this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
1176 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3992 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Honest question, and probably one with an obvious answer, but this guy seems too good to be true at times - why hasn't he considered a run for president?

Similarly, I'm surprised that the attack line isn't to ask him both this, and to ask him if he endorses some of the less saintly things that Harris might have done in politics and prosecuting.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago

Because good people - the people who would make the best leaders, aren't narcissistic enough to believe they should run for president. They're happy helping in whatever way they can, but they generally don't have the audacity to think they have any business trying to run for the most powerful position in government. Partially because they're humble, but also they aren't in it for power, they just want to help people.

There's definitely a conversation to be had that the role of president should be one of humility and neighborliness, but there's a group of voters in America who just want somebody who can throw their dick around on the world stage and intimidate the rest of the world like a pro wrestler. And most politician types try to be both the helpful neighbor and pro wrestler, but end up seeming fake and not very genuine because usually both the macho and the neighborly aspects are an act, and they just want power.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think good people try to help those around them, they think more in terms on the local level, they want to be more hands on in helping and less about commanding militaries or directing a huge bureaucratic behemoth like the US government. That's for people with a lust for power for the sake of power or for building a legacy or whatever. I keep waiting for some sort of crack or bad thing to suddenly pop up about Walz and he just seems like a genuinely nice guy, it's kind of weird, but not in a Republican kind of way.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

please let "republican" be the new word for "awful" in common vernacular. Ex: "I need to take out my trash, its starting to smell republican"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

4 syllable words are very out of fashion, I don't think it can become slang.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I just say reds. People know.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Surprisingly not anymore. Probably thanks to the maga hats.

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

We can use "GOP" for the G.O.P. like Arrested Development.

https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/G.O.B.

"Look out for that dog GOP!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Brb, I have to go drop a big Republican in the toilet.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He didn't have the kind of national profile it takes to pull that off. He's not perfect either — just absolutely fabulous compared with somebody like Vance who seems determined to serve vampires.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even in the event that the article is talking about, he at least had some logic behind it

When Walz was elected a few months later, he did try to halt the pipeline’s development. Early in his first term, Walz continued a legal challenge from his predecessor’s administration against Line 3, which he continued until 2020.

But after that legal challenge was rejected, Walz declined to use his executive powers to stop the pipeline, and his administration approved key construction permits that allowed the pipeline to move forward. He told MinnPost in 2019 that he believed a unilateral decision “would violate principles of ‘checks and balances’ between the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.”

“If you fall on the side that says, ‘Well, the governor should just stop this; it’s the right thing to do,’ then you would be making the case that the next governor should just build one, without any environmental review, without any process involved,” Walz said at the time

Which I don't 100% agree with but at least see where he's coming from.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

While I 100% agree with his reasoning, I hate to point out that the next governor might not care much about precedence.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Honest question, and probably one with an obvious answer, but this guy seems too good to be true at times - why hasn’t he considered a run for president?

probably because kamala was the VP, walz is literally out of the middle of nowhere land midwestern US. The VP role is perfect for him, if this goes well, he might run for president afterwards.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As a potential VP he's somewhat in line of potential future presidents though, no?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't think good people actively seen major roles of power, at least not within govt .