this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
297 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4553 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Going through his wiki page:

Nebraska and Minnesota national guard for 24 years, leaving with rank command sergeant major. 1981-2004. "Walz attained the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service,[23] but retired as a master sergeant".

Social studies teacher and football coach while in national guard.

Member of US house of Reps for 12 years. 2007-2019.

Governor of Minnesota for 5 years, 2019 to now.

Voting record:

Walz opposed President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.[34] In his first week as a legislator, Walz cosponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage, voted for stem cell research, voted to allow Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical prices, and voiced support for pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new spending or tax changes not add to the federal deficit.[35]

Even as he represented a district that had usually voted Republican, pundits described Walz's policy positions as ranging from moderate to liberal.[36] He voted against the act to Prohibit Federally Funded Abortion Services[37] and to advance the Affordable Care Act out of the House.[38] He also voted to continue funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,[39] and against the 2008 TARP bill, which purchased troubled assets from financial institutions.[40]

Political positions:

Legal weed for Minnesota.

Against 2008 bailouts. For American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

On education said that the most important thing to do "to ensure a solid base for [America's] economic future … is to provide the best education possible for [American] children."[93]

Pro gun rights. Doesn't seem to like NRA.

Labor: Walz signed a law banning captive [anti-union] audience meetings and non-compete clauses.[104][105] The law also mandated paid sick leave for employees and increased safety inspections, as well as ergonomics requirements to reduce the risk of repetitive strain injuries

Pro lgbtq. Banned conversion therapy.

Gaza. Of the protests against U.S. funding of the war in Gaza, Walz said: "This issue is a humanitarian crisis. They have every right to be heard... These folks are asking for a change in course, they're asking for more pressure to be put on… You can hold competing things: that Israel has the right to defend itself, and the atrocities of October 7 are unacceptable, but Palestinian civilians being caught in this… has got to end." Walz also said he supports a ceasefire in Gaza.[104]

Served on Veterans committee while a house rep.

Abortion: Walz supports abortion rights,[89] and has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.[41] The National Right to Life Committee gave him a rating of zero.[41

[–] sh00g@lemmy.zip 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Other notable additions from Wikipedia:

"Walz received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2012, from the American Civil Liberties Union in 2011, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2009–2010, from the AFL-CIO in 2010, from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in 2009–2010, and from the National Organization for Women in 2007."

And:

"Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."

In other words, Walz seems to be a champion of progressive ideals while also being more than willing to work with those across the aisle. This is a great thing for swaying independent voters.

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

looks good, looks good

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tim Waltz is among the first to start the time honored tradition of young, intelligent people fleeing Nebraska for more liberal states.

Honestly if I could move to Minnesota I would too.

[–] ChillPenguin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're always welcome. We'll keep some tator tot hotdish waiting for you.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Don't know what that is exactly but it's obviously delicious

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

Let's fucking GOOOOOOOOO!!

So happy about this! Great fucking choice for progressives.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago

Everybody's favorite uncle VS. Everybody's crazy uncle.

[–] bquintb@midwest.social 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

THE WALZ JUST GOT 10 FT HIGHER

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

If you're in a swing state like me you better be making plans with all your demonrats. We need to flood the streets before the man-things vote-vote our rights away.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As much as I would have liked to see her make a strategic pick who could help her win an at risk state like Arizona or Pennsylvania, he has less baggage than Shapiro.

I think too, there's strategy in a non-strategic pick. The cynics would have said "Oh, she only picked Shapiro because she needs Pennsylvania" or "Yeah, yeah, he's an astronaut, but she wants Arizona".

In this case? I think he's going to be a delight to watch. He'll devastate Vance in the debate.

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah I think thats right. I read recently that a VP pick being from a given state doesn't help with the vote; meaning you don't get the state your VP is from. Hasn't happened since the 60s or some such. At most a 1% bump, which aint nothin, but it aint the game either.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago

I think he's going to be a delight to watch. He'll devastate Vance in the debate.

If the chickenshit Vance doesn't duck out of the debate, that is. The weirdos are scared.

[–] Branch_Ranch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

HARRI BALZ 2024

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A bunch of people just made OUT on the betting markets. I would have bet on him, too, and I should have.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

This is one of the dumbest comments I've read in a while. Imagine one of your first comments to this news being how you missed out on a chance to monetarily profit from it.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

Reuters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Reuters:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/kamala-harris-picks-minnesotas-tim-walz-vice-president-sources-tell-reuters-2024-08-06/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support