Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like this pick. He goes from a social studies teacher and high ranking army officer to public servant for the people if Minn. to candidate for VP of the USA.

Vance is an elite Yale law school weirdo funded by a really wealthy tech weirdo.

Walz was not a commissioned officer either. He rose through the ranks as an enlisted soldier.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Another old white guy.

He is 60.

60 is old imo. n
Idk. maybe that is just me, we can agree to disagree. I think he way too far left. I wanted someone who wasn't as far left. I will voting for Trump who is not too far left or right. Trump is now up +4 in PA after this pick. wow just wow this is hnews

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible choice. Republicans will brand him as an extreme leftist that is practically communist who wants to destroy the suburbs and tax everyone to death. Many swing state voters see MN as a very left leaning state politically and this will reinforce the idea that Harris is too far left for America.

This! +100....Too liberal. OMG if it were not for Trump and Roe I'd be voting Red for sure. This sucks for any moderates or independents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shapiro was the better pick. Would have gotten her PA.

But she would have lost Michigan in return as so so many Muslim voters there pissed at Biden for Gaza response….

Shapiro would have caused party infighting which is sad to see a Jewish politician as controversial…

Nobody complained about Bernie Sanders being Jewish. Please don't pull this card.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the problem with the average American who doesn’t follow a lot of politics. I didn’t know anything about him and saw his photos. My first thought “she picked an old white guy? We have the same thing again?” So I googled his age and thought 60 was a mistake. He doesn’t look 60.

The thing about Walz is that it takes about 30 seconds of paying attention to him to decide you would lay down your life for this decent man

He has three months to introduce himself to you - and I think you are going to like what you see

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible choice. Republicans will brand him as an extreme leftist that is practically communist who wants to destroy the suburbs and tax everyone to death. Many swing state voters see MN as a very left leaning state politically and this will reinforce the idea that Harris is too far left for America.

They brand everyone an extreme leftist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Another old white guy.

He’s basically GenX. Sure not young…

He was born in 64. That aint Gen X by any measure.

Pretty close. Baby Boomers are up to 64. Gen X starts in 65.

Wikipedia might say that but those of us actually Gen X (1972) pretty much consider '69 as the starting point.

Anonymous wrote:I like this pick. He goes from a social studies teacher and high ranking army officer to public servant for the people if Minn. to candidate for VP of the USA.

Vance is an elite Yale law school weirdo funded by a really wealthy tech weirdo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Another old white guy.

He’s basically GenX. Sure not young…

He was born in 64. That aint Gen X by any measure.

Pretty close. Baby Boomers are up to 64. Gen X starts in 65.

Wikipedia might say that but those of us actually Gen X (1972) pretty much consider '69 as the starting point.

I am actually Gen X (1969) and I agree with Wikipedia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Another old white guy.

He’s basically GenX. Sure not young…

He was born in 64. That aint Gen X by any measure.

Pretty close. Baby Boomers are up to 64. Gen X starts in 65.

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:Doofus that gets her no improved chances on the electoral map. Done to satisfy the fringe who probably won’t vote anyway.

Right?! Why didn’t she pick Shapiro and try to make a battle for PA? Did Shapiro not want it? Did the opposition research find stuff on him or Kelly? This is “meh” for me but maybe he’ll surprise us?

If she’s going to get PA, it will be on her own, she doesn’t need the state’s gov to carry the state. I like Shapiro a lot but his previous statements are a distraction in this current political environment. People have short memories though and who knows what the landscape will look like in ~10 years, when he’ll be 61 - a very normal age to run for pres. Plus I think he needs to stay as Gov longer - he’s only in his first term.

Given everything going on Israel right now, the dual loyalty thing could've totally splintered the Democrats and it will always haunt Shapiro given the IDF story. I say this as a Jew who knows the antisemitic tropes too well.

Not to mention creating a constitutional crisis if he ever had to serve in her stead as Commander in Chief.

Gross antisemitism on display. Same comment would not be said about other groups.

+1 This is the dual loyalty trope. It's antisemitism 101. Now that you know, please do better in the future.

But there is dual loyalty. Some Jewish people I know say they care more about Israel than the US. Not saying that is Shapiro but it is not uncommon. No way he can even pretend to be unbiased in Middle East politics

So why are you saying there is dual loyalty? I'd check myself if I were you.

Jew here. Jews have been the target of this since before Israel existed. Not always considered a citizen by the country they were born into and live in. The divided loyalty thing is definitely a long-running anti-semitic trope and Shapiro having volunteered in Israel and worse, on a military base plays right into it. All it takes is for someone to say, "You volunteered for the IDF and not your own military, why?" It's devastating because even if it's misleading, it paints him with suspicion rightly or wrongly and it will follow him for his career.

What do you think his answer would be? (Maybe he has, but I haven’t followed him at all.)

PP here. I don't think there is a good one. Maybe chalk it up to youthful idealism and emphasize the other volunteering work he did. But it won't go unnoticed that he didn't use that youthful idealism to serve his own country in any military capacity. That's also a classic anti-semitic trope (e.g., effete, urban intellectual). Kelly and Walz both served. That matters to more than a few folks.

For gd's sake, he didn't "serve" any country - he did summer camp IDF service. This was a very normal thing for Jewish kids to do in the 90s!

But who cares anymore because we got MY MAN WALZ!

Oh I get it. I didn't do my "birthright" trip even though I was given the opportunity. It doesn't matter what capacity he did this. If he then served in the U.S. military, then it would've probably gone a long way to mitigate this. But he didn't. The moment he has to start explaining or rationalizing what he did, he's already lost the plot. And there will be plenty of folks that will paint him as a "tool of Israel" or some other trope.

Anonymous wrote:This is a terrible choice. Republicans will brand him as an extreme leftist that is practically communist who wants to destroy the suburbs and tax everyone to death. Many swing state voters see MN as a very left leaning state politically and this will reinforce the idea that Harris is too far left for America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Another old white guy.

He’s basically GenX. Sure not young…

He was born in 64. That aint Gen X by any measure.

Pretty close. Baby Boomers are up to 64. Gen X starts in 65.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. Another old white guy.

He’s basically GenX. Sure not young…

He was born in 64. That aint Gen X by any measure.

Pretty close. Baby Boomers are up to 64. Gen X starts in 65.

Wikipedia might say that but those of us actually Gen X (1972) pretty much consider '69 as the starting point.