989
Tim Walz’s net worth is less than the average American’s
(fortune.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
989 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1902 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's in his financial disclosures and it is literally a crime to lie in those. Why would he lie?
Crime is illegal, that's why no one does it.
There is literally no upside though
It's such a pessimistic view on this.
Just in hypothetical, if you have illicit earning, you probably won't declare them.
Edit: this comment seems unpopular, but it has happened in the past. If somebody could tell me why it's so wrong I would appreciate
That's not how logic works. You don't get to make a claim then demand to be disproven. The burnden of proof is on you, and if the best you have is "idk seems like it could happen" then you have fuck all
I'm not making a claim, .neither I asked to be disproven. just answering a situation in which it would happen.
You indirectly claimed Tim has illicit money:
Then asked to be disproven:
In the hypothetical case somebody has them. That's not a claim of fact. I'm not saying him has illicit gains, only showing a case of when somebody would hide their true assets. Just like Clarence Thomas lied about the presents.
I know politics are now a touchy subject, but not everything is an attack.
I have explained why you're being down voted because you asked. If you refuse to accept ithe answer that's on you.
I'm explaining what is wrong with your reading. I was in good faith telling you. I'm not sure why you chose to be do abrasive and closed minded, but It's on me for trying to be help.
You're allowed to question things and other people are allowed to disagree with the downvote button. What's the problem? Are you seriously trying to pretend you're being cancelled because (checks notes) fewer than ten people disagree with you? That's some persecution complex right there, that is.
I don't know, maybe your skepticism comes across as less than genuine or something. Maybe they felt like "I doubt it" wasn't a great contribution. Maybe they thought your doubts were politically motivated. Maybe they were just in a bad mood, but you can't really tell from the vote count and there's no sense pretending that you aren't allowed to say something just because some people didn't like it. No one is going to be convinced about your point if all you've got to back it up is complaints about your downvotes.
I say let it go and get on with the rest of your life.