Weird Walz has nothing to say
- Thread starter SOpirate
- Start date
I think Harris is qualified from a resume perspective (DA, AG, Senator, VP). Certainly not anything else.
again, the candidate you are voting for was the original unqualified candidate. for a much bigger office. this guy has held different govt offices. and im assuming 90% of here voted for a completely unqualified trump the first time too. guess its a big deal when it's a position that matters less than almost any.
Endless talk from the MSNBC crew on this board about Trump’s alleged paperwork crimes yet nothing about Tim Walz driving 95mph in a 55mph zone with a .128 BAC and then lying about it for decades. Can’t say I’m surprised though.
It was 30 years ago. His campaign when he was running for congress did lie about in 20 years ago, but this was already out when he ran for governor 6 years ago.
If he had had a pattern of behavior that suggested he was still driving while intoxicated, that would be an issue but it was 30 years ago... It's just not that significant of an issue at this point.
It’s a reflection of character, regardless of when it happened. There is never an excuse to drink and drive, let alone drink and drive recklessly. Only selfish and reckless POS get behind the wheel when they are hammered, putting the lives of others in danger.
Nobody has ever died as the result of a “falsified business record” People are killed everyday by drunk drivers. Disqualifying for any candidate for executive office.
Conversely if the Republican VP candidate had been convicted of drunk driving we’d be hearing about it non stop from the mainstream media. Yet barely a word about it when it’s a Dem.
Last edited:
Did you vote for Bush/Cheney?
3 DUI's between those two.
It's not disqualifying. People make mistakes. The question is if they learned from them or not.
If people break the law, they should be held accountable. That goes for a DUI or falsifying business records.
Wasn’t old enough to vote for Bush and glad I don’t have that on my conscience.
The amount of hypocrisy it takes to dismiss Walz drunk driving as a “lesson learned” while claiming Trump’s conviction over paperwork error is disqualifying is staggering.
Not implying that’s where you stand, but plenty of people (including some on this board) do.
I don't think falsifying business records is disqualifying. I think there should be a legal consequence though, just like getting a DUI.
I don't care who you choose to vote for, but either way you're going to hold your nose and vote for the person who likely did things that would have "disqualified" them if they ran on the opposite ticket - like republicans who really cared about Hillary's mishandling of classified documents but giving Trump a pass.
Go with whoever you feel will better for the country, but neither side is really going to win the moral high ground arguments.
I think Walz is qualified based on his executive experience as a governor.
Trump is qualified now as a former president but he wasn't in 2016.
Harris and Vance are not qualified.
The above is not based on policy.
There is no morality today in politics.That's one of the primary reasons the best people no longer go into it.The profession is filled with activists and successful entrepreneurs/business people looking for the next challenge/ego boost.
Not for anything but DWI is not a crime. Quasi-criminal at best. Trump has committed felony crimes. Your excuse of paper work crime would excuse every white collar crime that has ever occurred including Madoff. Hey. It’s only a paper crime.
No. unless there was an accident that resulted in a death someone was injured. That felony is handled in Superior Court. DWI's are handled in municipal court and are considered quasi-criminal.
Except Trump is not Bernie Madoff, and as far as I’m aware there are no victims of the “crime” he was convicted of in New York.
I can’t believe anyone would debate the depravity of drunk driving. Every drunk driver willingly puts the lives of others at risk. Especially one who drives 95 in a 55.
But hey, at least it’s only quasi-criminal, right?
No one is.
It's the suggestion that a person can not learn from a dumb decision 30 years prior that seems off.
He's lucky he didn't hurt someone (and would not be on the ticket if he did) but it is something he can learn from and appears he did.
dont know what this is but seems like a term you can throw out when you have absolutely no answer. a white flag if you will.
I don’t agree with the characterization that it’s just a dumb decision. Drunk driving is making a conscious choice to endanger the lives of others. It gets minimized too often. I hope Walz learned his lesson, but he is running to be Vice President. At some point there needs to be a line drawn.
Indeed and we'll dance around it depending on which party your rooting for.
I think intentionally mishandling classified documents, or watching your supporters breach the capital and do nothing to tell them to turn back are far worse than a DUI from 30 years ago as it relates to the qualifications for this particular job.
I think Trump has many policy arguments in his favor this cycle. I'd stick with those over the moral arguments.
Similar threads
