politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
The governor doesn't believe in welfare, so Nebraska is just going to let those kids starve.
Excellent. Then, we can stop sending federal aid to Nebraska now.
I would love for us to be able to do that without harming people who are not responsible for the governor's actions and are stuck in Nebraska (which seems like punishment enough).
Me too. I think the solution is to take whatever funds Nebraska would have gotten and provide them directly to the Nebraskans in need. This would remove the conservative Nebraskan government's ability to misapropriate those funds. We can solve a lot of problems at once by removing conservatives from the equation.
Sure, some of the funds would need to be spent developing distribution infrastructure, but at least the money wouldn't be stolen by the local conservatives. It would actually go to the Nebraskans in need.
I think we'd see a lot of domestic terrorism if that happened.
Conservatives are going to terrorize any time they don't get their way. Whenever any resistance is offered to their attempts to oppress others, they will respond with violence or threats of violence. That's just who conservatives are at their core.
We should never, ever let conservative violence dissuade us from resisting.
Other states could offer relocation benefits to Nebraskans who are only there because moving is expensive. Let those states take a piece of the federal aid that would have gone to Nebraska proportional to the number of its residents they've taken in that year. Maybe for a number of years after too but it'd take someone more math/economics inclined than me to say how much or how long. Let them have the decrepit, backwards, rotting Republican utopia they dream of without the hostages.
It won't happen and there are tons of flaws with the idea. Still, I enjoy the thought of a world where this would have consequences on somebody other than the people directly harmed by these bad policies and decisions.
Does this mean we can finally end the ridiculous ethanol subsidies? Both Iowa and Nebraska have come out as anti-welfare so it's the only logical next step.
You mean ethanol welfare, a subsidy is just welfare for a business...
Yeah that's why I conflated the two.
Plus, creating ethanol from corn uses ridiculous amounts of energy and groundwater.