if we're hungry we're less capable of revonution is the thinking
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
11600 readers
1 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:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
That makes no sense, why wouldn't that make you more likely?
If they were capable of critical thinking, we wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Not feeding people isn't exactly the brightest of ideas.
Historically, it has two outcomes. Which comes to pass is up to us.
What value add is forcing people to starve?
I think their strategy is to make the gov shutdown as painful as possible, then point fingers at Dems.
Honestly they should have caved a long time ago. Trump and his cronies are loving the shutdown.
Honestly they should have caved a long time ago. Trump and his cronies are loving the shutdown.
I disagree - there is no appeasing a tyrant - ask the universities that caved to Trump how that worked out for getting their funding restored.
This news demonstrates exactly why, and how democrats need to throw that narrative out the window.
there is no appeasing a tyrant
Who said anything about appeasing him? I'm talking about reopening the gov and getting people fed. We have nothing to gain, they're more than happy to use starvation as a negotiation strategy.
Reopening the government without ACA subsidies literally kills people when they can’t afford their new premiums. There are people for whom affordable access to healthcare is the difference between life-saving medication and, well, the lack of that.
Starvation of people on SNAP is also literally the GOP’s stated goal. If Dems fund the government and let those people who need healthcare die, the GOP isn’t going to play nice and keep funding SNAP. They’re gonna gut it like they’ve always dreamt of doing anyway. They already signaled this with the BBB.
Reopening the government without ACA subsidies literally kills people when they can’t afford their new premiums.
That would be a valid point if conservatives had any motivation at all to come to the table.
Starvation of people on SNAP is also literally the GOP’s stated goal.
Exactly my point.
the GOP isn’t going to play nice and keep funding SNAP
If they were going to defund it, they would have done so already. They defunded everything else.
Honestly they should have caved a long time ago. Trump and his cronies are loving the shutdown.
No, they absolutely should not have, and should continue not to. The message they should be receiving from the most recent elections is that the Republicans are losing support, not gaining it.
What they should be doing is the opposite. It is in the GOP's best interest to reopen the government. Until they can see that their actions are losing them all of their support, ask for more.
For every additional day that someone starves due to the government's failure to provide, ask for something to compensate them. Every additional day that people work without pay, demand something in return for them.
Eventually they will need to cave and compromise. Move the bar so far back that they have no choice but to compromise harder.
The message they should be receiving from the most recent elections is that the Republicans are losing support, not gaining it.
[citation needed]. Republican voters do not want SNAP to even exist. Preventing people from having access to food is what they voted for.
[citation needed].
Surely you've read the news on the most recent elections? Or will we ignore Democrats making major victories from New York City to Mississippi?
Are we going to ignore the giant national Republican victory last year? Show me scientific evidence that shows that conservatives are losing support due to the shutdown.
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.
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...
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know where people are getting the idea that I suggested anyone appease him/them...
I'm not sure what else you could have meant when you stated that "they" (maybe you didn't mean the dems? But it sure reads that way) should have caved long ago. What reason is there to cave other then to continue to appease fascist tyrants?
"Maybe if we give them what they want, they'll stop holding the most vulnerable American populations hostage" is not a good strategy.
What reason is there to cave other then to continue to appease fascist tyrants?
I couldn't have been more clear...
Maybe if we give them what they want, they'll stop holding the most vulnerable American populations hostage
They're not holding anyone hostage. They're just killing them. And they're going to keep killing them up til the Dems cave. Dems have no bargaining chips. Shutdown continues? Conservatives win. Cave to demands? Conservatives win but they also stem the bleeding.
You could have been substantially more clear by, you know, actually saying something substantial. The only statement that you've made is that we should continue to give fascists everything they ask for because they keep threatening suffering if we don't. And let's be clear, the suffering is happening either way.
I'm not sure what you think the concept of holding someone hostage is, if not exactly this. You literally said they're not holding anyone hostage and then described a hostage situation, as "we're going to keep killing people until you meet our demands" is perhaps the most clear cut hostage situation that can exist. Additionally, if the dems had no bargaining chips, they wouldn't have anything to cave on, but the fact that we're even having this conversation proves otherwise. They have something the GOP wants, and the GOP is threatening to kill the population they're supposed to represent until they get it.
The more I read back your statement, the more completely batshit delusional it sounds. It's like you're using words with no understanding of what they mean.
And "stemming the bleeding" is literally a strategy of appeasement.
If your only strategy is to make up bullshit that everyone can see that I did not say, while ignoring everything I did, I'm not going to continue engaging this discussion.
They're just killing them. And they're going to keep killing them up til the Dems cave.
Cave to demands? Conservatives win but they also stem the bleeding.
This you? The first one is a hostage situation. This is where one party has makes threats to a second party unless a third party or government organization takes action according to their demands. The second is a thing we called appeasement, a policy of making concessions to an aggressor, usually out of fear of worse aggressions.
Act as offended as you want. I'm not looking for a discussion. I am addressing the things you are saying and telling you, point blank, that they are stupid as hell. It's not my fault if you're saying things you don't, or choose not to, understand. My "only stategy" is to not sit idly by while people say stupid shit like the garbage that you've been typing.
he first one is a hostage situation.
A hostage situation is not where they just straight up kill people for no reason. The point of holding someone hostage is that they DO NOT kill them UNLESS their demands aren't met.
The second is a thing we called appeasement
Again, no it is not. The point is feeding people, not "appeasing" conservatives.
I'm not looking for a discussion
Then WTF are you doing here? It's not my fault that you don't understand basic concepts of the English language.
What is the strategy of continuing to extend the shutdown? What do Dems have to gain? Conservatives have been shutting down more and more of the government since day 1, on purpose. Again, they're very happy to keep it shut down. "Appeasing" conservatives is KEEPING the govt shut down...
You've really attached your ego to this delusional opinion, huh. The mental gymnastics here are almost as impressive as they are concerning.
Good luck, man. I have a suspicion that you need it more than I do. Hope whatever happened to leave you like this gets better.
Ah yes, personal insults are a strong signal of rational individual with a strong argument...
We have a population crisis with too few babies being born, and the clear solution is to keep making kids more expensive.
Why is feeding people political? What value add is forcing people to starve? Monsters.
I've been doing some free consulting work with Food Not Bombs chapters in my local area. The same day that SNAP went away, ICE started intimidating them.
- They told all the churches and community centers where they do distribution that they're "providing material aid to illegal immigrants" and can face criminal investigations and warrantless searches unless they stop letting FNB distribute food.
- Have shown up at distributions to check people's immigration status which has scared some people away from coming to get food.
IDK if this is a nationwide coordinated effort or unique to my area.
Christ, of course it's a deportation tactic.
We didn't end up in the "eat the rich" future, but rather "starve the poor."
Investors are going to love Walmart's next quarterly earnings.
Actually, Walmarts probably gonna be hemorrhaging money without SNAP. Like, they’re the single largest recipient of money from the program, by way of people using SNAP at them to buy groceries.
It’s actually supper perverse since a lot of their employees are on SNAP due to the poverty wages they pay. Walmart employees buying food with snap at Walmart is a non trivial part of their revenue.
A lot of conservatives argue that we shouldn’t have snap since it makes it possible for companies to pay poverty wages and not have their workers starve to death, and that without it employers would have to raise wages. Conveniently ignoring the fact that companies like Walmart would rather let their workers starve than raise their wages.
A tax to contribute to SNAP on companies that pay wages so low that their employees end up on SNAP is the better answer to the problem.
That's exactly my point. People won't spend SNAP at Walmart, they'll cancel Prime and all other streaming services. Something's gotta give, and even HEB is raising prices by 25%-50%. Like, how is the line supposed to go up when people can't afford your products?
We're going to see a bunch of fools parted with their money.
"Pay them enough to buy food? Pshaw."
Starving people out is the best reason to start fighting. I hope people start fighting back. This makes me so angry holy man.
And when we fight, the insurrection act is invoked, and when it's invoked, material law, then I don't know what. Maybe civil war?
"A material, a material ... fuck it, whatever."
"Martial" is what you were going for here, as is the junta.
Lol. I think I fucked it up so bad that spell check was just guessing.
I transpose letters and numbers constantly.
Thanks!
I'm much more familiar with the "marital" error (as evidenced by two divorces). It's one of those errors every journalist makes at least once, unlike "pubic" -- which is only made once! 🤣