687
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 15 Jul 2023
687 points (98.9% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4390 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.
- 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.
- 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
Are there federal bodies or third parties that can assist in these measures? Just because the state is fucked and run by terrorists, shouldn't mean that someone can't step up and help. I knows it's not that easy geographically, but every little bit helps.
I dunno, it's pretty unclear to me. I think half the reason all this stuff gets delegated to the states is because any time the feds try to do... much of anything, really, you can count on a state suing to block it and the supreme court siding with them. The first example that comes to mind is how the ACA got crippled by such lawsuits.
The state can't stop charities but the why it most often works in america the federal gov just provided big blocks of funding to each state. But don't if the had excepted it most of it would have gone to make a a new football stadium while also providing a big tax write off the guy that owns the team. Ah american law american order.
I live in Iowa, so I understand the mis-appropriation if funds, and it's disgusting. The lack of oversight is astounding and even when it's discovered the consequences are nothing more than operating costs. It's dumb
Americans love curelity as long as it is neglect
If you read the article it has nothing to do with "the state being run by terrorists" - it's that they don't have the infrastructure and data collection necessary to do it. They have pledged that they will focus on getting it implemented so they can do it.
Maybe the federal government should be the ones building these data collection services so that the states simply have to opt-in and use the government created facilities?
Why do they not have systems up to date where other states do?
Because not every state is the same, obviously.
The federal government should be building and running this system.
How exactly does the federal government get data on school demographics when the schools are run by individual states? Or should they just throw out money randomly and hope it's enough?
The federal government builds the infrastructure and systems for the schools to use so they can share this data. As it is the states need to all build their own to share this data with the federal government in order to get the funds for these meals.
Why would the states accept the federal government doing such a thing? Isn't that the federal government encroaching on their rights when it comes to deciding how education should be run in their states?
Why would they do it? To help the children. The federal government already runs many services that the states use.
You're hilarious.
So the democrat federal government don’t care about the children?
The government of Missouri doesn't care about children, which is one of many reasons why they would tell the federal government to fuck off if they tried that. What reality do you live in?
I feel like you’re not getting it for some reason.
The federal government should be on the ones running this, not state government. Missouri wouldn’t get a say.
The Missouri government would not object to the federal government paying for school lunches for kids if it was all handled for them. If you think that the government there just “hates children” then I’m going to assume that it’s a republican state and you’re a democrat voter, correct?
Again- how would the federal government get the demographics data without Missouri playing a part? Either Missouri agrees to do that, or the government comes in and takes its own demographics, which Missouri would tell them to go fuck off if they tried. You're on an Australian instance, so I'm thinking you just might be out of your element here.
Entering data into a website/system is vastly different from having to build and maintain said systems yourself. The latter is what is currently being asked, the former is what it should have been.
Why do you say the Missouri government hates kids? Because they’re a republican government I assume?
I’m not out of my element at all. We’re discussing an article and I’m questioning why a federal government initiative to help kids was not rolled out by the federal government. You’re the ones giving it to Missouri for not doing it, while sticking up for the Democrat Federal government for also not doing.
Weird how every other state has been able to do it except Missouri.
And there's a lot of reasons they hate kids. Missouri is in the bottom 20% in education, for example.
Also, it's not a "Democrat federal government." The federal government is mixed between Democrats and Republicans. This is why I am saying you are out of your element. You don't know very basic facts.
Every state isn’t the same.
The democrats are in power. They won the election. It’s a democrat federal government.
No, the Democrats are not in power. There are three branches of the federal government. The Democrats control the executive branch. The legislative branch is split with the house being controlled by Republicans and the senate being controlled by Democrats. The judicial branch is controlled by Republicans. Yet again, you are out of your element because you do not know basic facts.
Please stay in Australia.
Imagine being this tribal about your political "teams" that you would rather kids not get free food just so you can hate on the other "team" lol
Ribbit
just because you disagree with someone, there's no reason to refer to them as terrorists. having a sound fiscal policy isnt terrorism, after all.
They are self proclaimed terrorists. Also, withholding funding so that children starve is pretty fucked up and calling them terrorists is gentle compared to what they deserve. That's not sound fiscal responsibility, that evil incarnate. Defense of that view is completely fucked as well, terrorist.
someone's salty
You could say that. Most reasonable people think starving children and domestic terrorism is something to be upset about. It appears you are not a reasonable person, terrorist.
seems to me that it's the parents direct responsibility to feed/shelter their progeny - but sure, let's blame the evil state govt
you folks are literally brainsick
You're the one advocating for starving children, terrorist, you're the brainsick one.
wow, you're like Dr. Sbaitso with a learning disability
Our governor is sitting on a tax surplus that was $5,000,000,000 a few months ago. (That's billion, with a 'b') Just over the state line the state of Kansas literally just handed its surplus back to taxpayers in the form of a special tax cut. (They have a Democratic governor.) That five billion of OUR MONEY could do a lot to mitigate the problems in our state, but the folks in Jeff City haven't figured out a way to feasibly give it away to their golf buddies yet.
Maybe the 'terrorist' tag is a little dramatic, but the Republican Party here in Missouri is literally making bad things happen in order to blame the consequences on the Federal Government. They've controlled this state for 20 years and in that time their sole mission has been figuring out ways to enrich themselves off the tax money produced by Kansas City and St. Louis.
I don't know that it is dramatic - these people are willingly (and often happily) starving kids. What else would you call someone who looks at a child whose only meal that day may come from school and says, "Nah, it wins me points with my base, go ahead and starve"? Monster, maybe, but they labeled themselves terrorists, and I always like to use people's preferred names.
I think you can find better terminology to make your point. People have overused 'terrorist' since the 9/11 attacks, and yeah, it comes off as a little dramatic and likely makes it harder for you to get the buy-in you want on the point you're trying to make.
If I have to soften my language to get buy in on the issue of "children shouldn't have to starve in one of the richest countries in the world," I think that says everything it needs to about anyone opposing it, namely that they're both incredibly hateful, and also huge crybaby bitches.
True, but you kind of do have to.
Unless someone self-identifies as a terrorist or fascist, I try to avoid that using that terminology when I'm working to change someone's point of view. My rule of thumb is to try to approach things the way The Satanic Temple would, seeing as how they tend to be more effective at politicking than most.
The thing is that they did self identify as terrorists. It was a giant banner at cpac some years ago. "We are all domestic terrorists" I believe were the words.
Not only that, but the actions here can actually fall in the definition of terrorism. For the last 4+ years, I've also heard similar arguments to yours about calling the right, Nazis, but here we are with literal Nazis eaving the flag, disturbing the peace, and spreading hate.
If it looks like a shit and smells like a shit, it's not a stick, it's a Republican.
... you're going to wait for someone to self identify?
"Hey we're the enslavers, we're here to enslave people." That's what you're expecting?
Remember when St Louis raised their minimum wage then the state made it illegal for the city that makes most the states money to given themselves there.
So do I, and sadly, now that they've gotten voters to approve a gerrymandering system, it's likely only going to get worse.
I'm glad I only work in Missouri. I live in Illinois where we are trying to be California.
You're right, it's not terrorism.
It's mass murder.
it's not, actually
Found a terrorist
found the bootlicker
If you click the three dots under Tallwookies comment and click the cancel sign, youll block him and improve your Lemmy experience greatly.
someone doesn't want to enable any dissenting opinions. this community is turning into as much of a shit show as beehaw.
sad