She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An increasing number of media outlets are fact-checking Walz and finding an increasing number of fabrications:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/27/walz-ivf-national-guard-harris/74951463007/

Great! Now let's talk about Trump.

Reading is fundamental. How exactly did you miss the name “Tim” in the thread title?

dp.. the point is that walz's "lies" and embellishments are no where near the territory of Trump's, so really, nbd. All politicians embellish and lie to some degree. Walz is really no different from your standard politician; I'd actually say he's more honest than most.

But Trump? He's in his own league. But, you think people should be concerned over a few of Walz's embellishments? Um. ok.

Clearly, you are nitpicking and trying to find anything and everything that makes Walz look bad. But, the thing is, nothing, absolutely nothing in Walz' background compares to the shltshow that is Trump.

Pathetic attempt.

Thread is about Tim, idiot.

And we're saying who the F* cares about his "lies" when Trump's is x1000 worse, dumba$$.

[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:Walz was fact checked publicly by his own wife. Huge red flag.

Are you being sarcastic?

Walz faces criticism for misleading IVF language
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4842488-walz-infertility-treatment-misleading-statements/amp/

Earlier this week, would-be second lady Gwen Walz shared that she and her husband opted for intrauterine insemination (IUI) to deal with infertility, not in vitro fertilization (IVF) as some of the governor’s prior remarks and statements had erroneously suggested.

You are being obtuse.

Oh, well. Let's all ignore MAGAts tried to overthrow the govt, the fact that the GOP wants to do away with democracy and rights of women altogether all for their putrid pile of ORANGE dogsh*t and vote based on T H I S.

You are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Look at the kind of nonsense you're trying to use against him when your f***ing party wants women to have NO OPTIONS.

"Gee, I'm going to vote for the party that wants to do away with women's rights on rep. health incl. IVF, over THIS scandal!"

Walz being publicly fact checked by his wife is also really creepy because poor Mrs. Walz was forced to correct the record about something as personal as her fertility in front of America. Anyone who is married would be pissed about this. Anyone who is decent would be, too. Walz is bad news.

I admire her integrity for correcting his statements. I’m starting to wonder— maybe he does not even understand the difference? Or he wanted to garner more sympathy? Hard to know, but truly bizarre.

I think he probably figured most Americans even those who haven't dealt with infertility recognize the word IVF far more than can recognize IUI without looking it up. His entire role is relating to average Americans in an easy way

Yes. In addition anyone going through IUI understands that IVF would be the next step and would be fiercely protective of both procedures plus all the other infertility treatments.

The handwaving on this issue is really the most impressive I’ve ever seen. 9/10, at least.

Written like someone that knows little about going through infertility. It not a small community and these attacks against Walz for saying IVF and not IUI will never stick. All of these treatments are important threatening one threatens the entire community.

I know quite a bit about infertility, but thanks for assuming.
Of course they won’t stick, at least for the Dems. Their platform of JOY simply won’t allow it!

What treatments? Were they successful?

IUI unsuccessful; IVF successful.

wtf does this have to do with Walz?!?

The GOP is trying to make a thing about him saying IVF instead of IUI. It is nonsense. One often follows the other is IUI is not successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tucker smearing Tim sounds like he’s projecting about his own experiences during prep school.

And yet this doughy thing has no issue with his own support for someone who hung with literal human sex traffickers. Got it.

He cares so much about children, he supports someone Epstein had on speed dial. Psycho party of sickos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An increasing number of media outlets are fact-checking Walz and finding an increasing number of fabrications:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/27/walz-ivf-national-guard-harris/74951463007/

Great! Now let's talk about Trump.

Reading is fundamental. How exactly did you miss the name “Tim” in the thread title?

dp.. the point is that walz's "lies" and embellishments are no where near the territory of Trump's, so really, nbd. All politicians embellish and lie to some degree. Walz is really no different from your standard politician; I'd actually say he's more honest than most.

But Trump? He's in his own league. But, you think people should be concerned over a few of Walz's embellishments? Um. ok.

Clearly, you are nitpicking and trying to find anything and everything that makes Walz look bad. But, the thing is, nothing, absolutely nothing in Walz' background compares to the shltshow that is Trump.

Pathetic attempt.

Thread is about Tim, idiot.

The idiot would be a Trump supporter thinking their opinion means anything at all. You don’t get to point to whatever nonsense you think is a gotcha moment when you support a god damned RAPIST who hangs with sex traffickers and tried to overthrow the American government.

Do you have ANY self-awareness at all? Do you people understand you’re too disgraceful to criticize ANYONE?

[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:Walz was fact checked publicly by his own wife. Huge red flag.

Are you being sarcastic?

Walz faces criticism for misleading IVF language
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4842488-walz-infertility-treatment-misleading-statements/amp/

Earlier this week, would-be second lady Gwen Walz shared that she and her husband opted for intrauterine insemination (IUI) to deal with infertility, not in vitro fertilization (IVF) as some of the governor’s prior remarks and statements had erroneously suggested.

You are being obtuse.

Oh, well. Let's all ignore MAGAts tried to overthrow the govt, the fact that the GOP wants to do away with democracy and rights of women altogether all for their putrid pile of ORANGE dogsh*t and vote based on T H I S.

You are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Look at the kind of nonsense you're trying to use against him when your f***ing party wants women to have NO OPTIONS.

"Gee, I'm going to vote for the party that wants to do away with women's rights on rep. health incl. IVF, over THIS scandal!"

Walz being publicly fact checked by his wife is also really creepy because poor Mrs. Walz was forced to correct the record about something as personal as her fertility in front of America. Anyone who is married would be pissed about this. Anyone who is decent would be, too. Walz is bad news.

I admire her integrity for correcting his statements. I’m starting to wonder— maybe he does not even understand the difference? Or he wanted to garner more sympathy? Hard to know, but truly bizarre.

I think he probably figured most Americans even those who haven't dealt with infertility recognize the word IVF far more than can recognize IUI without looking it up. His entire role is relating to average Americans in an easy way

Yes. In addition anyone going through IUI understands that IVF would be the next step and would be fiercely protective of both procedures plus all the other infertility treatments.

The handwaving on this issue is really the most impressive I’ve ever seen. 9/10, at least.

Written like someone that knows little about going through infertility. It not a small community and these attacks against Walz for saying IVF and not IUI will never stick. All of these treatments are important threatening one threatens the entire community.

I know quite a bit about infertility, but thanks for assuming.
Of course they won’t stick, at least for the Dems. Their platform of JOY simply won’t allow it!

What treatments? Were they successful?

IUI unsuccessful; IVF successful.

wtf does this have to do with Walz?!?

The GOP is trying to make a thing about him saying IVF instead of IUI. It is nonsense. One often follows the other is IUI is not successful.

That is so not the point. The point is Republicans are talking about banning IVF, not IUI. He tried to make it look like a possibly soon to be banned procedure enabled him to have a family. Completely untrue.

[Anonymous]

My uncle tells people he lives in Denver..... but actually lives in Littleton. Because no one knows where the hell Littleton is and everyone knows where Denver is.

What a lying jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My uncle tells people he lives in Denver..... but actually lives in Littleton. Because no one knows where the hell Littleton is and everyone knows where Denver is.

What a lying jerk.

Is he doing it to score political points and garner sympathy? If not, your story is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

So “mind your own damn business” doesn’t meant to Walz what he said https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-bans-marijuana-smoking-apartments.amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So “mind your own damn business” doesn’t meant to Walz what he said https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-bans-marijuana-smoking-apartments.amp

How is producing second hand smoke minding your own business? Smoke you weed away from other folks ..problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My uncle tells people he lives in Denver..... but actually lives in Littleton. Because no one knows where the hell Littleton is and everyone knows where Denver is.

What a lying jerk.

Is he doing it to score political points and garner sympathy? If not, your story is irrelevant.

DP but it’s not. NOBODY goes into the weeds on stuff when they’re talking to strangers. You’re an energy vampire IRL, aren’t you? Drop it already.

[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:Walz was fact checked publicly by his own wife. Huge red flag.

Are you being sarcastic?

Walz faces criticism for misleading IVF language
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4842488-walz-infertility-treatment-misleading-statements/amp/

Earlier this week, would-be second lady Gwen Walz shared that she and her husband opted for intrauterine insemination (IUI) to deal with infertility, not in vitro fertilization (IVF) as some of the governor’s prior remarks and statements had erroneously suggested.

You are being obtuse.

Oh, well. Let's all ignore MAGAts tried to overthrow the govt, the fact that the GOP wants to do away with democracy and rights of women altogether all for their putrid pile of ORANGE dogsh*t and vote based on T H I S.

You are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Look at the kind of nonsense you're trying to use against him when your f***ing party wants women to have NO OPTIONS.

"Gee, I'm going to vote for the party that wants to do away with women's rights on rep. health incl. IVF, over THIS scandal!"

Walz being publicly fact checked by his wife is also really creepy because poor Mrs. Walz was forced to correct the record about something as personal as her fertility in front of America. Anyone who is married would be pissed about this. Anyone who is decent would be, too. Walz is bad news.

I admire her integrity for correcting his statements. I’m starting to wonder— maybe he does not even understand the difference? Or he wanted to garner more sympathy? Hard to know, but truly bizarre.

I think he probably figured most Americans even those who haven't dealt with infertility recognize the word IVF far more than can recognize IUI without looking it up. His entire role is relating to average Americans in an easy way

Yes. In addition anyone going through IUI understands that IVF would be the next step and would be fiercely protective of both procedures plus all the other infertility treatments.

The handwaving on this issue is really the most impressive I’ve ever seen. 9/10, at least.

Written like someone that knows little about going through infertility. It not a small community and these attacks against Walz for saying IVF and not IUI will never stick. All of these treatments are important threatening one threatens the entire community.

I know quite a bit about infertility, but thanks for assuming.
Of course they won’t stick, at least for the Dems. Their platform of JOY simply won’t allow it!

What treatments? Were they successful?

IUI unsuccessful; IVF successful.

wtf does this have to do with Walz?!?

The GOP is trying to make a thing about him saying IVF instead of IUI. It is nonsense. One often follows the other is IUI is not successful.

That is so not the point. The point is Republicans are talking about banning IVF, not IUI. He tried to make it look like a possibly soon to be banned procedure enabled him to have a family. Completely untrue.

What exactly is the difference when it comes to GOP policy? What I mean is, what is the point in trying to rationalize what the GOP is trying to do to women’s reproductive health. NOTHING should be up to the govt when it comes to a woman’s health. Not IVF, IUI or anything else.

In what first world country are women bleeding out in parking lots due to the govt? In Ireland, that was enough to change the law. In America, the Republicans think that isn’t enough suffering for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An increasing number of media outlets are fact-checking Walz and finding an increasing number of fabrications:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/27/walz-ivf-national-guard-harris/74951463007/

Great! Now let's talk about Trump.

Reading is fundamental. How exactly did you miss the name “Tim” in the thread title?

dp.. the point is that walz's "lies" and embellishments are no where near the territory of Trump's, so really, nbd. All politicians embellish and lie to some degree. Walz is really no different from your standard politician; I'd actually say he's more honest than most.

But Trump? He's in his own league. But, you think people should be concerned over a few of Walz's embellishments? Um. ok.

Clearly, you are nitpicking and trying to find anything and everything that makes Walz look bad. But, the thing is, nothing, absolutely nothing in Walz' background compares to the shltshow that is Trump.

Pathetic attempt.

Thread is about Tim, idiot.

And we're saying who the F* cares about his "lies" when Trump's is x1000 worse, dumba$$.

Whataboutism:

logical fallacy

Whataboutism or whataboutery is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern, which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic.

Looks like you are the dumba$$, PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An increasing number of media outlets are fact-checking Walz and finding an increasing number of fabrications:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/27/walz-ivf-national-guard-harris/74951463007/

Great! Now let's talk about Trump.

Reading is fundamental. How exactly did you miss the name “Tim” in the thread title?

dp.. the point is that walz's "lies" and embellishments are no where near the territory of Trump's, so really, nbd. All politicians embellish and lie to some degree. Walz is really no different from your standard politician; I'd actually say he's more honest than most.

But Trump? He's in his own league. But, you think people should be concerned over a few of Walz's embellishments? Um. ok.

Clearly, you are nitpicking and trying to find anything and everything that makes Walz look bad. But, the thing is, nothing, absolutely nothing in Walz' background compares to the shltshow that is Trump.

Pathetic attempt.

Thread is about Tim, idiot.

And we're saying who the F* cares about his "lies" when Trump's is x1000 worse, dumba$$.

Whataboutism:

logical fallacy

Whataboutism or whataboutery is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern, which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic.

Looks like you are the dumba$$, PP

Someone learned a big word. You have two choices for this election, genius. Comparing the two is how elections work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An increasing number of media outlets are fact-checking Walz and finding an increasing number of fabrications:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/27/walz-ivf-national-guard-harris/74951463007/

Great! Now let's talk about Trump.

Reading is fundamental. How exactly did you miss the name “Tim” in the thread title?

dp.. the point is that walz's "lies" and embellishments are no where near the territory of Trump's, so really, nbd. All politicians embellish and lie to some degree. Walz is really no different from your standard politician; I'd actually say he's more honest than most.

But Trump? He's in his own league. But, you think people should be concerned over a few of Walz's embellishments? Um. ok.

Clearly, you are nitpicking and trying to find anything and everything that makes Walz look bad. But, the thing is, nothing, absolutely nothing in Walz' background compares to the shltshow that is Trump.

Pathetic attempt.

Thread is about Tim, idiot.

And we're saying who the F* cares about his "lies" when Trump's is x1000 worse, dumba$$.

Whataboutism:

logical fallacy

Whataboutism or whataboutery is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern, which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic.

Looks like you are the dumba$$, PP

Someone learned a big word. You have two choices for this election, genius. Comparing the two is how elections work.

A lot of gibberish on their part just to try and stupidly pretend they have a normal candidate. We're supposed to just ignore they've nominated (once again) a convicted rapist who hates American democracy and proves it every day. I'm supposed to be more upset that Walz said something about IVF/IUI (like it means anything since he believes in protecting BOTH), while Trump tells his feedlot they won't have to worry about voting again because he'll fix it.

If Walz has some baggage, Trump is every f***ing airport carousel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tucker smearing Tim sounds like he’s projecting about his own experiences during prep school.

This is the trial balloon for an October surprise that Republicans will drop. They are up to something.