sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

How about common sense? Our generosity as a society is to prevent them from starving. Limiting those funds to food with actual nutritional value is the biggest no brainer ever. If people want junk food (or cigs or booze or weed) they can go get a part time job.

The stock market continues to crater.
That's some real bad "wealth" effect for the Top 10% of Americans that account for 50% of consumer spending.

S&P 500 Dips Into Correction as Stock Market Sours on Trump - The New York Times

MAGA !!!

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

Pocahontas Says Yes said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

We have no problem of shutting down the gov't for 30 days, we'll have the house and senate when it returns.

---

tIt has never gone well politically for the party that shuts down the government.

I'd like to see the Republicans do something that stupid (again).

---

🚨SHUTDOWN SCHUMER

Chuck Schumer in September: A govt shutdown is a disaster for Americans.

Chuck Schumer in March: Democrats will be blocking the CR, which will likely force a govt shutdown. pic.twitter.com/fp8cRoFMhK

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 13, 2025

---

If the Republican could ever get their 5hit together, it wouldn't matter what the Democrats try to do about the shutdown. Personally, I don't see why the Democrats would want to bail the GOP out of their internal bickering. Go ahead and shut the government down, even though I'll have to keep showing up for work without getting paychecks. The best way ahead is to make the mess and pain so blatant and consequential to the American people that the GOP and the Trump administration will face the consequences.

First USAID, now Act Blue? I don't follow Act Blue ... but apparently there is an alleged scandal ready to blow open? It sounds like mysterious sources routing money through to Act Blue, then to Democrat candidates? Act Blue lawyers fleeing the scene.

🚨BREAKING: Rep. James Comer and the FBI to bring CRIMINAL CHARGES against those behind ActBlue, The Largest Money Laundering Scheme in U.S. history:

"We are going forward with our investigation. Their lawyers are leaving… This will be the end of the Democratic Party." pic.twitter.com/6OOXyGjyr4

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 13, 2025

This young man has a good voice.

pic.twitter.com/5X9QdWVMRt

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 12, 2025

I've been a critic of those calling for impeachment of federal district judges because they object to the decisions they have been making in response to some Trump Admin. policy changes.

But, I think Judge Alsup in San Francisco might have just put himself in the hot seat with…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 13, 2025

Two examples of the whacky Liberal mindset.

IRONY: Columbia University’s distinguished 2017 Human Rights Fellow, Lydia Mugambe was convicted of human trafficking and slavery in the UK. Before her conviction she had been appointed to the UN as a judge overseeing human trafficking and slavery cases. pic.twitter.com/hpC0uELh5b

— @amuse (@amuse) March 14, 2025

Thank God Trump didnt cut any safety jobs at the FAA.

Oh wait ...

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/us/american-airlines-fire-denver-airport/index.html

DiabloWags said:

---

Thank God Trump didnt cut any safety jobs at the FAA.

Oh wait ...

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/us/american-airlines-fire-denver-airport/index.html

---

The Transportation Secretary announced his inquiry after a top DEI activist was reportedly caught on voicemail offering minority air traffic controller candidates the opportunity to cheat an entry exam.

"There are some valuable pieces of information that I have taken a screenshot of and I am going to send that to you via email," Shelton Snow, an influential figure at the National Black Coalition of the Federal Aviation Employees (NBCFAE), allegedly said.

Snow, an air traffic operations supervisor based out of New York, said, "I am about 99.99 percent sure that it is exactly how you need to answer each question."

The Daily Mail wrote:

Quote:

---

The inside info was made available in 2014 to African Americans, females, and other minority candidates but whites were left out of the loop to 'minimize competition'.
Exactly how many applicants were able to capitalize on Snow's brazen offer to secure coveted controller jobs responsible for the safety of millions of fliers remains a mystery.

---

Matthew Douglas, one former NBCFAE member said, "I know several people who cheated and I know several people who are controlling planes as we speak."

Some of the 400 jobs that were cut at the FAA helped support air safety, a union says | AP News

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

---

So would you like SNAP to allow alcohol? The government's controlling that decision. After reading this thread I happened to go to the store, so I looked at the label on a bottle of Coke. 39 calories, all from carbs, 80% of which came from added sugar. The last line read something like 'not a significant source of other nutrients'.

So banning the purchase of an item containing no nutrition in a program that's intended to supply nutrition is 'control' and wrong?

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

---

So would you like SNAP to allow alcohol? The government's controlling that decision. After reading this thread I happened to go to the store, so I looked at the label on a bottle of Coke. 39 calories, all from carbs, 80% of which came from added sugar. The last line read something like 'not a significant source of other nutrients'.

So banning the purchase of an item containing no nutrition in a program that's intended to supply nutrition is 'control' and wrong?

---

I just find it interesting where conservatives want to avoid the government controlling your lives and where they are happy to allow it.

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

---

So would you like SNAP to allow alcohol? The government's controlling that decision. After reading this thread I happened to go to the store, so I looked at the label on a bottle of Coke. 39 calories, all from carbs, 80% of which came from added sugar. The last line read something like 'not a significant source of other nutrients'.

So banning the purchase of an item containing no nutrition in a program that's intended to supply nutrition is 'control' and wrong?

---

I just find it interesting where conservatives want to avoid the government controlling your lives and where they are happy to allow it.

---

I don't consider it 'control'. Answer the question about alcohol. Beer has more nutrition than Coke. (Not a whole lot, but more than Coke.) It's 'control' to ban Coke, but not beer? And why prevent access to wine, which has antioxidants?

Again, the program's goal is to provide nutrition. Failing to supply something that doesn't provide nutrition is in keeping with the program's goal.

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

---

So would you like SNAP to allow alcohol? The government's controlling that decision. After reading this thread I happened to go to the store, so I looked at the label on a bottle of Coke. 39 calories, all from carbs, 80% of which came from added sugar. The last line read something like 'not a significant source of other nutrients'.

So banning the purchase of an item containing no nutrition in a program that's intended to supply nutrition is 'control' and wrong?

---

I just find it interesting where conservatives want to avoid the government controlling your lives and where they are happy to allow it.

---

Personal freedoms are greatest when we are doing things on our own dime. If someone else pays, they get the right to lay down some rules.

The extremes on either end of the political spectrum want nothing less than to control what you do and think.

bearister said:

---

The extremes on either end of the political spectrum want nothing less than to control what you do and think.

---

But only one side came up with the idea of Ministry of Truth.

House Democrats big mad at Chuck Schumer... LOL!!!

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) March 14, 2025

Hakeem Jeffries pretending to be mad is part of the act. Chuck Schumer played the sacrificial lamb as Senate expected to pass Trump's spending bill to avoid government shutdown.

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

If the infighting is real, the Democrats are doing a good job of hiding it.

The vast majority of MAGAs had never heard of Orwell's 1984 until it was applied to MAGA and Trump line item by line item in hundreds of articles during Trump I. Then, like every other idea they never had, they co-opted it.

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

---

So would you like SNAP to allow alcohol? The government's controlling that decision. After reading this thread I happened to go to the store, so I looked at the label on a bottle of Coke. 39 calories, all from carbs, 80% of which came from added sugar. The last line read something like 'not a significant source of other nutrients'.

So banning the purchase of an item containing no nutrition in a program that's intended to supply nutrition is 'control' and wrong?

---

I just find it interesting where conservatives want to avoid the government controlling your lives and where they are happy to allow it.

---

I don't consider it 'control'. Answer the question about alcohol. Beer has more nutrition than Coke. (Not a whole lot, but more than Coke.) It's 'control' to ban Coke, but not beer? And why prevent access to wine, which has antioxidants?

Again, the program's goal is to provide nutrition. Failing to supply something that doesn't provide nutrition is in keeping with the program's goal.

---

Who decides what counts as "junk food"? Soda pop, fine. But most other stuff counted as "junk" also has SOME nutritional value. And why not trust people to know what kind of food they want/need?

I dunno. If I were in the legislature I wouldn't go to the mat over opposing this kind of rule but I'm not convinced it actually helps. I also don't think it's "nuts" for a medical association to oppose it. There could be all kinds of unforeseen negative impacts from such restrictions. The video says that potato and corn chips are also not allowed. At some point this becomes a lot of restriction on something that is supposed to help people get fed.

bear2034 said:

---

If the infighting is real, the Democrats are doing a good job of hiding it.

---

You guys obviously don't follow any left-wing social media. Trust me, they are mad.

sycasey said:

---

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

---

They need it.

In my opinion the Progressives need to be marginalized like the Tea Party in order for the D party to recover.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Ukraine agrees to a cease fire, Dept of Ed announces 50% reduction in forces, Ontario MP backs down in electricity trade war, House passes CR…slow news day for the Trump WH

---

The Ontario Premier threatened the U.S. to shut off electricity completely and within 48 hours, said he was just kidding.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

---

They need it.

In my opinion the Progressives need to be marginalized like the Tea Party in order for the D party to recover.

---

The origin of MAGA was the Tea Party.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

---

They need it.

In my opinion the Progressives need to be marginalized like the Tea Party in order for the D party to recover.

---

Not clear from which direction such a revolt would happen, though!

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

If the infighting is real, the Democrats are doing a good job of hiding it.

---

You guys obviously don't follow any left-wing social media. Trust me, they are mad.

---

Why are they mad? Thomas Massie told everybody what the dems were going to do a few days before they did it.

62 to 38 in the Senate.

As I predicted 3 days ago, senate democrats carried this across the finish line because it’s basically a continuation of the Schumer-Biden-Johnson 2024 omnibus.

10 senate democrats voted yes and 1 senate republican voted no (Rand Paul!) https://t.co/XFqwym35lA

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 14, 2025

bear2034 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

---

They need it.

In my opinion the Progressives need to be marginalized like the Tea Party in order for the D party to recover.

---

The origin of MAGA was the Tea Party.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna disagree with that pretty strongly.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

If the infighting is real, the Democrats are doing a good job of hiding it.

---

You guys obviously don't follow any left-wing social media. Trust me, they are mad.

---

Why are they mad? Thomas Massie told everybody what the dems were going to do a few days before they did it.

---

Because they didn't want them to do that. It doesn't matter who predicted it.

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Wow that's nuts. The American Heart Association sent their lawyer to fight a Texas Bill banning Soda and junk food from their SNAP program. Looks like the Bill passed anyway though.

---

Is there good evidence that preventing people from buying certain kinds of food with government benefits actually helps them in any way? Otherwise it seems like we're just infringing on freedoms for being poor.

---

Yeah it's called Diabetes.

---

So people on SNAP get this less thanks to the restrictions? Why not just ban sodas or sugary drinks for everyone, if you want to improve public health?

---

First off nobody is banning people buying anything. They are just making sure it isn't state funded. The state should not be paying people to make their health worse, that's an individual decision. They believe people will make different decisions when they have to pay with their own money.

---

Government control only applies when you're poor.

---

So would you like SNAP to allow alcohol? The government's controlling that decision. After reading this thread I happened to go to the store, so I looked at the label on a bottle of Coke. 39 calories, all from carbs, 80% of which came from added sugar. The last line read something like 'not a significant source of other nutrients'.

So banning the purchase of an item containing no nutrition in a program that's intended to supply nutrition is 'control' and wrong?

---

I just find it interesting where conservatives want to avoid the government controlling your lives and where they are happy to allow it.

---

I don't consider it 'control'. Answer the question about alcohol. Beer has more nutrition than Coke. (Not a whole lot, but more than Coke.) It's 'control' to ban Coke, but not beer? And why prevent access to wine, which has antioxidants?

Again, the program's goal is to provide nutrition. Failing to supply something that doesn't provide nutrition is in keeping with the program's goal.

---

Who decides what counts as "junk food"? Soda pop, fine. But most other stuff counted as "junk" also has SOME nutritional value. And why not trust people to know what kind of food they want/need?

I dunno. If I were in the legislature I wouldn't go to the mat over opposing this kind of rule but I'm not convinced it actually helps. I also don't think it's "nuts" for a medical association to oppose it. There could be all kinds of unforeseen negative impacts from such restrictions. The video says that potato and corn chips are also not allowed. At some point this becomes a lot of restriction on something that is supposed to help people get fed.

---

I think most would agree that fast food isn't healthy, and it's costly in the short and long term.

We already do this with the WIC food supplemental program - women, infant, children. What new mothers can buy for their young children is highly restricted.

These include milk, cheese, yogurt, cereal, whole grains, juice, eggs, peanut butter, beans, fruits, and vegetables. With juice, for example, there can be no added sugar.

tequila4kapp said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

---

They need it.

In my opinion the Progressives need to be marginalized like the Tea Party in order for the D party to recover.

---

The origin of MAGA was the Tea Party.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna disagree with that pretty strongly.

---

Some would argue MAGA goes back to Ross Perot / Reform Party. Common sense principles.

You're not much of a student of political history.
Probably weren't even born yet when Reagan was elected in 1980.
That's why I find much of your posting worthless.

movielover said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I can see where Schumer might have been correct on the tactics here, but . . . this kind of thing is going to brew a Tea Party style revolt within the Democratic base. The old guard of leadership is going to get tossed out.

---

They need it.

In my opinion the Progressives need to be marginalized like the Tea Party in order for the D party to recover.

---

The origin of MAGA was the Tea Party.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna disagree with that pretty strongly.

---

Some would argue MAGA goes back to Ross Perot / Reform Party. Common sense principles.

---

The Tea Party is a direct off-shoot of Reagan Republicanism. Small government because people should solve their own problems with their own money. Individualism. Pull yourself up by boot straps. Lower taxes. Free trade. Etc, etc. etc.

There is absolutely nothing in the traditional Reagan Republican party that involves isolationism, cozy'ing up to Russia, tariffs, economic populism, massive deficit spending (Trump 1st term), etc, etc etc. Trump has transformed the Republican party to be the exact opposite of what it was in all those areas; in so many ways Trump is a 1940s-1960's Democrat and that is why he confounds them, even though he is personally so flawed.