They just get worse and worse

[WolfEyes]

Ah. The real reason those two are in office finally starts showing. The repugs are deliberately making women look bad so none of us will ever be able to hold an office.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Ah. The real reason those two are in office finally starts showing. The repugs are deliberately making women look bad so none of us will ever be able to hold an office.

I'm not sure.... I think there is some truth to what you're saying but I don't think they are quite doing it intentionally. Successful lady republican politicians like these two and Palin seem to fit into what Repugs think women should be, but I don't think they realize it's sexist. Their supporters (both men and women) are often very poorly educated and are just voting for someone they relate to.

Also, I think Boebert is a lot dumber than MTG. I've seen some decent arguments that MTG knows better than she acts. She's often playing into the narrative and rarely ever has any missteps that upset her base. She's always telling them what they want to hear. Even Trump accidently pisses off his base a lot more than MTG does. I think Boebert really is 100% genuinely this stupid and has no idea what's going on.

 

[Free]

But you know, they're not fascists...

Moms for Liberty Chapter Defends Quoting Hitler in Newsletter

If you needed more proof of how this is an extremist group

newrepublic.com

A Moms for Liberty chapter has apologized after receiving blowback for quoting Hitler in its newsletter, but they still justified using the quotation.

Moms for Liberty was recently branded an “extremist” group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC says Moms for Liberty is “a far-right organization that engages in anti-student inclusion activities.”

The Hamilton County, Indiana, chapter of the organization posted its newsletter, “Parent Brigade,” on Facebook Wednesday morning. On the front page was the quote, “He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future.” The group didn’t even try to hide that it was a Hitler quotation, citing the Nazi leader just under the text.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Boebert's a little bitch...

Anyone else interested in seeing those two battle it out in a large tub full of mud?

 

[Isabeau]

Dual event in Las Vegas. Those two and Musk/Zuckerberg as the main.

 

[Sid]

Dual event in Las Vegas. Those two and Musk/Zuckerberg as the main.

Tickets for a flight to Vegas and for the fights please (ringside if possible) and a room in the Venetian please.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Anyone else interested in seeing those two battle it out in a large tub full of mud?

Mud? Mud? I want lime jello.

 

[Casey Pelous]

Anyone else interested in seeing those two battle it out in a large tub full of mud?

Battery acid.

 

[WolfEyes]

 

[Sid]

How about epoxy

In that case, I cancel my order of ring side tickets. Replace them for a spot further back in the stands please. (Better safe than sorry).

 

[Innula Zenovka]

How about a contest to see who can pay the most tax?

 

[Free]

House Republican Strategy of Elevating Unstable Clown People Reveals Itself to Have Downsides

Marjorie Taylor Greene called Lauren Boebert a “little bitch” on the floor. Here’s what it says about the Way Washington Works Now.

slate.com

 

[WolfEyes]

If you resort to name calling, you've already lost the battle. If you have to resort to using "foul" language, you've lost the war.

 

[Free]

If you have to resort to using "foul" language, you've lost the war.

Fuck that shit.

 

[Free]

Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority

As states across the country move to make sure students are well fed, Republicans have announced their intention to fight back.

newrepublic.com

States across the country are moving to provide universal free school meals to all our children. Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to stop them from doing just that.

The Republican Study Committee (of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members) on Wednesday released its desired 2024 budget, in which the party boldly declares its priority to eliminate the Community Eligibility Provision, or CEP, from the School Lunch Program. Why? Because “CEP allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.”

The horror.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority

As states across the country move to make sure students are well fed, Republicans have announced their intention to fight back.

newrepublic.com

While I realise this probably isn't the Republicans' main concern, one might wonder if funds spent on providing free school meals for students whose parents can well afford them might not be better spent on additional provision for schools in lower-income neighbourhoods/students from lower-income families.

 

[WolfEyes]

While I realise this probably isn't the Republicans' main concern, one might wonder if funds spent on providing free school meals for students whose parents can well afford them might not be better spent on additional provision for schools in lower-income neighbourhoods/students from lower-income families.

The areas where this program is offered are all low income.

Of note is that the CEP is not even something every school participates in; it is a meal service program reserved for qualifying schools and districts in low-income areas. The program enables schools that predominantly serve children from low-income backgrounds to offer all students free breakfast and lunch, instead of means-testing them and having to manage collecting applications on an individual basis. As with many universal-oriented programs, it is more practically efficient and, as a bonus, lifts all boats. This is what Republicans are looking to eliminate.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The areas where this program is offered are all low income.

So the headline (which I'm afraid is all I read) was inaccurate, since the benefit the Republicans seek to abolish isn't universal, in that apparently only students attending qualifying schools benefit.

 

[WolfEyes]

So the headline (which I'm afraid is all I read) was inaccurate, since the benefit the Republicans seek to abolish isn't universal, in that apparently only students attending qualifying schools benefit.

Universal in the sense that it's not limited to just those students who would otherwise have to go through all the red tape to qualify and then have to constantly prove the child still qualifies periodically and sign up again every school year.

I grew up in the system where you had to qualify. Lots of kids went without lunch because their parents simply couldn't afford it and the requirements for qualifying for free lunches were not only invasive but utterly ridiculous, excluding families who did need help. Lunches weren't exactly delicious but it was better than going hungry.

Repugs only want to get rid of the needed programs and keep the ones that benefit those who already have [lots of] money. This program is needed. Badly. So they will go after it harder.

People don't want to believe it when I say they are trying to starve the rest of us out. Well. There you go.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Universal in the sense that it's not limited to just those students who would otherwise have to go through all the red tape to qualify and then have to constantly prove the child still qualifies periodically and sign up again every school year.

I grew up in the system where you had to qualify. Lots of kids went without lunch because their parents simply couldn't afford it and the requirements for qualifying for free lunches were not only invasive but utterly ridiculous, excluding families who did need help. Lunches weren't exactly delicious but it was better than going hungry.

Repugs only want to get rid of the needed programs and keep the ones that benefit those who already have [lots of] money. This program is needed. Badly. So they will go after it harder.

People don't want to believe it when I say they are trying to starve the rest of us out. Well. There you go.

How does it work for students from a low-income family who live in a district, or who attends a school, not covered by the scheme?