this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
773 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
6078 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm curious what voters will think of the two VP candidates military service.

JD Vance was in the Marine Corps as an corporal for 4 years and served in Iraq, but he served as a combat correspondent, a military journalist, not in a combat capacity.

Walz was in the Army National Guard as an enlisted soldier for 24 years. AFAIK he was never in combat, but his specialty (heavy artillery) was definitely a combat-oriented one. He also achieved the rank of Command Sergeant Major, which is a very high rank for an enlisted soldier.

IMO, being in the Marine Corps sounds more impressive than being in the National Guard. But, 4 years as a combat correspondent sounds a lot less impressive than 24 years, starting out in artillery and moving up to a Command Sergeant Major role.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Vance was not an officer. I don't mean that disparagingly, he just wasn't. He served a 4 year enlistment.

If you're comparing their careers, a sergeant major is a titan compared to a corporal. One of them was primarily concerned with taking pictures and not getting shot. The other made a career studying the art of leadership. It's literally not even a contest.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oops, I thought Vance was an officer, not an enlisted member. Thanks for the correction.

As for Walz, I don't know how quickly he advanced through the ranks, but IMO a Command Sergeant Major is one of the most impressive titles. It's a leadership rank but done the hard way. If you enter the military as an officer, you immediately outrank 80% of the military. A Command Sergeant Major has to practice the difficult art of leading people who technically outrank them.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. And quite often they're the ones responsible for standing up to the officers to protect the privates. I've had bad ones but a good sergeant major can make a huge difference in a unit.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

protect the privates

I'm all about someone who can protect the privates.