She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

They are both artificial fertility treatments. WTF are you serious.

And they can’t force team IUI with abortion as easily. Duh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is ridiculous to think that being a high school sports coach prepares in any way to serve as a VP.

Lately I've been watching some political shows like "Madam Secretary ". It is striking that in real life we can't expect even remotely the level of competence exhibited by those characters. Sadly, the show writers would make a better ticket than the current shameful offering.

What a bizarre interpretation. His 6 years as governor and 12 years in the House make his eminently more qualified than, say, JD Vance. His coaching and teaching experience are nice bonuses that speak to his interpersonal skills and commitment to service.

He’s more qualified than Mike Pence and WAY more qualified than JD Vance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

I don’t like the fact that he lied about which procedure he had to score political points. But that’s just me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

I don’t like the fact that he lied about which procedure he had to score political points. But that’s just me.

Consider a poll. Ask random people if they know what IUI stands for. Then ask them what IVF stands for. It's *normal* to use stand-in terminology when communicating, so as to not end up in the weeds. Normal people know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

I don’t like the fact that he lied about which procedure he had to score political points. But that’s just me.

Consider a poll. Ask random people if they know what IUI stands for. Then ask them what IVF stands for. It's *normal* to use stand-in terminology when communicating, so as to not end up in the weeds. Normal people know this.

Also, there are no political points. Who is deciding whether to vote for someone on the basis of the technology they used to have children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

I don’t like the fact that he lied about which procedure he had to score political points. But that’s just me.

Consider a poll. Ask random people if they know what IUI stands for. Then ask them what IVF stands for. It's *normal* to use stand-in terminology when communicating, so as to not end up in the weeds. Normal people know this.

I don’t care about your “normal” people. I care about me. And I see what he did, and I don’t like it. You may love it. That’s the beauty of this country. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

I don’t like the fact that he lied about which procedure he had to score political points. But that’s just me.

Consider a poll. Ask random people if they know what IUI stands for. Then ask them what IVF stands for. It's *normal* to use stand-in terminology when communicating, so as to not end up in the weeds. Normal people know this.

I don’t care about your “normal” people. I care about me. And I see what he did, and I don’t like it. You may love it. That’s the beauty of this country. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Me, me, me. Fine, vote for the man who no doubt has paid for more than a couple abortions and doesn’t give a damn about anyone who struggles with fertility. Your hyperfocus and indignation is truly weird.

[Anonymous]

Walz has been lying nonstop throughout his career. And now people are bringing the receipts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walz has been lying nonstop throughout his career. And now people are bringing the receipts.

+1 His own wife brought this receipt. His wife definitely didn’t like her fertility struggle lied about publicly by her husband for political capital and votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed, but I read that even though he said he wouldn’t have a family if there was no IVF, they didn’t actually conceive using IVF - they used IUI. Totally different.

It’s been discussed and it’s a stupid thing to nit pick over. Most people don’t know what IUI is and unless you have zero social skills, you’re not going to explain it every time you discuss it.

Of course if it’s your candidate it’s stupid to nit pick over. The guy lied. He didn’t use IVF, but said he did to score political points. Own it.

Are you really this stupid, or just troll a lot online.

I am smart enough to know that IUI and IVF are two completely different procedures. So there’s that.

Why do you want to know exactly which artificial tube a guy's sperm was put through, you freak?

Because fertilizing an egg outside the body is completely different from fertilizing one inside the body. You freak.

Are you going to treat both of them the same morally, or is one going to be treated differently, you silly pedant?

If you think taking a pipette and inserting sperm into a woman’s uterus is no different than giving her drugs to stimulate the ovaries, putting her under and harvesting the eggs when they’re ready, injecting the egg with sperm in a lab, waiting until they divide enough to be implanted, choosing the best ones, freezing the rest, and then going back in and implanting the embryo in the woman’s uterus, then there is literally no rational conversation to be had here. None.

Yeah, so again, are you going to treat the fertilized products of these conceptions the same, or ... ?

They’re both babies. I don’t see your point. Are the republicans trying to ban IUI specifically?

Anyone?

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 (and similar) has problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology (and others, such as surrogacy, but that's not part of the discussion here). Fertility treatments that only deal with sperm, such as artificial insemination and intrauterine insemination (IUI) do not fall under this definition.

Thank you. That was my point. This makes Walz claiming he went through IVF even more egregious. And yet the Dems are hand waving it away.

PP who gave you the information you asked for. I believe his point is that his family's struggles with having children makes him a strong defender of reproductive rights, including allowing people to have children through assisted reproductive technology. There is nothing egregious about his claims; which you would know if you ever struggled to have a child.

More to the point, no one is saying 'OMG, the Walzes only needed IUI for having babies, so I'm not voting for Walz'.

I don’t like the fact that he lied about which procedure he had to score political points. But that’s just me.

Consider a poll. Ask random people if they know what IUI stands for. Then ask them what IVF stands for. It's *normal* to use stand-in terminology when communicating, so as to not end up in the weeds. Normal people know this.

I don’t care about your “normal” people. I care about me. And I see what he did, and I don’t like it. You may love it. That’s the beauty of this country. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Thanks for finally admitting that you’re not normal.

[Anonymous]

The pettiness is amazing.

A woman who works for the Heartland Institute (lobby for fossil fuels, tobacco and nicotine products, anti-climate science) has lit on a book published by the Minnesota Military and Veteran Museum in connection with the 20th anniversary of 9/11. It includes speeches by people who spoke at a Day of Remembrance event at the MN capitol on 9/11/21. The book's version of Walz's speech quotes him describing seeing a flag-draped casket in a plane at Bagram Air Base in Iraq. The gotcha is that the base is in Afghanistan.

Except. . . someone wrote this version of the speech, which is slightly different than the one he actually gave (the whole ceremony is on youtube) in which he just refers to the tarmac at Bagram, doesn't say air base, doesn' say the country.
It's . . . errata. Which happens.

It appears there are conservatives scouring every damn thing they can find to catch him in a "lie."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is ridiculous to think that being a high school sports coach prepares in any way to serve as a VP.

Lately I've been watching some political shows like "Madam Secretary ". It is striking that in real life we can't expect even remotely the level of competence exhibited by those characters. Sadly, the show writers would make a better ticket than the current shameful offering.

Yelensky was a TV comedian and he seems to be handling his job ok.

And Walz has done a lot more than coaching (which, fwiw, involves guiding a team and motivating them, which is a useful skill in political leadership)