Bernie Sanders, a senator from the great state of Vermont, is running for president and seeking the Democratic Party's nomination, even though he'd very loudly insist that he's not actually a Democrat.
Sanders tweets a lot, not as much as President Donald Trump, but he's definitely a guy who likes to use the platform to make sweeping pronouncements. On Sunday, he wanted to talk about veterans' issues.
If you analyze the history of American wars and the country's mixed record on supporting combat veterans, then Sanders would appear to be arguing that the Union shouldn't have fought the Civil War and that the United States should've stayed out of every other conflict starting with the Spanish-American War, continuing through the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and the modern conflicts in the Middle East.
A more generous reading of Bernie's Tweet would suggest that he means that we could (and should) do a better job of supporting our veterans after they've served.
That seems like a good idea and maybe an idea that could help heal the political divide in this country.
However, Texas congressional representative and former Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw took great offense to Sanders' Tweet and fired back on Twitter.
What's Crenshaw's point here? Aside from letting everyone know how annoyed he is by Bernie, is he saying that military service is a one-way contract? Should men and women who serve only seek to prove their patriotism and not expect any of the benefits of service?
Should we do more to support our veterans? And do veterans have a right to expect that support after they've risked their lives to serve their country?
Should we take Crenshaw's observations to heart? He's a veteran who lost an eye to an IED during his service in Afghanistan. He's a man who knows about sacrifice.
It's a complicated topic. Let us know what you think and sound off!