Current Events > Republican states sue to let schools block LGBTQ kids from getting free meals

(+) Yeah! (+)

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Why does that matter? As we have seen it is imperative people are proactive and make sure they can't ever do these things because they have shown that these are the kinds of things they will attempt to do.

It matters because nobody has done it, or tried to do it, or even talked about doing it, but wanting to do it is totally their motivation rather than what they say is their motivation is not exactly a sound argument. Republicans are notorious for stupid government overreach stuff, making up things to make it seem worse is dishonest.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Why shouldn't this be within their scope?

Im not sure whether it actually is or not, I would have to do a lot of reading about the authority given to the USDA to determine that. Im just saying that is what people should be arguing about instead of doing this they just want to murder children routine.

Tenlaar posted...

Im not sure whether it actually is or not, I would have to do a lot of reading about the authority given to the USDA to determine that. Im just saying that is what people should be arguing about instead of doing this they just want to murder children routine.

Are Republicans offering to implement those measures themselves or getting whoever does have the authority to get it done? Doesn't look like it.

If they aren't doing that then they're simply suing them to block it like the topic title states no?

Tenlaar posted...

Stop lying about me, its sad.

ask around, mate

I figured shit out on my own, so anyone can do it. I'm tired of all this civil discourse, debate team bullshit. If someone thinks stupid and wrong shit, they should be ruthlessly mocked and shunned until they figure it out.

Republicans are right about one thing accidentally when they defend Trump: Being right is more important than being nice.

TheOtherMike posted...

No, see, I'm not the one trying to strip people of their rights, so you can fuck right off with this disingenuous bullshit, too.

If a person ignorantly votes for evil, they are functionally evil regardless of their intentions. We all have the internet in our pockets, there is no valid excuse for "ignorance" to the degree of not knowing what the Republican Party thinks of womens' and LGBT+ rights while simultaneously voting for them.

Yes, everyone in the nation keeps up to date on politics, knows the full consequences of their actions, and votes from an educated standpoint. That's why the working poor continually vote against their own best interests. Thank you for clarifying that.

Good grief.

FortuneCookie posted...

Yes, everyone in the nation keeps up to date on politics, knows the full consequences of their actions, and votes from an educated standpoint. That's why the working poor continually vote against their own best interests. Thank you for clarifying that.

Good grief.

I feel like when you have someone like Trump out there leading the party the 'ignorance' excuse only goes so far. How can they still not know when Trump is out there fear mongering about all sorts of bullshit? Why else would they vote for him and his supporters?

Ruvan22 posted...

Sorry, I guess I should have specified - people not your family, as they are people that have a preexisting emotional connection with you (and thus will positively weigh "truth" as coming from a reliable source to some extent). I was asking about some of the instances through which you've gotten people like neighbors, work colleagues, hobby interest partners etc to change their views after being swept deep into the Fox news echo chameber.

And I'm glad that you changed, but your experience doesn't really apply to this specific discourse - unless you had extreme beliefs entering college similar to 1/6 rioters being anti fa

I can't say that I've changed a person's mind through civil discourse but I have had my mind changed on a few subjects through the like. Every little bit helps but the thing that really needs to be done is to educate people on a grander scale.

If I controlled any media outlets, I would be shining a light on the Nazi-like behavior of Republican politicians while making appeals to reason among the working class. The key thing to remember is that, if you insult somebody, they will fight you to the death before they will ever admit you're right.

Convincing one or two people to change is great, but it really takes change in mass numbers to make a difference on a nationwide scale.

Ignorant voting for terrible people doesn't detract from the fact terrible people were voted for.

If people were genuinely ignorant of a president being supportive of neo Nazis and white supremacists? Yeah they still voted him in. There's no "oopsie woopsie" that undos the damage.

FortuneCookie posted...

I can't say that I've changed a person's mind through civil discourse but I have had my mind changed on a few subjects through the like. Every little bit helps but the thing that really needs to be done is to educate people on a grander scale.

If I controlled any media outlets, I would be shining a light on the Nazi-like behavior of Republican politicians while making appeals to reason among the working class. The key thing to remember is that, if you insult somebody, they will fight you to the death before they will ever admit you're right.

Convincing one or two people to change is great, but it really takes change in mass numbers to make a difference on a nationwide scale.

There's a difference. You were OPEN to reason.

The deplorables are not.

Punished_Blinx posted...

I feel like when you have someone like Trump out there leading the party the 'ignorance' excuse only goes so far. How can they still not know when Trump is out there fear mongering about all sorts of bullshit? Why else would they vote for him and his supporters?

Trump is bad news. Anyone should see that. Him getting the nom is really what made me say "fuck the Republican party," but that's not the same as saying to fuck (all) of the voters. I will admit, I smiled one day when I saw a person wearing a COVID mask which read, "Fuck Trump, Fuck Pence, and Fuck You If You Voted For Them."

But I've spoken to at least two people who have had reasons that don't check out, but feel like a person could earnestly be duped into voting for him. One is an older religious woman who knows he's a bad man, but thinks that the Republican party is the Christian party and that God has a reason for setting a man like Trump up to be president. She had a look of hurt and confusion in why God would supposedly choose such a hateful man to be lead the nation, but that's what she honestly believes. (This almost puts me in sympathy with people who want rid of religion as a concept. I'm a Christian and I'd go atheist before I'd believe that God chose Trump.)

The other individual was a stranger I spoke to during a two-hour line at Disney World. When the guy started talking politics, I pretended to be a Republican to find out information. He said to the effect of the following:

"Trump, you know, he's not an eloquent speaker. He doesn't talk well, but he's fighting for you and me. I'm not a racist. I run a roofing company. The people who work for me, they're Latinos. They're brave. You know, they get up on the roofs I'd be afraid to get up on. They're good people. You know, the Democrats kiss the Black community's ass every four years to get votes. They never do anything for them."

I do believe that guy is casually racist whether he realizes it or not. His reasoning made me want to bang my head against the wall. But I honestly believe that he believed what he was saying.

And I have a bit of a confession to make. The one time that I voted Republican, I was sympathetic to gay marriage and Bush was against it - but I went with Bush over Kerry anyway in part because I didn't think Democrats were sincere about legalizing same sex marriage. So, for what it's worth, the attitude that Democrats talk progress but don't actually do anything is a view I used to have personally. So, uh... Thanks, Obama. (Sincerely.)

Who knows? Maybe 60% to 80% of modern Republicans are bad people. I'm not arguing against that. But I am arguing against a 100% ratio.

FortuneCookie posted...

but I went with Bush over Kerry anyway in part because I didn't think Democrats were sincere about legalizing same sex marriage.

So you thought someone lying about doing something you wanted was worse than someone promising to not do the thing you wanted?

FortuneCookie posted...

Trump is bad news. Anyone should see that

Cool, glad you finally agree with us. Looks like your keyboard freaked out and typed a bunch of stuff after that though, might want to edit that out.

The problem is you've got two primary bases that Republicans pander to.

The fiscally focused conservative who will always vote for them for lower taxes and more freedom for business owners and high income earners. They don't care about social policies because they believe they won't be impacted.

Then you've got the fundamentalist Christians who are pandered to with stories like this. Often more likely to be in rural and poor areas. They're focused on the morals of society and are socially conservative.

These are the groups Republicans pander to and always will. It's why the have the support that they do.

Are there ones who somehow pay no attention at all and just vote the same way their family does? Sure. But they're still overall being influenced by someone who is in one of the above two groups.

FortuneCookie posted...

Trump is bad news. Anyone should see that. Him getting the nom is really what made me say "fuck the Republican party," but that's not the same as saying to fuck (all) of the voters. I will admit, I smiled one day when I saw a person wearing a COVID mask which read, "Fuck Trump, Fuck Pence, and Fuck You If You Voted For Them."

Some fiscally focused conservatives were conflicted about Trump. But I don't think there was a significant loss of them. Which is why the Republican party continues to be more and more extreme.

Umbreon posted...

Ignorant voting for terrible people doesn't detract from the fact terrible people were voted for.

If people were genuinely ignorant of a president being supportive of neo Nazis and white supremacists? Yeah they still voted him in. There's no "oopsie woopsie" that undos the damage.

You're right. They can't take it back. If I could revote, I would have voted John Kerry in 2004. That doesn't mean everyone who votes for the wrong person does so for the wrong reasons and should be held accountable as though they were. If that's the case, I should be executed for treason. I voted for a war criminal who waged a war on two fronts under false pretenses.

Gremlynn posted...

There's a difference. You were OPEN to reason.

The deplorables are not.

I'm not saying they can all be saved.

There are plenty of them who know they're getting screwed financially but vote Republican anyway because it makes life harder for minorities. It's like a bigotry tax to them and they're willing to pay it.

hockeybub89 posted...

So you thought someone lying about doing something you wanted was worse than someone promising to not do the thing you wanted?

I thought John Kerry was going to stop the War on Terror and that America would be left vulnerable to another 9/11. America's safety, so I thought, came first. What little did I know. For the most part, we weren't fighting the perpetrators of 9/11 anyway.

If Kerry had ended the war, that would have meant a decade and a half of people who didn't need to die would not have died. If a person should be damned for voting for the wrong cause regardless of reasons, Hell surely would await me after death. :(

FortuneCookie posted...

Yes, everyone in the nation keeps up to date on politics, knows the full consequences of their actions, and votes from an educated standpoint. That's why the working poor continually vote against their own best interests. Thank you for clarifying that.

Good grief.

You keep posting wildly disingenuous shit. No one is expecting complete and full education and undersranding of every facet of politics. What is expected is a very basic awareness of the party's attitude towards women and minorities, which they do not attempt to hide or obfuscate. Ignorance as an excuse only works when you're aren't claiming ignorance of plain-as-day out-in-the-open facts like "the sky is blue," "dogs bark," "water is wet," or "Republicans are trying to strip minorities of basic human rights."

Tenlaar posted...

It matters because nobody has done it, or tried to do it, or even talked about doing it, but wanting to do it is totally their motivation rather than what they say is their motivation is not exactly a sound argument. Republicans are notorious for stupid government overreach stuff, making up things to make it seem worse is dishonest.

We have literally seen Republican go out of their way to attack people in the LGBT+ community. Making books about them banned from schools, calling them groomers, trying to make sure that they can't get married. And so when they are fighting for the right, to not fed gay students. (This is literally what they are fighting for ). You say oh let's just believe them when they say, the possibility of hurting gay students is just side effect of what we want to do .

cjsdowg posted...

We have literally seen Republican go out of their way to attack people in the LGBT+ community. Making books about them banned from schools, calling them groomers, trying to make sure that they can't get married. And so when they are fighting for the right, to not fed gay students. (This is literally what they are fighting for ). You say oh let's just believe them when they say, the possibility of hurting gay students is just side effect of what we want to do .

Can you provide an example of anybody enacting such a policy, trying to enact such a policy, or even talking about enacting such a policy?

Tenlaar posted...

Can you provide an example of anybody enacting such a policy, trying to enact such a policy, or even talking about enacting such a policy?

So right now there are protections for these students. The Republicans are literally trying to break those protections. Also I guess after the Nuremberg Laws went into effect people should not have worried about things getting worst until it happened ?

Tenlaar posted...

Can you provide an example of anybody enacting such a policy, trying to enact such a policy, or even talking about enacting such a policy?

Can I have the keys to your car? I've never expressed any intentions of stealing it, so you would be fine with that right?

cjsdowg posted...

So right now there are protections for these students. The Republicans are literally trying to break those protections. Also I guess after the Nuremberg Laws went into effect people should not have worried about things getting worst until it happened ?

They are arguing that the USDA is exceeding its authority by trying to enforce what they see as a political agenda in an area outside of their purview. If you want to argue that their intention is something other than that you need to provide an actual argument for that. They are bad so I can make up any bad thing and attribute it to them is not an actual argument. So can you provide any examples
of people enacting, trying to enact, or talking about enacting a policy of denying lunch to LGBT students?

Tenlaar posted...

They are arguing that the USDA is exceeding its authority by trying to enforce what they see as a political agenda in an area outside of their purview. If you want to argue that their intention is something other than that you need to provide an actual argument for that. They are bad so I can make up any bad thing and attribute it to them is not an actual argument. So can you provide any examples
of people enacting, trying to enact, or talking about enacting a policy of denying lunch to LGBT students?

I have literally showed examples of them attacking LGBT students in different ways, and explained what is stopping them from doing it here. You are doing your best Ben Shapiro, and just like with him. When it comes to real human interaction and not a debate hall. It just makes you look like you are willingly being obtuse.

Duh I don't understand how you could think this party with a history of attacking the LGBT community could be doing something to attack the LGBT community.

Tenlaar posted...

Im not sure whether it actually is or not, I would have to do a lot of reading about the authority given to the USDA to determine that. Im just saying that is what people should be arguing about instead of doing this they just want to murder children routine.

I dunno man...Personally, I'm not inclined to 'soften the blow' at all by telling people what the outcome of their objections will be. I saw a lot of chatter across social media of Republicans being grumpy over Florida's "Parental Rights in Education" bill earning the popular nickname of "Don't Say Gay." They often whinged about their motives being misunderstood, that they weren't trying to prohibit lgbtqia+ rights but just empower parents...to undermine and demonize lgbtqia+ rights.

People don't seem to enjoy being reminded of the outcomes of their actions. It's the whole 'the civil war happened because of states rights' schtick playing across time.

cjsdowg posted...

I have literally showed examples of them attacking LGBT students in different ways, and explained what is stopping them from doing it here. You are doing your best Ben Shapiro, and just like with him. When it comes to real human interaction and not a debate hall. It just makes you look like you are willingly being obtuse.

Duh I don't understand how you could think this party with a history of attacking the LGBT community could be doing something to attack the LGBT community.

You can just acknowledge that you can find zero examples of anybody even talking about doing what you are saying they want to do.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Correct, I brought up Nazis as an example of the worst people. There is no wiggling your way out of this guy used Nazis as an example of terrible people so he must love Nazis being incredibly stupid. I bear no blame for you doing incredibly stupid things.

Tenlaar posted...

You can just acknowledge that you can find zero examples of anybody even talking about doing what you are saying they want to do.

The protection of civil rights is in the purview of the federal government, if the measures are proactive, that is far better for marginalized groups then reactive protections.

Tenlaar posted...

You can just acknowledge that you can find zero examples of anybody even talking about doing what you are saying they want to do.

They are literally doing it. Sorry you are unable to read between the lines and that you take things at face value

LGBTQ+ people need to be protected at any cost and no one should be allowed to discriminate. You should be forced to not discriminate and I hope bigots hate it.

hockeybub89 posted...

They are literally doing it. Sorry you are unable to read between the lines and that you take things at face value

He is gaslighting.

DespondentDeity posted...

He is gaslighting.

Clearly

People please, stop feeding tenlaar he's a notorious something or other and never engages in good faith.

gunplagirl posted...

People please, stop feeding tenlaar he's a notorious something or other and never engages in good faith.

He is oh my goodness but the soggiest SAO that ever befouled a biscuit tin!

hockeybub89 posted...

They are literally doing it. Sorry you are unable to read between the lines and that you take things at face value

Then you should be able to provide even a single example of somebody enacting, trying to enact, or even talking about enacting the kind of policy that this would prevent.

DespondentDeity posted...

The protection of civil rights is in the purview of the federal government, if the measures are proactive, that is far better for marginalized groups then reactive protections.

It is not the purview of every government agency to do it wherever and however they want to. Thats not how anything works. If they were arguing that the Department of Education was exceeding their authority by implementing anti-discrimination policies in schools it would be a different matter entirely.

gunplagirl posted...

People please, stop feeding tenlaar he's a notorious something or other and never engages in good faith.

Dude is literally going to be the gate guard at a camp and be like "all I did was let the people the government sent here into the camp, what happened to them after that is the responsibility of the camp administration".

ScazarMeltex posted...

Dude is literally going to be the gate guard at a camp and be like "all I did was let the people the government sent here into the camp, what happened to them after that is the responsibility of the camp administration".

Yup

Tenlaar, we all know how you behave. Youre infamous at the politics board.

stop dude

Tenlaar posted...

Then you should be able to provide even a single example of somebody enacting, trying to enact, or even talking about enacting the kind of policy that this would prevent.

Per the OP's article, they are quite literally suing for the ability to return this to the hands of individual states. Whether or not I or anyone else can point directly to Timmy, who self identifies within the LGBTQIA+ umbrella, not getting school lunches is immaterial. When you also consider that the Senate has stonewalled any attempt to pass the Equality Act at the same exact time, it's impossible not to see hockeybub's statement about 'reading between the lines' as a statement of actual fact.

Like look man I get not being aware about things that don't involve you personally but how can someone who claims to be unaware about these things still have such a strong and boldly confident opinion? It's a bit weird, lil bit suspect tbh.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Or even "well if they disagreed with their treatment they could simply leave" or something similar

Kimberly posted...

Per the OP's article, they are quite literally suing for the ability to return this to the hands of individual states. Whether or not I or anyone else can point directly to Timmy, who self identifies within the LGBTQIA+ umbrella, not getting school lunches is immaterial. When you also consider that the Senate has stonewalled any attempt to pass the Equality Act at the same exact time, it's impossible not to see hockeybub's statement about 'reading between the lines' as a statement of actual fact.

Like look man I get not being aware about things that don't involve you personally but how can someone who claims to be unaware about these things still have such a strong and boldly confident opinion? It's a bit weird, lil bit suspect tbh.

he is known at the politics board for asking innocent questions about controversial issues or pretending not to be aware of certain things, and then when people dont bite he produces out of nowhere a long ass diatribe about why he feels so strongly about his hot take and showing just how aware he is and how his innocent question was something he already knew the answer for

FortuneCookie posted...

I can't say that I've changed a person's mind through civil discourse but I have had my mind changed on a few subjects through the like. Every little bit helps but the thing that really needs to be done is to educate people on a grander scale.

If I controlled any media outlets, I would be shining a light on the Nazi-like behavior of Republican politicians while making appeals to reason among the working class. The key thing to remember is that, if you insult somebody, they will fight you to the death before they will ever admit you're right.

Convincing one or two people to change is great, but it really takes change in mass numbers to make a difference on a nationwide scale.

If you haven't found the method (civil discourse) to be effective and don't have data that shows it to be effective, why are you pushing everyone to engage in it? To be clear, I'm not saying that civil discourse, even in the face of insults is always the wrong choice, I'm asking why you are saying it should be what we all do in THIS set of interactions (Trump/Republican supporters that aren't aware/are ignorant).

Tenlaar posted...

Im not sure whether it actually is or not, I would have to do a lot of reading about the authority given to the USDA to determine that. Im just saying that is what people should be arguing about instead of doing this they just want to murder children routine.

Tenlaar posted...

Can you provide an example of anybody enacting such a policy, trying to enact such a policy, or even talking about enacting such a policy?

For the third time, WHY do you feel the proponents of the bill will listen in good faith to arguments of why this isn't "government overreach"? To paraphrase your statement, what are some examples where Republicans have engaged in reasonable debates about government overreach?

TheOtherMike posted...

You keep posting wildly disingenuous shit. No one is expecting complete and full education and undersranding of every facet of politics. What is expected is a very basic awareness of the party's attitude towards women and minorities, which they do not attempt to hide or obfuscate. Ignorance as an excuse only works when you're aren't claiming ignorance of plain-as-day out-in-the-open facts like "the sky is blue," "dogs bark," "water is wet," or "Republicans are trying to strip minorities of basic human rights."

The height of arrogance is to tell yourself that everyone who disagrees with you knows you're right and is lying to themselves.

Good people vote for bad people all of the time. It's not hatred. It's not evil. It's ignorance. Yes, evil Republican voters exist. Many of them in fact. But to say that literally every Republican hates gay people, Black people trans people, women, etc.? That's statistically impossible. I'm not defending the Republican party. I'm only saying that not everyone who votes for them is evil.

Ruvan22 posted...

If you haven't found the method (civil discourse) to be effective and don't have data that shows it to be effective, why are you pushing everyone to engage in it? To be clear, I'm not saying that civil discourse, even in the face of insults is always the wrong choice, I'm asking why you are saying it should be what we all do in THIS set of interactions (Trump/Republican supporters that aren't aware/are ignorant).

You cannot change an adult's mind about anything. People can only change themselves. If you present the evidence in a nonconfrontational way, you can get to people who aren't voting out of hatred. There are several reasons why people vote Republican - not just one.

If even 20% of Republicans were won over, it would be a major victory for our side.

FortuneCookie posted...

The height of arrogance is to tell yourself that everyone who disagrees with you knows you're right and is lying to themselves.

I never said they're lying to themselves. The overwhelming majority of Republican voters know the Republican Party's position on social issues and either agree or don't care. The subset of Republican voters who are somehow legitimately ignorant of their Party's platform are statistically insignificant.

FortuneCookie posted...

Good people vote for bad people all of the time.

News flash: that makes them bad people.

FortuneCookie posted...

Many of them in fact. But to say that literally every Republican hates gay people, Black people trans people, women, etc.?

Fyi: try reading.my posts next time.

TheOtherMike posted...

These are not a statistically significant portion of the voting base.

I already said they exist but are not a significant portion of the voting base.

TheOtherMike posted...

I never said they're lying to themselves. The overwhelming majority of Republican voters know the Republican Party's position on social issues and either agree or don't care. The subset of Republican voters who are somehow legitimately ignorant of their Party's platform are statistically insignificant.

There's no such thing as statistical insignificance when it comes to voting or to generalizations. If even 10% of them are decent, you do them wrong to say they're all bad. And even a 10% increase in the Democrat vote would be of aid.

But I guess that isn't as important as you having someone to hate.

News flash: that makes them bad people.

Ignorance doesn't make people bad. Intent does.

Actually, you still have someone to hate regardless. The people knowingly fighting against the rights of others are worth hating. Wanting to hate 100% of them is the problem.

TheOtherMike posted...

Willfull ignorance in the face of a literal political party openly trying to codify human rights violations absolutely makes people bad.

Not all of them are willfully ignorant. Some of them are genuinely so.

I'll say it again. Nothing is more arrogant than pretending that everyone knows you're right and is just lying to themselves.