These two lines literally contradict each other... Who the fuck wrote this? Which one is correct, because they can't both be?
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
315 points (96.2% liked)
politics
27959 readers
2552 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The paragraph right before says, on Wednesday, he told MSNOW that he wouldn’t run for office again.
The me that you highlighted is something he said earlier this month.
So, he wasn’t running for gov earlier this month, but didn’t say if we would run for something else. Now, he says he won’t run for an elected office ever again.
— I didn’t notice this when I first read it. You pointed out the wording so I had to go back and read it very carefully to catch all that. It’s definitely written in an odd way and is confusing.
Its a little confusing. At the start of the month he said he's not running for gov again but would consider other elected offices. Now he is saying hes not running for any elected offices. Reading the full article clears it up.
Good. He is peacetime material, not fit to protect a state from fascism.
i'm trying to upvote harder....... i'm so glad to read this.
He seems like a nice guy and says some good things. Sounds like he was an okay governor. That is, until he refused to protect the citizens of his state from a gang of marauding masked murders. Fuck that guy. We need much better.
ITT: people failing reading comprehension.
I wonder if this has anything to do with his "productive" meeting with Trump
The article headline is confusing...
I had wondered whether he was going to consider a presidential run, which this part leaves somewhat open:
About 18 months earlier, Walz was thrust into the national spotlight when Vice President Kamala Harris picked him as her running mate in the 2024 election. Walz had repeatedly said — even before 2024 — that he was considering a future presidential bid, but he had said he would rule out a 2028 run if he sought re-election as governor.
So he might be seriously considering a 2028 presidential run... Walz and Ocasio-Cortez anyone?
Are you fucking serious?
Unless this fucking guy starts arresting ICE officers now, fuck no.
I mean, even if he didn't, will I cry about it? Not really. Especially considering his debate with JD Vance exposed him as moderate right wing at best
Nobody cares
Too bad. He’s been a pretty good governor. Especially there for Minnesotans when they need him.
Get Jesse Ventura back, he's been threatening to return to governor. Get him before he becomes too old.
Yes. Long live the gerontocracy.
Has he? Seriously. Last election people kept saying he was returning to run for president as the Green Candidate but as it turned out it was other people that simply wanted him to return as the Green Presidential candidate and were acting as if it were true. He went so far as to publicly declare that he was not going to run for president. Still, every couple of days I saw someone new that said they thought he was gonna be the Green candidate again.
load more comments
(39 replies)
I feel like a ton of comment in this room are missing the point. Him choosing to not run changes the calculus for how he handles the rest of his term and where he puts his efforts.
Endorsing someone else takes significantly less effort than running for reelection yourself and it makes the opposition have to do actual work rather than just pointing at his recent failings.
Politically/tactically this is a pretty good move, especially as like others have pointed out, he has given someone else a lot of runway to put a campaign together.
He is probably also personally a factor in the admin targeting Minnesota. Trump/MAGA was really, really outraged by his "weird" shtick during the campaign. Removing himself could be seen as Trump "winning", and now MAGA is wondering why ICE is still fucking up a state purged of its corruption.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not going to say I was Waltz's biggest fan when he was on the national stage but seemed solid to me and his handling of the Republican attempts at civil war and making the statement he made to get the hell out of the way for new leadership and not cling onto power unlike a lot of his other collogues garners a lot more of my respect.
I hope he follows on his word to help those new leaders and fosters actual change in the party that needs change and a spine.
Walz*
view more: next ›