell” and “very close to World War III.”
“People are dying all over the place,” Trump said, later adding “we’re literally an uncivilized country now.”
To
build himself up, Trump constantly tears the country down, The
Editorial Board writes. There is no shining city on the hill. It’s just
mourning in America.Steven M. Falk / Staff Photographer
Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world.
Trump’s response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. He said a “relatively small number of people” went to the Capitol and many were “ushered in by the police.”
After scheming to overturn the 2020 election, Trump refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, he wins.
The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.
Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.
Trump spent chunks of time watching TV, tweeting, and hanging out at his country clubs. Over his four-year term, Trump played roughly 261 rounds of golf.
The
Editorial Board writes that the debate served as a reminder of what
another four years of Trump would look like: More lies, grievance,
narcissism and hate.Gerald Herbert / AP
As president, Trump didn’t read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls. During one Oval Office meeting, Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.
Trump’s term did plenty of damage and had few accomplishments. The much-hyped wall didn’t get built. Infrastructure week was a recurring joke. Giant tax cuts made the rich richer, while fueling massive deficits for others to pay for years. His support for coal, oil drilling, and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement worsened the growing impact of climate change.
Advertisement
Trump stacked the judiciary with extreme judges consisting mainly of white males, including a number who the American Bar Association rated as not qualified. A record number of cabinet officials were fired or left the office. The West Wing was in constant chaos and infighting.
Many Trump appointees exited under a cloud of corruption, grifting, and ethical scandals. Trump’s children made millions off the White House. His dilettante son-in-law got $2 billion from the Saudi government for his fledgling investment firm even though he never managed money before.
Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths. He boasts about stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right-wingers who are stripping away individual rights, upending legal precedents, and making the country less safe. If elected, Trump may add to the court’s conservative majority.
If anything, Trump doesn’t deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?
Trump allegedly stole classified information and tried to overturn an election. His plans for a second term are worse than the last one. We cannot be serious about letting such a crooked clown back in the White House.
If anything, Trump doesn’t deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?
Yes, Biden had a horrible night. He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best.
Biden must show that he is up to the job. This much is clear: He has a substantive record of real accomplishments, fighting the pandemic, combating climate change, investing in infrastructure, and supporting working families and the most vulnerable.
Biden has surrounded himself with experienced people who take public service seriously. He has passed major bipartisan legislation despite a dysfunctional Republican House majority.
Biden believes in the best of America. He has rebuilt relationships with allies around the world and stood up to foes like Russia and China.
There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/K4PCTOYHOVBQTAEAVZ47PLCXZI.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/2OJIADCXLVFS5FJEBM74AWYHGY.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/PFIUGBPE5WAYINKUMP4Q2LYFIU.jpg)
/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/pmn/921d4482-7dbc-42e5-8c22-8f19cf1b188d.png)