|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:If the Dems and their supporters did believe any of the rhetoric they spew during donation time, they would vote against this bill until their demands are met. It isn’t like the house couldn’t pass this bill without them if Rs voted in lock step so why vote to actively harm the less fortunate? Did you get some super targeted fundraising email about the debt ceiling? Your point isn't clear. Do you think this agreement would pass with zero Democrats voting for it? The rhetoric I have heard from the Democrats is that this is hostage taking, and threatening the credit of the US to extract concessions is irresponsible. That's consistent with how they behaved when they held the House: they didn't try and extract concessions from Trump.
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Zeron posted:That's the dumbest part though, that they waited until literally a week before the default to do it. It's not like there hasn't already been harm from waiting this long, all kinds of emergency measures have been activated and funds dried up. If they were going to make such a bog standard deal, it only looks even crazier that they waited to do so until they were literally staring collapse in the eyes. Even if he's totally fine with the deal himself, he would've had to have looked like he was holding out for more or his already boisterous caucus would revolt.... moreso. e: to clarify yes it is all very stupid
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
At this point I kinda want the House Freedom Caucus to burn the deal down. gently caress it, let them be omnicidal ghouls on the biggest stage possible, and get it out of the way so we aren't doing this dance in ten years when the effects of climate change and expanding automation have vastly increased the number of people who'll be harmed by loving with the social safety nets further.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Randalor posted:I mean, the economy is potentially not going to implode and McCarthy only got a slim fraction of what he was demanding, so in this case it's a "win" for Biden. It still hasn't passed yet and it's still up to the crazies to not scuttle the deal and vote McCarthy out.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
I think right wing Republicans know they have a green light to hold out on this deal. Jeffries and Katherine Clark are going to be whipping the hell out the Dem caucus to get it through, and I'm sure all but at most a dozen Dems could be coaxed on board. The more Republicans vote for it, the more Dems will vote against it. But unless nearly every Republican opposes it, it's going to get through.Automata 10 Pack posted:But Joe Biden could’ve avoided this last year, or taken actions this year to avoid the debt ceiling crisis, and not starve poor people in the process. But these actions wouldn’t have been seen as “bipartisan” or “fiscally conservative” which is what is important to him here, so he’s starving a bunch of poor people. The points where they could've/should've addressed it, in my mind: 1. Getting either of the two big spending bills (IRA and ARA) through. Probably could've struck a deal to tack on debt ceiling abolition. 2. When Trump was President, they should've used the debt ceiling to hold Republicans hostage unless they repealed the debt ceiling. e: Oh yeah - 3. When they got the Covid bill through. Republicans were panicking and giving them everything which is how we wound up with such a robust fiscal response. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
There are definitely going to be disabled people who haven't managed to jump through enough hoops to be classified as disabled who will go hungry. It's easy to say they're exempt from the requirements, not so easy to get the exemption. And nobody is less able to navigate that kind of bureaucracy than someone who is too disabled to work.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It's unlikely anybody will literally starve to death as a result of these cuts. But it will cause some people financial stress, increase strain on local support networks (family, food banks, etc) and generally cause people massive inconvenience. All for pretty much no reason. I don't mean to be harsh, but we already have about 13,700 people in this country die from starvation every year. This does not include people who are suffering from malnutrition -- and thus weaker immune systems and slower recovery from long lasting diseases such as those caused by, for example, Long Covid. And it also doesn't account for what a hungry, desperate person might do in order to stop doing that. Even if it wouldn't literally starve people to death, which it will, it will also increase crime, recidivism, and over all worse health conditions for the poorest, most at risk people, and by extension everyone else. It isn't a large inconvenience. It's a systemic failure that will make our already bad system worse. Worse outcomes from maternity, more malnutrition, lower aptitudes from already over-stressed schools, fewer funds available for more people who need them on every level, from aid to poor people to aid for disabled people or programs like family reimbursement for those who need to hit up various aid services with limited funding to begin with for things like accessibility aids or medically necessary accommodations. It's not a small thing, and even a miniscule percentage of increase on the burden of people the system is already failing is, indisputably, going to kill some of them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:I don't mean to be harsh, but we already have about 13,700 people in this country die from starvation every year. This does not include people who are suffering from malnutrition -- and thus weaker immune systems and slower recovery from long lasting diseases such as those caused by, for example, Long Covid. And it also doesn't account for what a hungry, desperate person might do in order to stop doing that. Even if it wouldn't literally starve people to death, which it will, it will also increase crime, recidivism, and over all worse health conditions for people, and by extension everyone else. The same source I believe we both used said there are 0.37 deaths per 1,000 food-insecure people - and those deaths would be primarily concentrated among the elderly, who are not in the affected age range, or the disabled or homeless, who are exempt. It's plenty bad enough that the policy makes people's lives shittier, for, again, absolutely no reason. quote:Worse outcomes from maternity ... lower aptitudes from already over-stressed schools Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
You mean the CDC? Yeah they're a good source for a lot of death statistics. I guess what I don't understand is why you want to minimize the impact the cuts will have. You pushing back against "people will literally die" is just incorrect. People will literally die from this. Everyone has already mentioned that the application process to even begin receiving any kind of assistance can be nightmarish -- something I can attest to as the guardian of a disabled child. People without full-time advocates can, will, and already are led to their deaths from a constant series of relatively small seeming cuts to the services they need. I fully agree that there's no reason for any of it to happen, but I question what it is about the direct statement "people will die from this" that you object to. e2a: as per your edit -- it will affect those people. Many impoverished people live with other impoverished people to pool their resources, and if suddenly one of them gets cut to "up to 3 months of SNAP once every 3 years" that could easily completely destabilize something that was precarious but functional, leading to those people potentially dying in the fallout from the sudden cut to what they relied on.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Yes that's going back before I was aware how targeted this will be, but people are still going to die.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:the disabled or homeless, who are exempt. Look at the requirements to officially be classified as disabled or homeless, to qualify for these measures, and then how long it takes to make its way through the standard bureaucracy. That is the point I think people are trying to make: it's fine to say "It doesn't affect the homeless or disabled!", but for those who are just trying to be come classified as such, if it takes 6 months to be approved for SNAP, and you need assistance right now, it's much more likely that you'll either have to lean on other sources (such as local food banks, shelters, etc.), or go hungry and starve. So it's great that people can pat themselves on the back and say it exempts these demographics, but functionally it may not really matter. And I say that as someone who now works for a municipal government, which from my perspective, moves at lightning speed compared to how the state and federal levels operate and process paperwork.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:I don't mean to be harsh, but we already have about 13,700 people in this country die from starvation every year. This does not include people who are suffering from malnutrition -- and thus weaker immune systems and slower recovery from long lasting diseases such as those caused by, for example, Long Covid. And it also doesn't account for what a hungry, desperate person might do in order to stop doing that. Even if it wouldn't literally starve people to death, which it will, it will also increase crime, recidivism, and over all worse health conditions for the poorest, most at risk people, and by extension everyone else. That 13k count is not accurate. I'm assuming you got it from here: https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/how-many-people-starve-to-death-in-america/ They are just taking the percentage of Americans who die of malnutrition and then assuming that that percentage of people in "very food insecure households" die from starvation every year. The people who do die of starvation are almost entirely people over 75 in abuse situations. The actual amount of people age 50 to 55 starving to death because of not having access to food in America is close to 0. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Look at the requirements to officially be classified as disabled or homeless, to qualify for these measures, and then how long it takes to make its way through the standard bureaucracy. That is the point I think people are trying to make: it's fine to say "It doesn't affect the homeless or disabled!", but for those who are just trying to be come classified as such, if it takes 6 months to be approved for SNAP, and you need assistance right now, it's much more likely that you'll either have to lean on other sources (such as local food banks, shelters, etc.), or go hungry and starve. The requirements essentially kick you off SNAP after 3 months if you don't meet them. They don't prevent you from signing up at all. It is not a good policy, but people don't seem to know what it actually is.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
The debt plan is also impacting rental vouchers for families. I expect some families will lose their rental which will impact food security.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:You mean the CDC? Yeah they're a good source for a lot of death statistics. I guess what I don't understand is why you want to minimize the impact the cuts will have. You pushing back against "people will literally die" is just incorrect. People will literally die from this. Everyone has already mentioned that the application process to even begin receiving any kind of assistance can be nightmarish -- something I can attest to as the guardian of a disabled child. People without full-time advocates can, will, and already are led to their deaths from a constant series of relatively small seeming cuts to the services they need. People die as a result of pretty much any cut to government spending. I would guess that the freezes to discretionary spending will kill more people than the SNAP cuts - toxic leaks that the EPA doesn't detect, shoddy highways causing crashes, buildings falling into sinkholes. Republicans winning elections kills people.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Chronic malnutrition doesn't usually kill through just starving to death. It leads to much shorter life expectancy and the death will be marked as some other mechanism. It's still caused in large part by the malnutrition, even if they're not easy to identify specifically on an individual basis.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The people who do die of starvation are almost entirely people over 75 in abuse situations. The actual amount of people age 50 to 55 starving to death because of not having access to food in America is close to 0. I will grant you that the actual number of people who die from literal starvation by itself is probably lower than the number provided -- but the point that I'm getting at is that none of these things are closed systems. If the main cause of starvation is elder abuse, consider that a lot of people in their 50's probably do have elderly parents that they care for. If they can no longer care for them, those elderly parents will most likely end up care homes, which, frankly are mostly a nightmare unless they're crazy super expensive places. But also, food insecurity is a huge problem because even if it doesn't literally starve all the people it affects to death, it does greatly increase their likelihood of basically every known disease (death by another means), hugely impacts their quality of life (death by suicide), and makes them much more likely to find extra-legal means (death by cop). The argument that I'm making is that this is a failure by government that will lead to people dying; I don't really see how that's controversial.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Yeah, all I said is that people aren't going to starve to death. Like I said, it's a bit of a  point, and no, it's not as important as the general idea that cutting spending and withholding benefits leads to suffering and death - which I think we're all on board with. Obviously not having enough food, or money, is bad for your health.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
If you set a standard that any policy with any deaths attributable to it in a country of 330 million is bad, it catches a lot of good policies too, because 330 million is a lot of people. Better to look at the merits of the actual policy (in this case, the SNAP work requirement changes are bad in a vacuum, but not as bad as default and better than what you would have expected to pass a Republican house)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, all I said is that people aren't going to starve to death. Like I said, it's a bit of a It will literally kill people, even if they aren't labeled deaths from starvation. It's still social murder.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The requirements essentially kick you off SNAP after 3 months if you don't meet them. They don't prevent you from signing up at all. You don't simply show up and ask for SNAP, get an account, and then they check on your eligibility status. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The people who do die of starvation are almost entirely people over 75 in abuse situations. The actual amount of people age 50 to 55 starving to death because of not having access to food in America is close to 0. Now show me a statistic that effectively normalizes low food security against health outcomes, including for serious infections and hospitalizations. As you would hopefully recognize, just because a death certificate doesn't specifically indicate starvation as the cause of death, doesn't mean that malnutritions and low food security weren't a very significant underlying cause.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:I will grant you that the actual number of people who die from literal starvation by itself is probably lower than the number provided -- but the point that I'm getting at is that none of these things are closed systems. If the main cause of starvation is elder abuse, consider that a lot of people in their 50's probably do have elderly parents that they care for. If they can no longer care for them, those elderly parents will most likely end up care homes, which, frankly are mostly a nightmare unless they're crazy super expensive places. Yeah, that's what's frustrating to me - people are drawing a dashed box around the specific "deaths by starvation", and acting like it's a disconnected system and thus the only measure worth judging the impacts of this by, when in reality, it will very likely exacerbate existing problems, it just won't be very easily to discern.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:It will literally kill people, even if they aren't labeled deaths from starvation. It's still social murder. Mellow Seas posted:food insecurity doesn't generally kill people in America. (Well, not directly - of course every source of stress can lead you towards higher mortality.) Mellow Seas posted:cutting spending and withholding benefits leads to suffering and death Mellow Seas posted:I don't disagree that people will die. SourKraut posted:Yeah, that's what's frustrating to me - people are drawing a dashed box around the specific "deaths by starvation", and acting like it's a disconnected system and thus the only measure worth judging the impacts of this by, when in reality, it will very likely exacerbate existing problems, it just won't be very easily to discern. Like if somebody said, "the debt ceiling bill is going to make church attendance mandatory!" and I said, "uhh, no it isn't," that doesn't mean I don't think the bill is good, just because I said it doesn't do a bad thing that it doesn't do. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:11 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Church attendance isn't mandatory! You just get a waiver in a 6 month application process or pay the heathen tax. This is a distinction without difference.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Celexi posted:Or why didn't they remove the debt ceiling that is unconstitutional? no one knows, I can't tell if malice or incompetence as this is exactly what was going to happen. Because the Democratic Party is not a political body. It is a fundraising apparatus for handful of decrepit rich people that could not give less of a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
This isn't directly related to the current conversation and I hope I'm not speaking too generally when I say it's bizarre, if consistently fun, to argue about politics in a place where we can't agree on things like "the parties mean what they say more than they mean the opposite of what they say," or "the Democrats are far to the left of Republicans," or "the opposing party winning elections makes it more difficult to enact your agenda," or "a party with a zero-member majority can't do anything if one member decides to thwart them," or "voters sometimes like bad policy and dislike good policy."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:This isn't directly related to the current conversation and I hope I'm not speaking too generally when I say it's bizarre, if consistently fun, to argue about politics in a place where we can't agree on things like "the parties mean what they say more than they mean the opposite of what they say," or "the Democrats are far to the left of Republicans," or "the opposing party winning elections makes it more difficult to enact your agenda," or "a party with a zero-member majority can't do anything if one member decides to thwart them," or "voters sometimes like bad policy and dislike good policy." If you're constantly saying you would LOVE to do something but gosh darnit, this unaccountable panel of law wizards might say we can't; or Senators Coalfucker and uwuLulz said we can't and there's simply no mechanisms to discipline them; or an unelected magistrate only Chuck Schumer can see like the Great Gazoo said we can't; but weirdly a bunch of really bad poo poo keeps happening with zero attempt to prevent it... I'm gonna start thinking you don't actually want to do that thing (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that the US going into default wouldn’t kill anyone at all? For all of the talk about deaths caused by the rumored change in SNAP benefits ITT, I don’t see any talk about the outcome if the politicians all refused to budge and we went into default
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
The default is not going to happen and the consequences of going along with continual hostage taking is measured in lives. Instead they should be permanently ending the charade. Politicians love making "hard choices" that affect the poor and vulnerable, they get to play the fiscally responsible adult in the room and tut tut about how it was the best of a bunch of bad options.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that the US going into default wouldn’t kill anyone at all? For all of the talk about deaths caused by the rumored change in SNAP benefits ITT, I don’t see any talk about the outcome if the politicians all refused to budge and we went into default No one would be killed directly or immediately, but a lot of people would die as side effects of our economic fall from grace and the ensuing depression. It would be like Brexit, only more so
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:That implies that you think the Supreme Court is acting in good faith and just making rulings based on "unclear law," and not inventing ridiculous excuses that serve their radical political agenda, and that the Supreme Court would not just take that updated law and pass it through their "major questions" doctrine to find brand new excuses. That's plainly bullshit. With a functional Congress, that wouldn't happen. Why? Because if Congress "clarifies" the law and then the Supreme Court says it still isn't clear enough, then Congress can "clarify" it again. Of course, the Supreme Court could always rule that the law still isn't clear enough, after which Congress could "clarify" it again, after which the Supreme Court could rule again that it still isn't clear enough, and so on...but realistically speaking, that's not going to happen. Why won't it happen? Because Congress has the power to directly attack the Supreme Court with moves like court-packing, while the Supreme Court doesn't have any real way to hit back. In a genuine standoff between the Supreme Court and a sufficiently-determined Congress, the winner is inevitably going to be Congress. So if there's clear political unity behind something, such that a safe Congressional majority is falling in behind it, the Supreme Court can't really jerk them around too much for fear of retaliation. The Supreme Court can do as it pleases only because the legislative branch (and the country as a whole) are in a state of national political paralysis which disproportionately weakens the more-accountable parts of government, while encouraging the less-accountable parts of government to fill the leadership vacuum by doing whatever the gently caress they want. Blaming everything on the Court is misguided; it's just a symptom of our larger social and political malaise. KillHour posted:From all the news I'm seeing, he's also getting student loans unpaused, which I have to imagine is a huge deal. The student loan unpause has been planned for months, because the Supreme Court ruling on it is due this summer. The administration figures that either the Supreme Court will affirm the forgiveness (in which case most of the paused payments will vanish), or the Supreme Court will overturn the forgiveness (in which case the pause would also be unlikely to survive court scrutiny). The fact that McConnell is trying to present that as part of the deal just goes to show how little he actually got from this deal: he's desperate for "concessions" to wave in front of the GOP caucus so he can claim he's a winner, and he's willing to stretch the truth and hope the voters haven't been paying too much attention.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
I think that something that is often missed in the whole Dems bad debate is that ultimately the core principle of the Democratic party is a belief and reverence for democracy as a system of government so don't expect them to flaunt the rules the way Republicans do. TLDR Summary spoiler tag for those who'd prefer to avoid my verbal vomit expanding on my argument. The primary ideological divide in the world today is between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. Because ultimately the only alternative to democracy of some sort is might makes right. If democracy can't address these threats within the bounds of its own construct then that validates the argument of the authoritarians. The entire point of democracy is to replace violence as the means of settling political arguments. Elections are ritualized warfare where victory goes to the side with the most votes and we avoid all the death and destruction that would have resulted from actual warfare. That's the reason why Democrats will not be doing a Republican and ignoring the rules. It's a recognition that as urgent as everything seems now we have to keep an eye on the future and if Democrats did what Republicans do by just ignoring the rules whenever it's convenient for them that would be an admission that democracy doesn't work. While yes there probably are plenty of Democrats who are compromised by their reliance on capital for funding or in their own self interest in the case of Manchin I do believe that most Democrats got into politics because they care about making a better world if they just wanted to make money and have power the GOP is right there with much lower standards. They may disagree on exactly how to get there but are aligned in principle. The Republicans being authoritarians; do not feel constrained by the mechanisms of democracy. Because they don't believe in government through consensus. In fact the reactionary extreme of the Right is outright hostile to the very idea of democracy as an operating principle. Democracy is messy and imperfect because human beings are messy and imperfect. Yeah a lot of things would work differently without some of the anti-democratic mechanisms like the Senate, electoral college, partisan gerrymandering and such which should definitely be addressed but ultimately we can only progress at the rate that the general public perception changes. The Right isn't wrong about schools being indoctrination centers. Democracy requires an engaged and educated population to function. And for at least the last 50 years that indoctrination has included the basic idea that all people should have a say in how the world operates. Every state indoctrinates their citizens to some extent and we're no exception. The Left tends to focus on the part of that indoctrination that is friendly to capitalism but ignore the fact that public schools totally and completely support multicultural inclusive democracy. What makes democracy work is that if every one feels like they're getting to weigh in on a question they are more likely to accept the consensus opinion. What we call reactionary really is the reaction to their feeling that their opinions are not being heard. They tend live in social bubbles where most of the people they associate with agree with them and not what they are being told the consensus is so they are suspicious of the results either way they don't see democracy working for them so they react to that consensus with hostility. That's why the culture wars are more important the class wars. Culture wars are ultimately about changing public perception of what's fair and that means changing public opinion on how they view different demographics. When the United States was originally formed the general public perception of those in power was based on who had power at that time thus the declaration of independence says that all men are created equal because at the time only white men of means were considered full human beings. But they left the seed for that to change in the Constitution by referring to citizens as "people" so that as our definition of "people" changed to be more inclusive our democracy was expanded to be more inclusive. To try and get back on my main point. The Democratic party is the democracy party. It plays by the rules even when the opposition cheats because maintaining the system of democracy is the core goal. That also means that they tend to follow the prevailing culture rather than lead it. And yeah that faith in the process of democracy is pretty much the liberal position that drives leftists nuts. What they see is a broken mechanism and since they consider it broken they believe that it should just be ignored. Liberals may share the view that it's broken but believe that the system should be used to repair that mechanism rather than just choosing to ignore it so that the public will accept that change. It all comes down to maintaining legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the public. So that as the laws change the majority favor the change and the rest can grumble under their breath about it. If the general consensus becomes that democracy can't address our problems then the only alternative is warfare and might makes right and the authoritarians win and historically that works out really badly for those without power.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
You are giving the Democratic Party vastly too much credit for a belief in the idea of liberal democracy that they simply don't have.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You are giving the Democratic Party vastly too much credit for a belief in the idea of liberal democracy that they simply don't have. As someone who has participated in a political campaign for a socialist candidate in a state completely controlled by the Democratic Party and seen them pull out every possible element of ratfuckery to keep us off the ballot, I strongly concur.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that the US going into default wouldn’t kill anyone at all? For all of the talk about deaths caused by the rumored change in SNAP benefits ITT, I don’t see any talk about the outcome if the politicians all refused to budge and we went into default And I'm sure the 2008 recession didn't kill anyone either huh
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:If you set a standard that any policy with any deaths attributable to it in a country of 330 million is bad, it catches a lot of good policies too, because 330 million is a lot of people. Better to look at the merits of the actual policy (in this case, the SNAP work requirement changes are bad in a vacuum, but not as bad as default and better than what you would have expected to pass a Republican house) What are the merits of throwing people off of SNAP then? What good policies are causing people to die?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You are giving the Democratic Party vastly too much credit for a belief in the idea of liberal democracy that they simply don't have. This. And even if that's all true the take away for a lot of people will just be that they're not ideologically prepared for this moment in time which is exactly what people are saying already. You're looking at a bunch of people going "the Democrats are not fighting back in a way that will win" and going "oh ah but did you know that it's because they're noble? That nobility is really what drives the people who think they're losing and will lose bad nuts". Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
Are we seriously arguing here that well it's a small number of people that will get maltrution and make their lives hell so it may be okay. No it's not okay at all full stop this is the classic trolley problem and you are falling for it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Any significant recession kills people, the next American recession would do a better than average job of killing people because of the broad percentages of American life that got deathmarched to the very edge, the broader percentage of the world population who's gonna catch the rear end end of market collapse, and let's not forget the US medical care system is mostly hanging by a thread, so there's six digits more casualties from Healthcare underservice
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What are the merits of throwing people off of SNAP then? What good policies are causing people to die? It turns out that some bad things happen when voters elect Republicans  Not as many bad things as when they elected Republicans to the house, senate, and presidency though 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 21:31
|
|