Go back
Minnesota Fraud Far More Than First Thought

Minnesota Fraud Far More Than First Thought

Debates


@mike69 said
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a law that requires public schools to provide free menstrual products (pads and tampons) to all students in grades 4 through 12 who need them. However, the law does not specifically mandate that these products be placed in boys' restrooms; the claim that he "authorized tampons in boys restrooms" is considered mostly false or an exaggeration o ...[text shortened]... e access to necessary products.

Does the last statement mean there are tampons in boys restrooms?
Not relevant whether they're there, you said he put them there. Which is obviously false.

If he signed a law saying there should be crosswalks for pedestrians at road intersections, your facebook feed would be stuffed with headlines like "tim walz mandates all girls walk to school" or some garbage.


@Earl-of-Trumps said
How the heck does Minnesota get their hands on $18Billion in Federal Aid... Aid, for WHAT???

Prosecutor: Billions Stolen From Minnesota Federal Aid Programs
[i]Half or more of the roughly $18 billion in federal funds that supported 14 Minnesota-run programs since 2018
may have been stolen, a federal prosecutor said Thursday, describing the massive and mult ...[text shortened]... it for the weight of America's enormous debt to crash the country. Maybe that will wake everyone up.
"Clearly"???


@Earl-of-Trumps said
@wildgrass
That's a bad way ti look at it, wild. you are just trying to minimalize the effect.
And if Minnesota is getting that amount of grant money for imaginary social needs. who else is?
And then, look at America's staggering debt. NOBODY CARES!!!
"Imaginary"???


@Earl-of-Trumps said
@wildgrass - "I think you'd be naive not to think this is just a political witch hunt."

I understand where you are coming from,, but unless these "facts" are manufactured, the feds would be remiss
if they sat on their hands and did nothing.

reverse the situation: Was Donald Trump targeted because he might run for president, or because circumstances warranted it?
That's a naive and juvenile way of looking at it. Doesn't stop most Republicans from thinking this way.

The man broke the law. No "witch hunt". Just people doing their jobs.


@mike69 said
Wake up, open your mind, and get away from the conspiracies and tds bs!
Bwahahaha, what a buffoon.


@wildgrass said
Not relevant whether they're there, you said he put them there. Which is obviously false.

If he signed a law saying there should be crosswalks for pedestrians at road intersections, your facebook feed would be stuffed with headlines like "tim walz mandates all girls walk to school" or some garbage.
Your correct in that he didn’t physically put them there.?????😂


@wildgrass said
Of course, prosecute all crimes. But federal prosecutors don't have unlimited throughput. In my opinion they should go after the big fish first.

Another example. There is general agreement among politicians and legal experts that $200 billion in PPP funding was fraudulent. Yet it appears no one is even working towards prosecution of those people.

Why? They are too busy attacking tim walz to score political points.
They only do/say what Donald wants them to.


@mike69 said
Your correct in that he didn’t physically put them there.?????😂
What? The law was gender neutral, you made up the boys bathroom stuff.


@wildgrass
And for trans boys which to me would be boys that think their girls but to you libs that would be a girl who thinks their a boy, in a boys restrooms. It’s also dodging saying the examples about gender neutral (whatever that is) and other examples of restroom policy and types but left the door open to as a choice and could be put in boys also do you think that happened in the make believe lib land?

1 edit

@mike69 said
@wildgrass
And for trans boys which to me would be boys that think their girls but to you libs that would be a girl who thinks their a boy, in a boys restrooms. It’s also dodging saying the examples about gender neutral (whatever that is) and other examples of restroom policy and types but left the door open to as a choice and could be put in boys also do you think that happened in the make believe lib land?
Gender neutral means the law did not specify. All the boy / girl stuff you made up. All the restroom stuff you also made up. It isn't in the law at all.


@wildgrass said
Gender neutral means the law did not specify. All the boy / girl stuff you made up. All the restroom stuff you also made up. It isn't in the law at all.
A. Law did not specify, no help?
B. What boy girl stuff did I make up?
C. What restroom stuff did I make up?
D. It’s all from a google search AI definition? Did I ever mention law one way or the other, so how could I make up anything?
E. The word stuff along with nothing to back up what you say isn’t very helpful.
F. Your post score.


@mike69 said
A. Law did not specify, no help?
B. What boy girl stuff did I make up?
C. What restroom stuff did I make up?
D. It’s all from a google search AI definition? Did I ever mention law one way or the other, so how could I make up anything?
E. The word stuff along with nothing to back up what you say isn’t very helpful.
F. Your post score.
I'm not exactly sure what you're not getting here since you're reposting the questions that have already been answered. The law was to "provide free menstrual products (pads and tampons) to all students in grades 4 through 12 who need them."

That's it. Nothing about restrooms or gender or boys or girls. The AI stuff you posted confirmed the boys restroom mandate is false.


@wildgrass said
I'm not exactly sure what you're not getting here since you're reposting the questions that have already been answered. The law was to "provide free menstrual products (pads and tampons) to all students in grades 4 through 12 who need them."

That's it. Nothing about restrooms or gender or boys or girls. The AI stuff you posted confirmed the boys restroom mandate is false.
That didn’t explain what gender neutral was? Yes that’s true, now think back to how this started not at the end of the story?


@wildgrass said
Of course, prosecute all crimes. But federal prosecutors don't have unlimited throughput. In my opinion they should go after the big fish first.

Another example. There is general agreement among politicians and legal experts that $200 billion in PPP funding was fraudulent. Yet it appears no one is even working towards prosecution of those people.

Why? They are too busy attacking tim walz to score political points.
...go after the big fish first?? LoL, dude, there ain't much bigger than $10 billion.


...that $200 billion in PPP funding was fraudulent. then Pam Bondi better get going. quick.

And I think that the missing money may first have been discovered on the state level, but I don't know that.


@mike69 said
That didn’t explain what gender neutral was? Yes that’s true, now think back to how this started not at the end of the story?
Gender neutral is a term your AI chatbot used to explain the absence of gender terms used in the law.