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.
- 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.
- 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
Wondered where I remembered him from, it was this juxtaposition of photos:
Additional context: around the same time Governor Walz (upper) was signing a bill for guaranteed school lunches the Governer of Arkansas (lower) was signing a bill rolling back protections on child labor.
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/gov-tim-walz-signs-universal-school-meals-bill-into-law/
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/10/1162531885/arkansas-child-labor-law-under-16-years-old-sarah-huckabee-sanders
That photo of him! Every person in it is so genuinely happy! Brought tears to my eyes.
Hot Damn! The DNC didn't fuck up so fucking happy to be wrong and she didn't pick Shapiro.
I'm shocked, honestly. Shapiro is the canonical post-Clinton Democrat, all the consent manufacturers were clearly pulling for him.
As one of the leftmost members of the D voting coalition its a strange feeling to not be getting continuously shat upon.
Yeah well lets hope this all true. All the articles are saying "sources close to " I want to hear it from her mouth. Regardless I am excited about voting for the first time since 2016 when Bernie first ran. Lets fucking go! Only thing stopping us now is if the GOP cheat which I hear they already planning a coup using the courts so lets make it such a huge landslide they can't win that way.
She posted it to her Instagram:
.
Awesome! Thank you I had not seen that.
❤️❤️❤️
No way in hell they would have picked Shapiro. People would get him mixed up with Ben Shapiro. It's absurd he was even in the running.
Well then every gd progressive who says there are so many better get off their asses and vote then.
Not upset about the pick in the least but this is progressives time to shine.
Edit- you all act as if Im rooting against that. I actually want a ton of normal non-voters to actually come out and vote for Harris-walz
Whoa whoa whoa. So Harris is laffin, and Walz is smilin??? Too much happiness.
Yeah I know I'm well into auntie territory because I had the same reaction.
Those poor kids going to work in the mines in the lower pic.
The one kid totally has "wtf?" face going on. I feel bad for those kids. Their parents are all probably total scum bags.
They want to be at home playing Roblox, but their parents made them wear ties and have their hair slicked into place. All to support a bill where they're going to be playing less Roblox.
I would also point out, not to give Huckabee any credit, but the silver lining of that bill might allow kids trying to gain freedom from abusive homes, permitting them to go job hunting on their own (although 14/15 seems super young regardless - they couldn't without someone signing off otherwise). The downsides is parents forcing kids to go to work in dangerous jobs (to your point).
While i see what you're saying, i think the lede is buried. the important change in law is here:
The state isn't even checking how old these children are. And the younger a kid is, the more easily they are exploited. And the power dynamic between boss and kiddo is worse. All this will do is make kids easy to exploit
I don't have to tell y'all, right? How many hours got stolen from you as kids? Or what kind of crap did you put up with before you knew better?
Without laws letting child workers maintain their own bank account in their own name without parents being co owners allowed to drain it at any time, children working become money pinatas for abusive parents.
I say this as someone who would have benefitted from being independent earlier. My uncle did have me work at 14, and when I went to the bank I found he had stolen every penny, and because I was a minor I had no legal recourse to get it back.
A few years later the courts emancipated me, but it didn't return the money he had stolen. Mind you, he was not working at the time himself and he got a few hundred from the state a month to care for me, and he spent what he stole on computer parts so he could game.
Children working only is in the child's benefit if there are ironclad laws allowing them to keep their money, and right now there is not.
vs
I literally laughed out loud when I read the second headline. The kids faces says it all.
Here is a suggested edit for you, just use this image:
Is he in the Sarah Huckabee photo? I don't recognize him if he is. That article doesn't even mention him.
No he isn't, it's comparing the two, one is Walz (D) signing a law to bring free lunches for school children in his state, the other is sarah huckabee (R) signing a law to claw back child labor laws in her state
I'm not really sure why that would be relevant in this context. Was Huckabee running for VP? Why include her?
Primarily because I was sharing how the photos are linked in my memory.
They're also chronologically similar, happening within a week of each.
Lastly, they demonstrate stark differences in policies: a win for the new VP pick who, in my opinion, shows someone who actually cares about children and families.
Ok but do you know how many US Governors there are? 55. You picked one at random and threw it into a comment about a totally different person, place, and circumstance. People might mistakenly think Walz was somehow involved in that shitshow.
I can see this from your perspective now, perhaps my context was lacking. I felt it evident as a recollection but those without the context may misinterpret.
Edit: I've added context, thanks for pressing your point!
I was being a little too aggressive about it, I had a long morning. Sorry.
As another perspective - it took me a moment or two to work out what was happening in the second picture, but then the whole tableau made sense to me!
It took me a bit of morning brain fog processing to understand the context. But then it hit me.
Tim Walz has a history of delighting and helping people, and the excitement of the people (especially the kids) in the room we elated and the picture captured that.
In the other picture, the people that were being "helped' (again the kids) looked unimpressed and even a little letheragic.
It's a comparison of how one person & their party can excite & delight while the other person & their party depress.
Just gonna drop this here...
https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-101/reading-and-writing-basics/reading-comprehension
There was a ton of ambiguity in the initial statement. I had to read the statement twice and look at the pictures for a moment before I understood the context in my daily morning brain fog. So I don't fault them for asking their initial question.
What I do fault them for is doubling down after the explanations.