this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
509 points (99.8% liked)

politics

25944 readers
2242 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
 

People going hungry? Who's to say? We don't ask anymore, even as food banks report record demand.

This post uses a gift link with a view count limit. If it runs out, an archived copy should eventually show up here but wasn't yet available when I posted.

Edit: there is now an NYT article about this as well

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 160 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

theres only one party that thinks hunger is a political issue.

anti-science. anti-facts. anti-humanity

the regressive party strikes again

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 52 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yet they call themselves pro-life. They're pro-birth, but once you're born fuck you.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They love having more slaves

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 weeks ago

I think it was George Carlin that said they want live babies to grow up into dead soldiers.

[–] MightBeAlpharius@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Well, yeah - before you're born, they want you have a life; after, they tell you to get a life and quit whining. Sounds pretty "pro-life" to me!

(/s, because tone doesn't carry well in text)

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Something something, "pro-life", something something. We've been here before, you all know how to fill in the blanks.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

With blank checks to the causes that advance your own agenda?

.........what? Is that not what they do?

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Pro-life doesn't extend beyond the womb.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

^[Citation^ ^needed]^

Not if the faction that overwhelmingly calls itself "pro-life" is against feeding children once they're born. That's what it means when they decrease SNAP benefits and increase the administrative burden of accessing those (and related) resources.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Which is exactly what I mean.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My misunderstanding, thought it was a drive-by "nuh-uh" at first.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

All good! And also I just saw my typo.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Just another hypocrisy from the far far far right.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Democrats haven't been so keen on addressing hunger. They refuse to address livable wages and keep bandaid solutions like food banks and charity.

[–] thecaptaintrout@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

True, but that kind of "both sides" is not helping. One side is hamstring by corporate donors and we need to primary the corpos out. The other side is actively taking food out of babies mouths, destroying public services, etc.

Both are issues, but one is truly heinous and cruel.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Can't vote your way out of fascism

[–] ThatFuckingIdiot@sh.itjust.works 51 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

They're cancelling it now because they expect food insecurity to get considerably worse in the next few years.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 25 points 2 weeks ago

They're cancelling it now because they ~~expect~~ plan to make food insecurity to get considerably worse in the next few years.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

It's almost like the largest employee in the country has had massive politically-motivated layoffs performed plus the entire economy upended with a slapdash constantly changing patchwork of import taxes on top of everything else currently at play to prevent economic growth

[–] jeffreydbrown@lemmy.world 38 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"We're not asking because we don't care what the answer is."

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

We know it's gonna be bad and we want to hide that

Oh. They do care.

[–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 2 weeks ago

Politicized by them

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That'll get rid of hunger the same way they stopped reporting COVID infections stopped COVID

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Didn't researchers find that people getting repeated cases of COVID were seeing long term compounding issues with cognitive decline?

A.K.A. Repeated COVID cases equals more GOP voters created.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yep, shaving off of up to three IQ points each time. More likely in cases of unvacinated infections.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

"I don't want to know about all the suffering I'm causing!"

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Overly politicized? Whiskey tango foxtrot? How can FACTS about how many people aren't getting their basic needs be politicized? Wanting people to stay alive is political now? How are the clowns in the government this blatantly, cartoonishly evil? We're expected to respect "different opinions" when one side's "opinion" is some people don't deserve to live but they call themselves pro-life

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

If it makes conservatives/ Republicans / Taco and their terrible ideology and policies look bad, that's "political".

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Didn't you know? Reality has a liberal bias.

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Trickle down economics is just a golden shower on the poor. This final stage is from a gold plated child rapist that some worship as a sun god.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So... Are there any independent watchdogs keeping track of all the damage he's doing? So that we can reverse this asap should we somehow manage to get someone at least milquetoast back in?

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly, I think it would be easier to just start over. There is a lot of systemic cruft from countless generations of ingrained politics and politicians, that have been strangling the possibility of effective reform. Until massive sea changes like getting rid of First Past the Post, Electoral College, and so forth has been done, things will just keep getting crappier.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

More conservative and Republican cancel culture.

[–] lennee@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

well yeah. it should be politicized. if ur policy causes hunger ur a piece of shit, an enemy of the people and ur literally not doing ur job as a politician/party. Politicize that shit.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

politics? Not here in politics town, says politics man.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

I'd hate it if my government did anything political. Politics has no place in government, we'd best leave it for the politicians.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's like people who don't want chemicals in their food.

Everything is ~~chemicals~~ politics.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

I read "Annual Hunger..." and I thought it said Hunger Games for a moment and I WTFed at it.

But then again, we're not that far off from panem.

May the odds ever be in your favor...

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 5 points 2 weeks ago

People are three days of meals away from revolution. Let's see how this strategy pans out, Cotton!

[–] Rustic_Fry@literature.cafe 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat. Otherwise we'd get along.

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

Reports are not just to confirm that good times are still good... They're for detecting and observing the bad times.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Politicized?

Politically inconvenient for the regime that cuts food aid, school meals, etc.