FUCKING HELL
Embedded video not playing here but urge you to click link to see this shit
That he is still a viable candidate after the issues that sank his last campaign (the domestic abuse issues alluded to in Shannon Watts’ response) is all you need to know.
2 Likes
Goodness me. Feel like he should be getting arrested for this.
The lionisation of the Navy Seals in the last few decades would be quite a research project.
That video…fucking hell…
I would have been tempted to let the cunt shoot himself but he probably would have taken a few dozen with him, in true gun nut style.
One of the replies claimed that he wasn’t actually a Navy SEAL. Suggested that it was an offence for him to claim otherwise or something.
Edit: Having checked the guy’s wikipedia page that does say he was a SEAL so not sure what the point being made by the person on twitter was?
They are likely referring to this article and video made by a group of Navy SEALs about him in 2016. Navy SEALs claim credit for video critical of Greitens - The Missouri Times
Basically he qualified as a Navy SEAL by completing all the training but, due to the number of qualified SEALs, he never actually served a tour as a SEAL. He had four tours of duty but all of them were as a Marine reservist not as part of a special forces unit.
Active members of the Team apparently take quite a dim view of people who complete the training, never serve an actual day in SF and then go around talking about how they were a Navy SEAL.
As an aside, the people raiding that building with him in the video are not dressed how SEALs dress. Unsurprisingly its not likely to be real member of the Teams. More probably it’s members of one of these “militias” like the Proud Boys who love to cosplay as military members.
5 Likes
USA! USA! USA!
I think that’s how they think!
1 Like
’ Join the MAGA crew ’ … and get a fucking lobotomy.
1 Like
Exact same situation with Tom Cotton with the Rangers. Military who have seen active duty consider it stolen valor for people who have only completed training to allude to having served. I think in lots of situations this might be considered an understandable slip of the tongue or casual moment of mispeaking, but when describing military service, those who have been through the training know the distinction and if they misrepresent themselves are doing it wilfully.
4 Likes
This is unrelated but I think the same of “veteran” license plates. I see tonnes of them as I drive around. Far too many to all be actual veterans. As I understand a veteran is a veteran of combat, not just anyone who has served in the military.
I had this point confirmed to me when I got back from training and the guy inprocessing me gave me a sheet of paper with a record of service for BMT and Tech School then said “You will need this if you want to get veteran plates for your car”. I would never claim to be a veteran, I’ve completed Air Force BMT and Tech School, now I do a few weekends a year and will probably get “deployed” to Guam (a surfing holiday essentially) for 6 weeks next year.
I find it very cheapening.
3 Likes
A good friend of mine was a wealth advisor with USAA. Now admittedly, this organization is explicitly stated as a benefit for military families, not just the individual, but in he definitely picked up on a sense of borrowed valor from a clientele in which having seen active duty, or even gone through training, is a small minority.
2 Likes
BBC News - Capitol riot hearing: Vote workers detail death threats
A good question…‘Do you know what it feels like to have the POTUS target you?’
2 Likes
Trump calling someone “a hustler” would be hilarious if the situation was less nasty.
Effing tone death.
When the Supreme Court is a completely hack, partizan wing of the Republican party then they don’t have to care about being tone deaf. Some of the decisions out that place in the last couple of months have been absolutely sickening. Clarence Thomas is a straight up fascist.
5 Likes
I’m not sure what the answer is. The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical, at least as much as it is possible to be. But it is very clearly an extension of one political party.
Is the other party now invited to change the rules and add more justices to tilt it their way? Is that even doable? And if so, is it desirable, since it will just exacerbate the current problem, only in the opposite direction?
Justices are for life aren’t they? Thought a new one couldn’t be added unless/until one of them steps down or dies?
Wtf?
Just when you thought US gun right justifications couldn’t get any more idiotic.