Politics

11108 readers

49 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

remington@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

Trump Administration Live Updates: Officials Demand States ‘Undo’ Work to Send Full Food Stamps (archive.ph)

submitted 2 months ago by Midnitte@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Trump administration told states on Saturday that they must “immediately undo” any actions to provide full food stamp benefits to low-income families, in a move that added to the uncertainty surrounding the nation’s largest anti-hunger program during the government shutdown. In late-night guidance seen by The New York Times, the Agriculture Department also threatened financial penalties against states.

Why is feeding people political? What value add is forcing people to starve? Monsters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, there has been only one set of elections where voters could respond to the shutdown.

The notion of treating the recent elections as exclusively an indicator or how people feel about the gov shutdown is completely preposterous.

I can't really say I know what you're asking for here.

I don't know how to be more clear about this: Evidence that the shutdown is negatively impacting conservative approval rates.

If you're looking for an analysis of the election result

I didn't ask for anything to do with election results. You brought that up. I'm asking about the government shutdown.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The message they should be receiving from the most recent elections is that the Republicans are losing support, not gaining it.

This is what you asked for a citation for. You didn't ask for anything about conservative approval ratings (though tangentially, Trump's approval rating is, for what feels like the hundredth time this decade, at an all-time low for his term this month). You asked for a citation on election results. I gave you a link to, in my opinion, one of the most biased "news" outlets correctly reporting the election results despite the most accurate source of election results being self-evident.

Anyway, this is a complete waste of my time. Asking for "scientific evidence" of a trend of political opinions is already a sign that you're uninterested in any real discussion and want to defend your point for the sake of defending it. There is no "scientific evidence" of anything remotely related to national opinions on a subject. No poll, analysis, or first party results will satisfy you.

Turn this back on yourself. You have provided no citations, only statements. You have failed to meet the bar you claim to hold me to.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is what you asked for a citation for.

Not it is not. Scroll up. I asked for evidence that Republicans overall were losing support specifically due to the shutdown. As I said previously, there are a Brazilian other factors that can affect those results.

Asking for "scientific evidence" of a trend of political opinions is already a sign that you're uninterested in any real discussion

LOOOOLOLOL WTF are you talking about!?

A sign that you're disinterested in a good faith discussion is refusing to answer simple questions and deferring to strawman arguments instead. Asking for evidence is the very definition of being interested.

Turn this back on yourself. You have provided no citations

I haven't because I haven't made any claims. Only pointed to simple logic and reason. If you don't have any evidence, you're welcome to state as much and I wouldn't hold it against you. That's fine. But you seem very disinterested in that.