TehPers comments on Trump Administration Live Updates: Officials Demand States ‘Undo’ Work to Send Full Food Stamps

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

submitted 1 year 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.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Are we going to ignore the giant national Democratic victory a few years ago?

We're talking about the Government shutdown and SNAP benefits in this thread. There has only been one set of national elections during this shutdown.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Are we going to ignore the giant national Democratic victory a few years ago?

...you mean 5 years ago ?

We’re talking about the Government shutdown and SNAP benefits in this thread.

Which is why I asked about the government shutdown...

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

...you mean 5 years ago ?

Yes. Both are equally irrelevant to the shutdown that has been going on for only a couple months. There has only been one major set of elections since the shutdown, which was my point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

They are all varying degrees of relevant (certainly some more than other), including the most recent one, which is why I asked for relevant, conclusive evidence and not just speculation.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

No, there has been only one set of elections where voters could respond to the shutdown. No other election is relevant with regards to public opinion on the shutdown.

As for evidence, I can't really say I know what you're asking for here. Election results are public record available on various government websites (depending on jurisdiction). Even Fox News is reporting these results.

If you're looking for an analysis of the election results, well, go to your news outlet of choice and look them up. Mississippi's Republican supermajority was broken this month. Mamandi, the DNC's (reluctant) choice, was elected mayor. CA prop 50 passed. The list goes on and on. I can't see a single person claiming this election was anything but a massive victory for the dems.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago (2 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent