this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
482 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3474 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
 

Democratic vice presidential nominee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) blasted Republicans’ anti-LGBTQ+ policies — in particular, their **book-banning crusade and vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-OH) recent line about school shootings being a “fact of life” **— during his keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner on Saturday night.

Referencing GOP book bans against works like And Tango Makes Three, a children’s book about a penguin chick being raised by two male penguins, Walz said, “This is what these folks are focusing on. Like reading about two male penguins who love each other is somehow going to turn your children gay, and that’s what you should worry about.”

“But here’s what I’ll tell you,” he continued. “It’s a fact of life some people are gay, but you know what’s not a fact of life? That our children get shot dead in schools. That’s not a fact of life.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I wonder how Walz is going to square his obvious compassion and fairness with Gaza, when that day comes? I haven't heard a word about what he thinks there.

Not that it really matters, as the VP isn't the one making policy. But he doesn't strike me as a guy that just comes to terms with dead children as collateral damage, let alone whatever the fuck it is that Israel is getting away with there.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I would accept if VPWalz is completely mum on Gaza. We know the alternative is worse, and we don't want that single issue to get out there and allow cons to confuse voters.

Even if pressed, I hope he says something generic about caring for people's safety, without saying whom, and deals with it after we still have democracy.

People forget the alternative in this binary choice is super bad on that issue too, and can be easily swayed once it's out there.

Stick to the image for now, keep mum on the topics that'll enrage the belligerent invaders, and see if we can get the borders defined in Palestine's NATO bid. (I expect it will match the border iz had defined decades ago)

[–] andrew_bidlaw 5 points 1 week ago

I wonder what could have happened if he had announced he is against aid in that short window before the elections, how many power pro-Israeli lobby has to sink a man fast. I imagine, it can be twisted badly to hurt his and dem's chances at winning, and they avoid touching that topic at all for now, with a reasoning that they'd not be able to affect it at all if they lose. That's so if we assume they'd be dare to change the policies after they get there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I wouldn't suggest anyone to get into politics that can't come to terms with collateral damage

Of course, this was going to clash with his cuddledaddy image sometime