this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
473 points (99.6% liked)

politics

26226 readers
5111 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Approximately 42 million Americans—about one in eight people—who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program stand to go hungry after November 1, when benefits are scheduled to expire.

“Bottom line, the well has run dry,” reads a message explicitly blaming Democrats on the Department of Agriculture’s website.

A coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors are fighting for the latter. They argue that the USDA not only has the funds to continue feeding Americans via SNAP through the month of November, it also has “both the authority and legal duty” to do so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 71 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Oh fuck this take. They were kids sold a lie by the powerful elite who had these goals. They get groomed and recruited out of ignorant conservative families then further brainwashed into a lifetime of authoritarian servitude. The GOP takes their entire lives away and lets them die early.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Some of the most liberal people I've ever met are former combat vets.

Some of the most conservative people I've met are vets that never saw a day of combat.

It's a fascinating trend

Also broke kids. Historically, the military has been one of the only reliable ways to escape the cycle of generational poverty and/or gangs. The government has a vested interest in keeping poor people poor, because impoverished areas are prime recruiting grounds.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago
[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

As crude and shitty as OP's comment is, they're right. Being gullible doesn't mean you get more than others. All people deserve life, liberty and happiness, period.

You don't get more life, liberty, and happiness just because you were conned into fighting a rich mans war.

We live in the information age, if you're 18+, let's be real, 13+, and you don't stop to go on the Internet to find out whether or not you should be shooting people, you are fucking up.

There is one exclusion, if you're a Nazi, we'll bury whatever parts of you we can find after we fuck you up and you get nothing.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This ignores the intentional use of cyclical poverty to make the military the only viable option for many.

This gives them a "volunteer" army that they can do what they please with. Because people will always write them off because they "volunteered".

You start providing basic Healthcare, food, and housing to the whole population and pretty soon the military won't make their recruiting numbers.

It's the age old story. Want to eat? Sell your body to the powerful

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I understand that, we want that eliminated.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

i just think it's right that an organization takes care of someone that fought for it. ask other externalities excluded. i believe that is a responsibility that anyone that asks others to doubt for them ought to owe.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 2 days ago

Ah, so they are just dumb and have no personal agency. Good defense.