She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?

I have been reading a number of sources for two days. That was mostly off the top of my head. The Washington Post today reported that he did not revert to his previous rank until the day before he retired.

If you refuse to attend your slot at the Sergeant Major Academy (you will get a date to attend the Academy when you make the E9 list) you cannot be referred to as a SGM or CSM. If you accept your date to attend the SGM academy and then cannot complete the academy and graduate, you are still a E8 Master Sergeant. You aren’t a SGM or CSM until you graduate the academy.

Walz isn’t being truthful and clueless media is either covering up for him or ignorant themselves.

Walz knows better and is being allowed to lie about his military service because he is an elected official.

The Minnesota National Guard issued an official statement saying that Walz had served as a CSM and had the right to say that he had served as one.

But his rank was always E8 Master Sergeant. He never graduated from the Sergeant Major Academy in TX. He can say he served as a CSM temporarily but he never attained the rank of E9 SGM and retired as an E8 Master Sergeant. Saying Walz made the SGM list is the truth. Saying he served (for how long?) as a CSM is the truth. But saying he was a CSM is a lie and he’s lying. He either dropped out of the SGM academy or refused his slot.

Walz also said he carried a weapon in war. That’s not true, either.

That’s nice. Excellent you’ve cleared this up. I’m more interested in the ways in which Walz advocated for military service members in Congress. I don’t believe Vance did the same in the Senate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

This video accurately explains his career trajectory and retirement decision. In short, he had to put it retirement papers long before his unit was given orders that they would head to Iraq.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-amb1WOuRu/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?

I have been reading a number of sources for two days. That was mostly off the top of my head. The Washington Post today reported that he did not revert to his previous rank until the day before he retired.

If you refuse to attend your slot at the Sergeant Major Academy (you will get a date to attend the Academy when you make the E9 list) you cannot be referred to as a SGM or CSM. If you accept your date to attend the SGM academy and then cannot complete the academy and graduate, you are still a E8 Master Sergeant. You aren’t a SGM or CSM until you graduate the academy.

Walz isn’t being truthful and clueless media is either covering up for him or ignorant themselves.

Walz knows better and is being allowed to lie about his military service because he is an elected official.

The Minnesota National Guard issued an official statement saying that Walz had served as a CSM and had the right to say that he had served as one.

But his rank was always E8 Master Sergeant. He never graduated from the Sergeant Major Academy in TX. He can say he served as a CSM temporarily but he never attained the rank of E9 SGM and retired as an E8 Master Sergeant. Saying Walz made the SGM list is the truth. Saying he served (for how long?) as a CSM is the truth. But saying he was a CSM is a lie and he’s lying. He either dropped out of the SGM academy or refused his slot.

Walz also said he carried a weapon in war. That’s not true, either.

Walz has probably talked about his service 1,000 times. A couple of times he was apparently not entirely accurate. The other times clearly were or we would be hearing all about them as well. The Minnesota National Guard says that he served as a Command Sergeant Major. The day before he retired, according to the Washington Post, he was serving a Command Sergeant Major. The difference between "retired after serving as a Command Sergeant Major" and being a "retired Command Sergeant Major" is minuscule to most people. Especially since this lapse has apparently only happened a couple of times.

The weapon of war things was while he was talking about gun control. Immediately after he said that, he made clear that he had not been in a war. Again, in his 60 years of life you have been able to find maybe 2 times he misspoke. Is that the hill you want to die on? I don't want to "whatabout", but if I did want to whatabout, we would be here a long time as we discuss J. D.'s similar lapses of accuracy.

Walz has on his wikipedia page his highest rank was a CSM.

His highest rank was an E8 Master Sergeant.

Walz isn’t misspeaking, he’s willfully misrepresenting his rank.

His wikipedia page? People don't make their own page, ya know.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?

I have been reading a number of sources for two days. That was mostly off the top of my head. The Washington Post today reported that he did not revert to his previous rank until the day before he retired.

If you refuse to attend your slot at the Sergeant Major Academy (you will get a date to attend the Academy when you make the E9 list) you cannot be referred to as a SGM or CSM. If you accept your date to attend the SGM academy and then cannot complete the academy and graduate, you are still a E8 Master Sergeant. You aren’t a SGM or CSM until you graduate the academy.

Walz isn’t being truthful and clueless media is either covering up for him or ignorant themselves.

Walz knows better and is being allowed to lie about his military service because he is an elected official.

The Minnesota National Guard issued an official statement saying that Walz had served as a CSM and had the right to say that he had served as one.

But his rank was always E8 Master Sergeant. He never graduated from the Sergeant Major Academy in TX. He can say he served as a CSM temporarily but he never attained the rank of E9 SGM and retired as an E8 Master Sergeant. Saying Walz made the SGM list is the truth. Saying he served (for how long?) as a CSM is the truth. But saying he was a CSM is a lie and he’s lying. He either dropped out of the SGM academy or refused his slot.

Walz also said he carried a weapon in war. That’s not true, either.

Walz has probably talked about his service 1,000 times. A couple of times he was apparently not entirely accurate. The other times clearly were or we would be hearing all about them as well. The Minnesota National Guard says that he served as a Command Sergeant Major. The day before he retired, according to the Washington Post, he was serving a Command Sergeant Major. The difference between "retired after serving as a Command Sergeant Major" and being a "retired Command Sergeant Major" is minuscule to most people. Especially since this lapse has apparently only happened a couple of times.

The weapon of war things was while he was talking about gun control. Immediately after he said that, he made clear that he had not been in a war. Again, in his 60 years of life you have been able to find maybe 2 times he misspoke. Is that the hill you want to die on? I don't want to "whatabout", but if I did want to whatabout, we would be here a long time as we discuss J. D.'s similar lapses of accuracy.

Walz has on his wikipedia page his highest rank was a CSM.

His highest rank was an E8 Master Sergeant.

Walz isn’t misspeaking, he’s willfully misrepresenting his rank.

Yes, you have said this repeatedly. Maybe the difference between "served as a CSM" and "ranked as a CSM" is important to you. Maybe it is important to a lot of other people. But, the vast majority of people simply won't care. The guy served as a CSM. You don't dispute that. The technicalities of his actual rank is a paperwork issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?

The training course he needed to complete was 750 hours in length. Or 94 working days. That’s A LOT of training for someone in the National Guard with an outside career. It would take years to complete. He was given ranks, responsibilities, and insignia of a CSM, but not the pay. Gee, sounds just like the corporate world - more responsibility, a fancy title change, but no money.

He retired before he could complete the 750 hour course.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?

I have been reading a number of sources for two days. That was mostly off the top of my head. The Washington Post today reported that he did not revert to his previous rank until the day before he retired.

If you refuse to attend your slot at the Sergeant Major Academy (you will get a date to attend the Academy when you make the E9 list) you cannot be referred to as a SGM or CSM. If you accept your date to attend the SGM academy and then cannot complete the academy and graduate, you are still a E8 Master Sergeant. You aren’t a SGM or CSM until you graduate the academy.

Walz isn’t being truthful and clueless media is either covering up for him or ignorant themselves.

Walz knows better and is being allowed to lie about his military service because he is an elected official.

The Minnesota National Guard issued an official statement saying that Walz had served as a CSM and had the right to say that he had served as one.

But his rank was always E8 Master Sergeant. He never graduated from the Sergeant Major Academy in TX. He can say he served as a CSM temporarily but he never attained the rank of E9 SGM and retired as an E8 Master Sergeant. Saying Walz made the SGM list is the truth. Saying he served (for how long?) as a CSM is the truth. But saying he was a CSM is a lie and he’s lying. He either dropped out of the SGM academy or refused his slot.

Walz also said he carried a weapon in war. That’s not true, either.

Walz has probably talked about his service 1,000 times. A couple of times he was apparently not entirely accurate. The other times clearly were or we would be hearing all about them as well. The Minnesota National Guard says that he served as a Command Sergeant Major. The day before he retired, according to the Washington Post, he was serving a Command Sergeant Major. The difference between "retired after serving as a Command Sergeant Major" and being a "retired Command Sergeant Major" is minuscule to most people. Especially since this lapse has apparently only happened a couple of times.

The weapon of war things was while he was talking about gun control. Immediately after he said that, he made clear that he had not been in a war. Again, in his 60 years of life you have been able to find maybe 2 times he misspoke. Is that the hill you want to die on? I don't want to "whatabout", but if I did want to whatabout, we would be here a long time as we discuss J. D.'s similar lapses of accuracy.

Walz has on his wikipedia page his highest rank was a CSM.

His highest rank was an E8 Master Sergeant.

Walz isn’t misspeaking, he’s willfully misrepresenting his rank.

Yes, you have said this repeatedly. Maybe the difference between "served as a CSM" and "ranked as a CSM" is important to you. Maybe it is important to a lot of other people. But, the vast majority of people simply won't care. The guy served as a CSM. You don't dispute that. The technicalities of his actual rank is a paperwork issue.

If this is just a technicality, why did he felt the need to change it in his bio? I think he would be better of just to leave it as it was for all these years and just to explain the technicalities. I totally don’t care what was his rank in military. He served and I thank him for his service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love this article about Gov Walz in the Atlantic ("More People Should be Talking About IVF the way Tim Walz Is"). It is a reminder that IVF and fertility access affects men as well as women, and reproductive freedom isn't just a women's issue.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/08/tim-walz-ivf-reproductive-rights/679404/

Walz is plainspoken when he describes the seven years he and his wife, Gwen, spent going through fertility treatments. “I remember praying every night for a call for good news, the pit in my stomach when the phone rang, and the agony when we heard that the treatments hadn’t worked,” he said at the Tuesday rally. On July 25, World IVF Day, he posted on X: “When Gwen and I were having trouble getting pregnant, the anxiety and frustration blotted out the sun.” Every time I read that metaphor, I get teary-eyed at the immensity of their pain, how it overwhelmed everything else.

I’m also struck by how central Walz is to these anecdotes. Men can be seen as peripheral to the IVF process, like their job is just to give sperm. And it is much more physically taxing to have to take medication to stimulate egg growth, undergo surgery to have those eggs collected, and then have another procedure to get an embryo implanted in you. But you’d hope that men are taking an active emotional role, and that they’re supporting whomever the embryo is placed in—whether that’s a partner or a surrogate. And of course, the end result will shape both partners’ future for a lifetime. Walz makes clear that he wasn’t just standing by his wife through all of this. When they got bad news, he was grieving; when she finally got pregnant, he also felt the wave of joy and relief. It’s his story too.

Thanks for posting this. Love the way Tim talks about IVF and the struggles becoming a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I genuinely love this man. I think Walz can use his former teacher/coach skills to bring unity, empathy and common sense to our country and our political conversations with our neighbors.

yeah I love him too. what a terrific human and great leader!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While he is not the only one who misused funds, this is important since he is now on the ticket and running to spend OUR tax money.


Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Used COVID Relief Money on Things That Had Nothing To Do With COVID

Walz was a "tyrant" during the pandemic who forced masks onto children as young as five, placed strict limits on even outdoor gatherings, and encouraged Minnesotans to report their neighbors for violations of social distancing rules—rules that we now know were not backed by science.

Another aspect of Walz's pandemic record also deserves a closer look: how Minnesota used its share of the federal stimulus dollars distributed via the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP).

A quick review of the Treasury Department's State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) database reveals numerous line items that seem to have little or nothing to do with the pandemic.

For example, Walz oversaw the use of more than $4.3 million (across two line items) to cover parking costs at state facilities "for state employees and visitors." The state used another $1 million to fund a study into the feasibility of paid family leave, and another $1 million to fund a statewide gun safety advertising campaign. State employees in the Minnesota Department of Corrections got more than $1 million in overtime pay, thanks to the ARP stimulus bill. Another $7.8 million was distributed to two homeless shelters in the Twin Cities to cover ongoing costs.

A few other things caught my eye. There's a $929,866 line item for "small business development" to teach minority- and women-owned businesses how to qualify for state contracts. Another $1.8 million funded a grant program for the victims of crime, and $1.24 million was spent on Minnesota's "Grow Your Own" grant program, a state-run initiative that helps recruit teachers and other school employees. The Girl Scouts got $957,794 for an outreach program in low-income communities.

All those may be useful and noble projects, but it remains unclear why any of them were funded with dollars meant for pandemic recovery.

https://reason.com/2024/08/08/minnesota-gov-tim-walz-used-covid-relief-money-on-things-that-had-nothing-to-do-with-covid/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=reason_brand&utm_content=autoshare&utm_term=post

Nothing burger.

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds

These funds were earmarked for far more things than just COVID/pandemic related public health.

Through SLFRF, over 30,000 recipient governments across the country are investing these funds to address the unique needs of their local communities and create a stronger national economy by using these essential funds to:

Fight the pandemic and support families and businesses struggling with its public health and economic impacts;

Maintain vital public services, even amid declines in revenue resulting from the crisis

Build a strong, resilient, and equitable recovery by making investments that support long-term growth and opportunity

RECIPIENTS GOVERNMENTS MAY USE SLFRF TO:

Replace lost public sector revenue

Respond to the far-reaching public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic

Provide premium pay for essential workers

Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure

Provide emergency relief from natural disasters or their negative economic impacts

Support surface transportation projects, utilizing funds for eligible projects through three pathways

Support Title I projects that are eligible activities under the Community Development Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block Grant programs

[Anonymous]

Tim came with two strengths, sets Harris up as a moderate and as the more impressive member of the team.

None of the other possible picks could deliver on those two qualifications.

[Anonymous]

A quick review of the Treasury Department's State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) database reveals numerous line items that seem to have little or nothing to do with the pandemic.

For example, Walz oversaw the use of more than $4.3 million (across two line items) to cover parking costs at state facilities "for state employees and visitors."

Fight the pandemic and support families and businesses struggling with its public health and economic impacts - economic impacts ... trying to encourage more people to come back to downtown areas.

The state used another $1 million to fund a study into the feasibility of paid family leave.

Fight the pandemic and support families and businesses struggling with its public health and economic impacts

and another $1 million to fund a statewide gun safety advertising campaign.

(not sure about this one)

State employees in the Minnesota Department of Corrections got more than $1 million in overtime pay, thanks to the ARP stimulus bill.

Maintain vital public services, even amid declines in revenue resulting from the crisis

Another $7.8 million was distributed to two homeless shelters in the Twin Cities to cover ongoing costs.

Maintain vital public services, even amid declines in revenue resulting from the crisis

There's a $929,866 line item for "small business development" to teach minority- and women-owned businesses how to qualify for state contracts.

Build a strong, resilient, and equitable recovery by making investments that support long-term growth and opportunity

Another $1.8 million funded a grant program for the victims of crime, and $1.24 million was spent on Minnesota's "Grow Your Own" grant program, a state-run initiative that helps recruit teachers and other school employees.

Maintain vital public services, even amid declines in revenue resulting from the crisis

The Girl Scouts got $957,794 for an outreach program in low-income communities.

Build a strong, resilient, and equitable recovery by making investments that support long-term growth and opportunity

All those may be useful and noble projects, but it remains unclear why any of them were funded with dollars meant for pandemic recovery.

Hope I helped make the connection clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The campaign just changed Walz’s biography on their site from “retired Command Sergeant Major” to “served as a command sergeant major”.

I still don't understand what the difference is.

Walz was provisionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major but was required to complete some coursework. He ended up retiring without completing the coursework. Therefore, he reverted to his previous rank. So, Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major and was still a Command Sergeant Major the day before he retired, but he retired as a Master Sergeant (if I recall correctly).

The coursework is called the Sergeant Major Academy in El Paso TX. Walz either refused to attend or dropped out. I have seen a source that stated Walz dropped out of the Academy.

Once Walz either refused to attend the academy or dropped out, his promotion was terminated and he no longer had the right to be referred to as SGM or CSM.

Where are you sourcing the information in your post from? Link?

I have been reading a number of sources for two days. That was mostly off the top of my head. The Washington Post today reported that he did not revert to his previous rank until the day before he retired.

If you refuse to attend your slot at the Sergeant Major Academy (you will get a date to attend the Academy when you make the E9 list) you cannot be referred to as a SGM or CSM. If you accept your date to attend the SGM academy and then cannot complete the academy and graduate, you are still a E8 Master Sergeant. You aren’t a SGM or CSM until you graduate the academy.

Walz isn’t being truthful and clueless media is either covering up for him or ignorant themselves.

Walz knows better and is being allowed to lie about his military service because he is an elected official.

The Minnesota National Guard issued an official statement saying that Walz had served as a CSM and had the right to say that he had served as one.

But his rank was always E8 Master Sergeant. He never graduated from the Sergeant Major Academy in TX. He can say he served as a CSM temporarily but he never attained the rank of E9 SGM and retired as an E8 Master Sergeant. Saying Walz made the SGM list is the truth. Saying he served (for how long?) as a CSM is the truth. But saying he was a CSM is a lie and he’s lying. He either dropped out of the SGM academy or refused his slot.

Walz also said he carried a weapon in war. That’s not true, either.

Weirdos fixated on this trivia after it’s been explained remind me of the gun fetishists who have to engage in masturbatory discussion of every curve and line of each gun whenever kids get slaughtered and gun control is the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am standing by my post earlier saying to ignore the topic of period products in bathrooms. But, to put a final period on that discussion, here is the actual law:

Section 1. [121A.212] ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS.

A school district or charter school must provide students with access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF2497&session_year=2023&session_number=0&version=latest#:~:text=ACCESS%20TO%20MENSTRUAL%20PRODUCTS.

Note that the products are to be provided "in restrooms". Not "in all restrooms" and not "in boys restrooms". Of course all of us are shocked that the MAGA cultists have misrepresented this.

Are teachers and staff allowed to use the menstrual products? Is there an info on the pilferage rate? If I see a bin of tampons, what is to keep me from grabbing all that I need? Is the school giving unequal treatment to students by providing a product to menstruating people but not providing a hygiene product to non-menstruating people.

Don’t worry, there will be plenty of sanitary pads for the weirdos to put on their ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tim came with two strengths, sets Harris up as a moderate and as the more impressive member of the team.
None of the other possible picks could deliver on those two qualifications.

They’re both from deep blue states full of hippies and left wingers. Moderate where? Minnesota is practically Canada

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tim came with two strengths, sets Harris up as a moderate and as the more impressive member of the team.
None of the other possible picks could deliver on those two qualifications.

They’re both from deep blue states full of hippies and left wingers. Moderate where? Minnesota is practically Canada

Then the Republican ticket has absolutely nothing to worry about, and they'll totally crush it in November.