Kamala picks Tim Walz (60) for VP

21,683 Views | 362 Replies | Last: 20 days ago by bear2034
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?

The people who can uncover Brett Kavanaugh's high school yearbook suddenly can't find any of these clips and it's up to random Twitter users. It's incredible.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

SBGold said:


Nah, his were funny because Vance is so weird
Walz is delusional. The entire Kamala-Walz campaign is fake.
Not nearly as fake as Trumpy's patriotism. The Repubs are weird, there is so much truth in that

What else do you think Tim Walz is lying about?
Trump was hacked. What's true is Trump can't protect himself physically or digitally.

Hacked documents released do confirm that the GOP ticket is weird, and that the VP choice has a sofa fetish (not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just more weirdness)
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why are Trumpkin morons so concerned about lying all of a sudden?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

SBGold said:


Nah, his were funny because Vance is so weird
Walz is delusional. The entire Kamala-Walz campaign is fake.
Not nearly as fake as Trumpy's patriotism. The Repubs are weird, there is so much truth in that

What else do you think Tim Walz is lying about?

Almost everything: his persona just oozes mendacity. I mean, how could anybody be that virtuous?!?

- I'd research his actual age. Dude looks 70-ish.
- Did the HS football team he coached really win the state championship? Or did they actually quit before the game?
- Was he actually the Head Coach, or just a quality control guy?
- Does he even own a couch? Because if he had bought a new one recently, he'd have known they're called sofas now!
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Why are Trumpkin morons so concerned about lying all of a sudden?
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

AunBear89 said:

Why are Trumpkin morons so concerned about lying all of a sudden?

Is Bone Spur Ream Estate Developer worried about Walz's 24 year military career? He shouldn't be
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:


Is Bone Spur Ream Estate Developer worried about Walz's 24 year military career? He shouldn't be
Was Walz even vetted? Luckily for the Dims, they can always change their mind with Pelosi pulling the strings.

bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Imagine being deployed to Iraq from 2005-2007 with that POS as your leader?
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Imagine being stuck in a space with weirdo you at any time, I'd go find the nearest couch
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

Wags, this is lame. Drunk posting on a Friday night after one too many microbrews.
Nah, his were funny because Vance is so weird
If you need buying tips on eye liner or couches, Shady Vance is your man.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoOskie said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

Wags, this is lame. Drunk posting on a Friday night after one too many microbrews.
Nah, his were funny because Vance is so weird
If you need buying tips on eye liner or couches, Shady Vance is your man.


Why?
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Democrats don't know how to do proper research online because they never look past the first few pages of a Google search.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I preferred Walz anyways, so good job twatter!
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
Sorry dude, Vance has no aura. He'll sit next to you on the couch though
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
Sorry dude, Vance has no aura. He'll sit next to you on the couch though
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shapiro was in the IDF. Are people who purport to care for the well being of the Palestinian people ok with that? ….or do they want tRump to blow the system up so bad that they will still argue anti Semiticism in the hopes of derailing anyone blocking tRump's path.

The tRump Campaign trying to flip the script on the "weird" narrative is hysterical. Don't they realize the "weird" label and the couch joke are imprinted with a branding iron and that stank ain't never commin' off them.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kamabla said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
Sorry dude, Vance has no aura. He'll sit next to you on the couch though


If this is the best burn that Repugs can do I'm not at all worried. No aura and no intelligence
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
Sorry dude, Vance has no aura. He'll sit next to you on the couch though

I'm sure you look worser though
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
Sorry dude, Vance has no aura. He'll sit next to you on the couch though

I'm sure you look worser though


No, you look so much more very worser.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:

GoOskie said:

Funny that you think political operatives with millions in funding use google to do their background checks.
The reason why Fatty Tim is your pick and not Josh Shapiro was because Shapiro was destroyed on Twitter by a single person and it spread like left wing disinformation.
Sorry dude, Vance has no aura. He'll sit next to you on the couch though

I'm sure you look worser though


No, you look so much more very worser.
ouch, but probably so. Cool how you stood up for your broski
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?

During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now let's do tRump, the gold medal winner of the Deception Olympics.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:


During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

bear2034 said:


During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before


You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:


During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before


You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.
some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But some rando righty on X said it! That makes it true by definition.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

oski003 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:


During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before


You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.
some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

But some rando righty on X said it! That makes it true by definition.


Strike 1 million for you. Getting a hit for you is like winning the lottery. Owning you repeatedly is getting boring. Stay in your lane, whatever that is.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

SBGold said:

oski003 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:


During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before


You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.
some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.
Both of those facts might be true though, not mutually exclusive espeically if his court appearance ended up in a plea deal
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

oski003 said:

SBGold said:

oski003 said:

SBGold said:

bear2034 said:


During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.
I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before


You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.
some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.
Both of those facts might be true though, not mutually exclusive espeically if his court appearance ended up in a plea deal



Strike 3. Wow.Just.Wow. You impress me with your devotion to ignorance.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

I should be billing you people for this, but here is a gift...

Take the time you're using to try and tear down Walz and, instead, use it to build up Vance. He does have something you can build on, but you're hanging him out to dry, day after day. If all you can do is go negative, aim for the top of the ticket, instead of Walz. If you can avoid the racial stuff and the misogynistic stuff, you might have something there. Debatable, but possible.

You're welcome.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.