politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The republicans at a loss on how to attack this guy and he is just rolling them and their ideas. Kamala must be thrilled.
Vance is attempting to attack him for "stolen valor," implying Walz retired from his 20 year service (as a Sergeant Major) just before the war in Iraq happened, calling Walz a coward.
Let's ask Donald Trump where he was when the US issued the draft for Vietnam.
The response to which is to tell people Vance is lying about how the military works. Leadership changes over rather frequently in a unit. His time was up and it was either get a new sgm slot in a different place or retire. The choice to deploy with the unit wasn't there.
https://x.com/StationCDRKelly/status/1821329527429329315
Yeah. Us veterans need to come out hard. Every time the GOP swift boats someone it cheapens all of us.
There is currently a minor attack about his, (long ago), DUI with a photo of his mugshot. But the man has long publicly owned up to it. And he learned his lesson from it and no longer drinks alcohol at all.
In fact, he signed a bill that allows for purging of certain legal records for others due to his experience in life.
she looked very happy when he was speaking at the events. he's very good at stump speeches so he kind of makes up for her in that regard. she's not that bad either by the way; much better than she used to be 4 years ago that's for sure. but he has a certain extra energy in his speeches that upstages her a bit, but i don't think in a bad way.
It's funny that they were worried about Shapiro being chosen. They seemed to be relieved she went with Walz. But I thought I saw Shapiro had a former aide that was accused of sexually harassment. I wonder if that's part of the reason he wasn't chosen, Republicans would be able to use that against him.
Yeah, I don't know of anything specific, but the vibes I got from the days leading up to the decision (and then the decision itself), was that they found dirt, or at least something the right would turn into "dirt," while vetting Shapiro.
I've got basically nothing to back that up, just the impression that I got.