I hadn't even heard about him supposedly lying about going to war until now. I thought you may have been reffering to him retiring before being deployed to Iraq, but wasn't sure so I phrased it like a question for a reason.
Do you always make your own headcanon and just run with it?

And what do you mean by "be honest for once"? When was I dishonest? Let alone constantly. That's a big accusation to throw out, so I want you to explain this one.

After googling I'm guessing you're referring to when he said he carried an assault rifle in a war? In that case, he was officially deployed in a war for 9 months. But he wasn't stationed in a warzone, but rather in Italy.

That's likely what he was referring to. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he tried to lie about being involved in combat, considering he knows how easy it is to look up information about it.

After serving for 20 years, and qualifying for retirement, a medical board considered discharging him because of his hearing loss. But he convinced them to let him continue to serve. 24 years is a very long time to serve, considering the average lifespan of a person.

And Trump not serving for a single minute due to multiple deferments and "bone spurs" should be highlighted.
Comes off as very hypocritical of his campaign to attack a veteran over their service.

You just have to keep in mind that RDJ lives in opposite land.

In the real world, half of his posts are far more cringy than that Walz post.  

Trump had 162 lies and distortions in one news conference last week....oh no Walz misspoke a few times.

He was talking to a couple from north Carolina and I already responded to your post listing everything Kamala has ever done in her life. Until you prove she didn't sleep with people she was professionally involved with or prove that that didn't effect their decision making I'd say you're the one to apologize. It's also rich being told you're repeating talking points when half the person's posts are just putting up X posts, many of which are from "Kamala HQ" lol. The lack of self awareness is truly startling. It's just the usual ists and isms and phobes otherwise. Tired talking points with nothing behind them 🥱

Yeah, Harris slept with her College Professors, her University Professors, Terence Hallinan, Louise Renne, Voters of San Francisco, Voters of California (Twice), Judiciary Committee Senators and Joe Biden. For real, I see you're still unable to prove that. Typical Trump fan, vomit out incendiary claims but provide no evidence to back yourself up and then say it's on the opposition to prove your verbal diarrhoea isn't true and clean up after you. That's how debates work yeah? I can just spit out any old nonsense and you have to prove me wrong? Nah it's not. Either back your shit up, apologise for saying something dumb and sexist or get out because nobody wants to waste their time with your transparent trolling.

Any 18-year-old who is yelling "AYE-AYE SIR!" in response to the DI ordering him off the bus at San Diego already has more military experience than five generations of Trumps combined by the time he makes it to the yellow footprints in front of the red sign, the one that says "Congress shall have the power to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces."  The Trumps are abject cowards, starting with Grandpa Trump who ran away from military service in Bavaria. 

Uh no. 

This is so blatantly backwards. This is not how law works, it's not how science works, it's not how reality works. The burden of proof is on you, because you are the one making the claim. 

For example, a prosecutor for a murder case has to prove that someone was murdered. The defense does not have to go through every person who ever lived and prove that none of them were murdered by that person. That would be absurd. 

The burden of proof is on you to prove that sleeping with people had some kind of major impact on her career. 

If you are incapable of having an honest conversation, then you will be assumed to be a troll and you will be removed from being able to participate in these threads. Let me be clear here, none of this would have anything to do with your views being conservative. 

Burden of proof ain't on me when basic logic will tell you that screwing someone pretty clearly will make you look on the more favorably. Don't need anything more than that but go off I guess. If it's thought of as trolling because I can't get a personal testimony from Willie Brown or Montel then...idk what to tell ya. So yes it would 100% be because of the "conservative" view that people are looked on more favorably by people they're sleeping with. I always check bias by flipping things and seeing if the other candidate would be attacked. If Trump had slept with his boss and then gotten favorable treatment I'd certainly knock it against him just like people appropriately knock him for inheriting wealth. Simple. Oh but I'm sure Trump got all his loans because of his merit and not because of something else like a familial connection. I guess you can believe in nepotism but not in sexual favorability? Strange. Same thing with Trump in the Walz scenario. If he had said he went to war and done those same things? Absolute firestorm. I mean hell draft dodging an unpopular war is the whataboutism people refer to as if that's anywhere near as bad about lying about being in war. Cases closed and listing "Oh well she did this OTHER thing where she didn't do that same thing so clearly it doesn't apply to ANY of her accomplishments." is a pretty funny argument too. Oh I guess Trump landed some deals other than those with his family so he never benefited from nepotism based on that argument. Honestly it's trollish to even make either of those arguments, but they're made on the right side. Oh yeah and then the typical crap attempts to attach labels to shut down a conversation.