Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if they are not investing their money, where is it going?

Well let’s see, for decades they were both teachers who don’t make much money. They needed IVF to have their kids, and one of them has a learning disability. Sent both kids to college. He was in Congress where you need to maintain a place to stay here as well as your residence. Now he’s the Governor. Not sure they really ever had a lot of extra money. But I’m sure we’ll find out more when we see their tax returns.

Yeah this sounds like most people I know. Other poster is in a sweet bubble.

I’m a bit worried about his money management skills, honestly. Time will tell, I guess.

This isn’t helping the socialist/commie accusations. Not owning a home at 60+ as a current governor is embarrassing. He was former military so there’s no excuse to not owning a home.

He’s cheap

DP. He sold his home. He is the real deal—a public servant, a leader, a National Guardsman, and someone who cares about people. That money and property ownership may not matter that much to him is admirable. Having said that, if and when he wants to write a book or whatever, he will quickly have more money than pretty much anyone posting here. Tim Walz will be vp and, eventually, president. He will take this country to a better place.

Ok but my money better matter to this loony socialist. When I am 60, I don’t want to be broke like he is.

Broke, I doubt he’s broke. Military pension check guaranteed. State or county government teacher pension check guaranteed. Federal congressional pension guaranteed. Wife’s state pension guaranteed. If that’s broke, 85% of the world would take it. Check.

Young people don't know what a pension is because guys like Trump and Vance got rid of them and made workers less secure; subjecting them to the tender mercies of the stock market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting the trans issue aside, there is a subset of voters who believe the government should provide period products to all women.

IMO, providing it to public schools is a baby step towards a nanny government where people expect all their basic needs to be handed to them without any effort on their part.

This is why the Harris/Walz ticket scares me. It’s a small baby step towards bigger and bigger bloated government.

What is wrong with you? THIS is an issue for you? Removing sexist barriers the affect poor girls and young women? Because you’re afraid of . . . What exactly? Shame on you.

It’s the same kind of person as found on the DCUM school forums complaining about the existence of free breakfast/lunch because their own kid will occasionally eat the school lunch (which those posters call “garbage”) instead of their packed lunch. No empathy at all for kids who may have those free breakfasts/lunches as their only reliable meals.

It's the lack of empathy across the board that's so disturbing. And often from so-called Christians.

yep. Jesus would have fed everyone without shaming someone for not taking "personal responsibility"

+1 I don't get the nastiness and lack of generosity I hear from people who call themselves Christians.

They're Prosperity Gospel Christians.

Camel, eye of the needle -- not their thing.

I've got a neighbor with an incredible tool set and, whenever you ask to borrow one, he not only agrees but also volunteers to help you with the project.

Pretty sure Tim Walz is that guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if they are not investing their money, where is it going?

Well let’s see, for decades they were both teachers who don’t make much money. They needed IVF to have their kids, and one of them has a learning disability. Sent both kids to college. He was in Congress where you need to maintain a place to stay here as well as your residence. Now he’s the Governor. Not sure they really ever had a lot of extra money. But I’m sure we’ll find out more when we see their tax returns.

Yeah this sounds like most people I know. Other poster is in a sweet bubble.

I’m a bit worried about his money management skills, honestly. Time will tell, I guess.

This isn’t helping the socialist/commie accusations. Not owning a home at 60+ as a current governor is embarrassing. He was former military so there’s no excuse to not owning a home.

He’s cheap

DP. He sold his home. He is the real deal—a public servant, a leader, a National Guardsman, and someone who cares about people. That money and property ownership may not matter that much to him is admirable. Having said that, if and when he wants to write a book or whatever, he will quickly have more money than pretty much anyone posting here. Tim Walz will be vp and, eventually, president. He will take this country to a better place.

Ok but my money better matter to this loony socialist. When I am 60, I don’t want to be broke like he is.

Broke, I doubt he’s broke. Military pension check guaranteed. State or county government teacher pension check guaranteed. Federal congressional pension guaranteed. Wife’s state pension guaranteed. If that’s broke, 85% of the world would take it. Check.

Anonymous wrote:New favorite:

Tim Walz is the guy who mows your lawn when you break your leg. JD Vance is the one who reports your overgrown lawn to the HOA.

Tim Walz is the guy who drives you to the hospital after JD Vance gives you a roofie

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Imagine thinking that mocking a governor who is providing feminine hygiene products for (low income) students so they don't have the extra burden of blood-stained clothing, is some sort of "own"?

Who in the hell could support such an insidious, selfish, hateful political party as the GOP? And I don't even care if you hate the Dems, but the GOP is just scummy. [/quote]

I think it’s that he’s putting menstrual products in the boys’ room that’s an issue, not free menstrual products. Doesn’t anyone have common sense now?[/quote]
The bill he signed basically stated that the schools were required to have the products in all the bathrooms. Some schools took it literally and placed them in the boys bathroom to be in compliance with th word “all”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if they are not investing their money, where is it going?

I am not sure this is accurate. If this is the government financial
Disclosure required of many federal employees, it is not a true reflection of your assets. You do not have to report your primary home, mutual or ETF funds that are in smorgasbord baskets such as S&P 500 or Total Stock Markets. You don’t have to report 457 or 401k. You do have to report target specific ETF’s such as ITA or XLE. And you definitely have to report individual stocks at a value of a certain level. So basically, this might not be an accurate portrayal of his assets.

He has no home because they sold it. He likely has good savings, and the pension is probably substantial. I am not sure why this bothers people. Looks like someone who keeps their finances simple and in order and spends within their means. It's the opposite of Trump who is terrible with money and in debt.

So true!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if they are not investing their money, where is it going?

I am not sure this is accurate. If this is the government financial
Disclosure required of many federal employees, it is not a true reflection of your assets. You do not have to report your primary home, mutual or ETF funds that are in smorgasbord baskets such as S&P 500 or Total Stock Markets. You don’t have to report 457 or 401k. You do have to report target specific ETF’s such as ITA or XLE. And you definitely have to report individual stocks at a value of a certain level. So basically, this might not be an accurate portrayal of his assets.

He has no home because they sold it. He likely has good savings, and the pension is probably substantial. I am not sure why this bothers people. Looks like someone who keeps their finances simple and in order and spends within their means. It's the opposite of Trump who is terrible with money and in debt.

Anonymous wrote:New favorite:

Tim Walz is the guy who mows your lawn when you break your leg. JD Vance is the one who reports your overgrown lawn to the HOA.

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting the trans issue aside, there is a subset of voters who believe the government should provide period products to all women.

IMO, providing it to public schools is a baby step towards a nanny government where people expect all their basic needs to be handed to them without any effort on their part.

This is why the Harris/Walz ticket scares me. It’s a small baby step towards bigger and bigger bloated government.

What is wrong with you? THIS is an issue for you? Removing sexist barriers the affect poor girls and young women? Because you’re afraid of . . . What exactly? Shame on you.

My point flew right over your head; you are so triggered by anyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with you.

Multiple people here have had the same reaction, so maybe you need to articulate it better. Why does providing supplies to kids in school bother you? Are you also mad about free breakfast/lunch at school? I know that’s also an issue for some on the right. What sort of work do you think poor kids should be doing to have their basic needs met in order to focus on school?

I have no problem with feeding the hungry and providing basic necessities, never intended to say that.

I do have a problem with encouraging people to not take personal responsibility— again I am not talking about period products themselves, but where this will lead.

Thank you for not flying off the handle, lol.

Kids CAN'T take person responsibility for providing their own food and menstrual products, when their parents don't or are unable to. Are you suggesting we make sure the kids are punished for the failings of the parents, or is the answer to take them out of school and send them to work instead of getting an education?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting the trans issue aside, there is a subset of voters who believe the government should provide period products to all women.

IMO, providing it to public schools is a baby step towards a nanny government where people expect all their basic needs to be handed to them without any effort on their part.

This is why the Harris/Walz ticket scares me. It’s a small baby step towards bigger and bigger bloated government.

It sounds like you’re extrapolating from “let’s remove barriers to education for kids” to “everyone will now expect to have basic needs handed to them without effort.” What sort of effort are you wanting kids to make? Should kids be punished for being unlucky enough to have poor parents?

Just one more way to keep girls and poor people - and especially poor girls - in their place

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if they are not investing their money, where is it going?

I am not sure this is accurate. If this is the government financial
Disclosure required of many federal employees, it is not a true reflection of your assets. You do not have to report your primary home, mutual or ETF funds that are in smorgasbord baskets such as S&P 500 or Total Stock Markets. You don’t have to report 457 or 401k. You do have to report target specific ETF’s such as ITA or XLE. And you definitely have to report individual stocks at a value of a certain level. So basically, this might not be an accurate portrayal of his assets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting the trans issue aside, there is a subset of voters who believe the government should provide period products to all women.

IMO, providing it to public schools is a baby step towards a nanny government where people expect all their basic needs to be handed to them without any effort on their part.

This is why the Harris/Walz ticket scares me. It’s a small baby step towards bigger and bigger bloated government.

What is wrong with you? THIS is an issue for you? Removing sexist barriers the affect poor girls and young women? Because you’re afraid of . . . What exactly? Shame on you.

My point flew right over your head; you are so triggered by anyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with you.

Multiple people here have had the same reaction, so maybe you need to articulate it better. Why does providing supplies to kids in school bother you? Are you also mad about free breakfast/lunch at school? I know that’s also an issue for some on the right. What sort of work do you think poor kids should be doing to have their basic needs met in order to focus on school?

I have no problem with feeding the hungry and providing basic necessities, never intended to say that.

I do have a problem with encouraging people to not take personal responsibility— again I am not talking about period products themselves, but where this will lead.

Thank you for not flying off the handle, lol.

It's a slipper slope, right?

DP. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy taught in the introductory philosophy course that most of us had to take in order to earn a college degree. I wish they taught these things in high school. We would all be better off if the average citizen could recognize this and the other logical fallacies fed to us by the media.

If kids scam me into having me pay for their food when, somehow, they didn't deserve it; I'm kind of o.k. with that.

"Oh, no! They duped me into feeding kids! I'm such a chump!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting the trans issue aside, there is a subset of voters who believe the government should provide period products to all women.

IMO, providing it to public schools is a baby step towards a nanny government where people expect all their basic needs to be handed to them without any effort on their part.

This is why the Harris/Walz ticket scares me. It’s a small baby step towards bigger and bigger bloated government.

What is wrong with you? THIS is an issue for you? Removing sexist barriers the affect poor girls and young women? Because you’re afraid of . . . What exactly? Shame on you.

My point flew right over your head; you are so triggered by anyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with you.

Multiple people here have had the same reaction, so maybe you need to articulate it better. Why does providing supplies to kids in school bother you? Are you also mad about free breakfast/lunch at school? I know that’s also an issue for some on the right. What sort of work do you think poor kids should be doing to have their basic needs met in order to focus on school?

I have no problem with feeding the hungry and providing basic necessities, never intended to say that.

I do have a problem with encouraging people to not take personal responsibility— again I am not talking about period products themselves, but where this will lead.

Thank you for not flying off the handle, lol.

It's a slipper slope, right?