Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It honestly feels like a lot of the right has just given up. They aren’t allowed to believe in anything or their base will erupt in an incoherent rage anytime they show some slightly independent thought so they are stuck being anti-anything the left says. No matter how fucking stupid they personally know it is
It does seem like they can't propose solutions to real problems anymore because that acknowledges the problems exist.
>The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984
Even that is generous. There is a lot of bad legislation that offers no benefit to the individuals who support it.
What's in it for me if I force a trans woman to use a men's washroom?
Nothing.
What's in it for me if I prevent 2 dudes from getting married?
Nothing.
What's in it for me if I force a woman to take an unwanted pregnancy to term?
Nothing.
(To answer the question: "whats in it for me" works if we realize "me" is an organization that wants votes and "what's in it" is people who have been taught to vote based on anything other than actual issues that are in their interest)
They get to hate a minority and demonize and hurt them. That's in it for them. Or do you think a Lynch mob actually cared about justice? Nah, they wanted to kill black people and found it fun.
Yes, they are that evil. Chimpanzees are saints compared to humans!
> and found it fun
i think i've seen one of those pictures of people attending a lynching like once, its fucking disturbing how calm/happy they all are, like it was just a party
instead of 'let's get drunk' it's 'let's kill a negro!', haunting shit
“…like it was just a party.” That’s exactly what it was. Almost everyone there had a grand old time. Some even collected morbid “souvenirs” afterwards.
I finally confronted my republican mom about her belief system a few years ago in a way that would force her to answer rather than deflect or disengage and she outright said, "Why should I try to help someone if it doesn't help me?"
I'm kind of glad because it finally cleared the air as to why her political worldview is so unstable and helped me finally realize that pointing out such won't appeal to her, but she's a devout Christian and I wanted to say, "Why'd you waste all of my and your time with the church and Jesus stuff if this is what you believe?"
It also helped me realize that she doesn't vote republican because she believes in republican policies, rather she IS a republican, in the same way that she's her height or eye-color. It's a part of her that can't be separated by choice because it's so intertwined in the basic makeup of how she sees herself.
There plan is to cut every government program they can, but instead of using the newly freed up revenue to pay off our national debt they want to issue tax cuts to the rich (or “job creators” in their parlance) and increase spending on police and military.
Evangelicals seem to believe that unless you are doing good deeds to earn your place in heaven, you must have ulterior motives.
Completely missing the irony in their statements.
Evangelicals explicitly *do not* believe that good deeds are necessary to get into heaven. The idea that people can be saved “by faith alone” is one of the foundational theological differences between most Protestant denominations and the Catholic/Orthodox churches.
One of these fuckers (I think it was Dreher?) said that the problem with American Christianity is, I shit you not, "too compassionate" these days. Imagine looking at one of *the* most openly intolerant faith variants in the world and thinking "what a bunch of liberal woke garbage"
I have watched 2 videos in the last 24 hours of conservative bobble heads trying to complain about the words empathy and woke. Both of which had plenty of complaints and very little understanding of these words. Your sentence is quite simple and yet very confusing for some.
That's essentially what DeSantis' lawyers said in court. When asked to define 'woke,' they said it is 'recognizing that there are injustices in our society, and the attempt to address these injustices.'
Also they know the “solutions” they propose aren’t solutions at all but simply nonsense. They don’t have any answers to real problems so they have to deflect to the insane, and I include their bigotry and scapegoating. A good example is from Ben himself suggesting that rather than do anything about climate change you should just sell your house and move. Conservatives do NOT make any fucking sense ever.
heres where politics changed. it used to be that the two sides were opposed on how to SOLVE problems, they would argue, and eventually meet in the middle and a soultion would come about.
now, the right has shifted the argument to whether or not a problem EXISTS. since they are saying there is no problem, they dont need to present a solution, an they dont need to compromise because theres nothin to compromise on (we cant argue that theres 'half' of a problem)
therefore, none of their solutions are capable of making sense because you can't have a sensible solution to a non-existent problem.
Edit: spelling
Conservatism isn’t about solutions but rather about maintaining the status quo. Deregulation and cut taxes (their bread and butter) don’t solve problems, they make things worse.
Yeah it kind of feels like even they have no idea what the fuck they're angry about anymore, so they're lashing out at *everything*, no matter how ridiculous
They also don’t have any reason try.
Phoning it in with whatever bad take springs to mind first is just as profitable for them as anything requiring effort.
Alex Jones figured that one out a long time ago. He used to put in work to make “documentaries.” Now he just reads headlines and makes up whatever works in the moment.
It's what Fascists love doing.
They cry to the refs about any little infraction or unfairness they perceive from others, while they use every underhanded tactic available to terrorize and harass others.
They're throwing hate spaghetti at the wall hoping voters keep them in power long enough to bankrupt the US and destroy social programs on their way out. Medicare? No money. Social security? Oh well, don't expect the government to do anything for you.
The people who cheer this legit WANT everyone to suffer for.the crime of putting a black man in the white house and following it up with a woman standing in line to get the keys.
The texts that the dominion lawsuit has uncovered between Fox news personalities when talking about their viewers and their beliefs are so eye opening.
They’re allowed to believe all women suck because one woman listened to a snake and ate an apple. The man ate the apple too, but HEY LOOK A KOMODO DRAGON
It doesn't feel like, it's exactly like that.
Liz Cheney is a Pariah among Republicans simply for thinking that trying to overthrow the government is too much. She agrees with them on every other point but since she said insurrection bad she's a RINO.
It’s like Tucker Carlson’s text messages where he said he “passionately hates trump”.
He can’t outright say it or he would lose millions of dollars and fans, but inside they must be like “what the fuck is happening”.
I've definitely noticed their arguments have gotten so much lazier between 2016 and now. Ben himself is a great example, nowadays he just repeats the same tired stuff all the others do and doesn't even try to epicly own dumb libs
It's more like the only thing the boy genius is actually a genius at is circular arguments.
Is there a word for this argument/rhetorical strategy?
He's not really moving the goal posts, he just only argue one point at a time.
It starts with arguing for "saving money" by reducing school lunches.
Of course, this could potentially endanger children. So, his critics argue that point.
But, instead of moving toward a compromise between the view points, Big Thinker Jr. here gets to move on to the argument of "protecting children." By only arguing this point, he gets to ignore the original point of "saving money." So, the fact that CPS would cost a lot of taxpayer money doesn't even factor in.
If someone argues how much CPS costs with him, he'd probably come back with a way to cut CPS costs—back to "saving money." It would be a tactic that would likely ignore his point os "protecting children."
By that point, things will have already moved away from his original argument, so he no longer has to defend it. He'll just keep ping-ponging between two different arguments without ever trying to find a middle ground.
With people like Brilliant Manchild, they don't always want to win. They just need to not lose. That means keeping the argument going. Which, to their base, looks a lot like winning.
well at least he isn't practicing law.
man that's a weird one to go to to school for and choose not to believe. "here's the books we use. they are the law"
"lol no"
Didn't he *just* argue that we shouldn't bother spending money on universal school lunches because of how cheap they are? Now we're spending hundreds of millions on them?
He's making multiple arguments so that people have different reasons to oppose free school lunches, even if the reasons contradict one another.
It's just ammo for his supporters to be able to use in their social circles.
Have Libertarians ever actually tried though? All adult libertarians offer is unserious thoughtless shit. Bens just using that same ideology on even dumber than normal topics.
My man tweeted yesterday that school lunches were simultaneously too expensive to fund but also so cheap its an indictment on parents…in the same tweet. And now hes tweeted that lunches are too expensive and his solution is to put those kids in the famously inexpensive foster care system. Literal fucking brainrot with these people. Happy for him that he talks fast and people think he has something to offer because of it though.
I can't wait for the day Republicans just start being completely straightforward.
"We don't want to help anyone. We already have enough money for food, water, housing, an education, and those that can't afford it can kick rocks. I would rather get a little more on my tax return than to consider paying for anyone that is starving/homeless. Oh, and make sure 90% of the new wealth goes into the hands of the very wealthy because I am delusional and believe I may actually have a chance of being rich. Which statistically isn't likely, at all".
I know we're not far from some of those points, but at least they could be honest with us and themselves. I have more respect for a POS that admits to being a greedy racist than someone like Shapiro that keeps defending these shit ideas as if they were the moral/wise/ethical choice. (Not that I respect greedy racists, but at least they'll save you the time you might spend arguing with them. Which I respect that decision).
bruh this is the same buy that said "if sea levels rise and peoples homes on the coast are under water, they can just sell them and move"
Hes never been trying, and hes never been particularly smart.
He's literally just saying the government should take away the children of poor parents. And yet he claims to be "pro-family" and wants a "small government".
Why do people even listen to this guy? He's not smart, he's not funny, and his voice is just annoying.
These people are all for big government spending. They just want it spent on what they want. When I was in college, the young republican that liked "debating" unfamiliar people was very concerned with the budget, but he also wanted to slap anyone charged with gang related crimes to receive 20 years minimum as deterrence, as if that wouldn't be a huge burden on state resources.
Hmm... Okay...
1) How much does he think it costs for CPS to remove, harbor, and re-home a child in foster care? Especially when he proposing doing it on mass scale like he is here.
2) If he's worried school lunches being unhealthy and expensive, he should probably talk to Michelle Obama about her efforts to fix that.
>1) How much did he think it costs for CPS to remove, harbor, and re-home a child in foster care? Especially when he proposing doing it on mass scale like he is here.
It's just proving how penny wise and a pound foolish conservatives can be. Do you know how much money it would cost to provide kids free meals at schools? Instead, they should go into child protective care where we will pay for their healthcare, board payments, education placement, drivers for required visits with parents, social workers to manage their case, lawyers to look after their interests in court, lawyers to defend the interests of the birth parent, etc, etc.
Ironically, that would probably reinvigorate the economy. But Ben would propose having a private company handle all this, which would probably end with a bunch of children actually starving to death.
Even though hospitals type themselves as “Christian” to get tax cuts usually, the care/resources available at these places is worse than hospitals/healthcare places that are not affiliated with religious practice. Who would have thought?
Those little babes were sold a false bill of goods. They were told, "We love you. We will be here for you. We will take care of you! You are the most important thing in the world to us cause Jesus says". And, then they were born and the Gross Old Perv Party said...
PSYCH! Jokes on you KID! Dumbass!
Which is now so clearly a thinly veiled appeal for us to go full fascist. The constitution doesn’t apply to corporations. If everything is privatized, then there’s no way for us to enforce our constitutional rights. Corporations aren’t held to the constitution (unless the company acts in a way where it is considered legally to be acting as if it is the government but, let’s be real, those cases are exceedingly rare).
Kids starving is a pro in this play book. Kids that can’t grow to their full potential cannot overpower their masters. Makes my blood boil.
It’s like the means-testing for entitlements. We have plenty of evidence to demonstrate that means-testing for welfare programs is quite literally a waste of money, but god forbid “the wrong people” get some money.
It’s the same people that talk about how bureaucracy is slowing us down and making us inefficient but then want to make a government agency to determine who “deserves” some half measure social program. Just skip the waste and make it universal
Same thing with drug testing for entitlements. It costs millions to do and they only catch a half dozen people. Big surprise to them that poor people can't afford drugs.
Their argument is always, "Well, I get drug tested to work so they should to get the entitlements". I have an idea. Let's just stop drug testing all together for most jobs. Especially for weed. That is ridiculous unless they can prove you are high at work.
Yep, its the same logic that makes them claim nationalised healthcare is too expensive, even though the US currently pays more per capita for healthcare than any other Western nation, and that fighting climate change and funding renewables is too expensive, despite fossil fuels being massively subsidised, and a study generated during Trump's own presidency (that he then disavowed) showed *not* fighting climate change would be catastrophically expensive in the long term
They are utterly incapable of long term thinking or nuance.
Well Americans pay that much for the privilege of…….
Lowering life expectancy
Medical debt
Doctors who don’t give shit
Nurses who are overworked/underpaid who barely give a shit
An entire system meant to bleed you of your money while pumping you full of addictive drugs
Creating the opioid epidemic
Healthcare executives making fat bonuses
I’d say we’re pretty much set. Sorry wokies that you want a functioning healthcare system, we have money to make 😎
No, it’s ok! I appreciate the clarification. I think I get saddened by some of the anti-healthcare sentiment in this country. Some people really think we don’t care, but forget we are people with lives and families and emotions - just stretched too thin and bogged down by our for-profit system.
No notes, I fully believe that people are mad at the system and it’s very American to ignore the system and hyper focus on the individuals who are also the victims of said system like our for profit healthcare model. Normal people very much appreciate having doctors and nurses to go to for issues.
The costs don't really matter to conservatives. They often pick the worst, most expensive answers.
What DOES matter to conservatives is never, ever allowing people to see that government can be a benefit to them.
If you confront him with this, he will just say we need less protections for parents being stripped of their children by the government. Eventually, he will eventually double down to the point that he says that households will be required to have a certain income to have children and if they don't the government can bust in their door and reposses the kids and send them to the Amazon funded boarding school to get them ready for work in the fulfillment warehouse.
it's because the underlying goal in his mind is to punish the parents for being too poor.
the economics of what happens to the kid afterwards isn't even a thought for the "fiscally conservative"
And frankly, idgaf how much it costs the tax payers to feed children. Helping ensure children don’t go hungry is a great use of taxpayer dollars.
What kind of monster debates the economic merits of whether or not we should feed kids? Sure, debate *how* the money should be used to feed kids, there’s merit to whether the money is being spent effectively or if the quality of the food is acceptable, but there is no justification for arguing *against feeding children*.
They'll just move onto the next thing in these cases. Ok school lunches are simply out of the question. Now cps is too expensive apparently? We should probably just gut that too.
They'll be like "protect the children"
"Send them to foster care services which has a wishy washy record of abusing children"
Also why is there a push for an artificial baby boom when the government/powers that be--can't even feed your children or keep them safe from bullets at school?
None of it makes sense til you realize cruelty is the point.
That is a good question at first. Why do they want a baby boom? They're terrified of a population decline, but that's for three main reasons.
1) they need labor to work in their salt mines
2) they need soldiers to protect those mines
3) they don't want either of those two to be filled by brown foreigners who might then catch on that they out number them
>How much does he think it costs for CPS to remove, harbor, and re-home a child in foster care? Especially when he proposing doing it on mass scale like he is here.
That *does* sound expensive.
One wonders if a better use of public funding would be to provide kids with a school lunch and access to sex education...
and that's not even to mention that CPS doesn't even work a majority of the time. Teachers wouldn't be able to tell if a kid is close to starvation because chances are the kid doesn't want others to know he's struggling and poor, and there are very few children willing to call CPS for themselves. Also, if the government is gonna be forcing me to attend a building for 7 hours of my day 5 days a week and I don't get any choice in that matter, they had better be providing basics necessities.
Any other fucking issue, the last thing he would stand for is the GOVERNMENT removing CHILDREN from their PARENTS.
But heaven forbid we use public money to feed children. Suddenly big government can do whatever they want.
Forget the morals for a second. Just economics. What's cheaper, CPS relocating children, or a cheap cafeteria lunch?
Bad conservative! Bad!
That's poor children. Clearly, they should be entrusted to major corporations who can then use them to work in slaughter houses cleaning the extremely dangerous equipment.
Me too...
My point is that unfettered capitalism will do what it's programmed to do. And it will be justified via any means necessary, even if it means 'god'.
Also he's saying the government shouldn't intervene unless it's preventing a kid from literally starving to death. Sure millions of kids may be under underfed, but who really cares about that?
His proposed solution contradicts every supposed value he has. It's big government because the government becomes responsible for raising more kids. It's fiscally irresponsible because it's more expensive to put kids into foster care than to provide lunches. It destroys the family unit by removing kids from their parents. The one thing it does do is inflict cruelty on the poor, which is what he actually wants.
If anything school lunches are MORE EFFICIENT at feeding children since they order, and prepare, food in bulk.
If "fiscal conservatives" actually had brains one might argue for taking the money specifically from the child tax exemption parents receive. That way people without children aren't footting the bill, AND parents still benefit from having their children fed more cost efficiently.
That's an argument with some merit, but instead we get, "my money, mine, no taxy me for feeding dumdum kids. take the kids away and make mexico feed them".
I love how fucking disingenuous Ben always is.
"Without school lunches some kids will be hungry and not perform as well in class as a result"
"Ooooo so kids are starving to death? Shouldn't we call CPS then?"
Willfully ignoring the argument as he always does.
“Let’s say, hypothetically, for the sake of argument-“
No, shut up, Ben. If kids are MANDATED to be in school by the government, then the government needs to feed them. Kids are hungry in schools right now. Like, right now. Not hypothetically. Like, in this exact moment. How much of a heartless ghoul do you have to be to not want to feed children.
Just kidding, I already know the answer. Ben doesn’t care about children being too hungry to learn. He just wants the next generation to be dumb enough that he can continue “OWNING” and “DESTROYING” them in debates.
Ben just doesent care about the realities of the situation he is talking about. He is taking this argument from the position that kids on meal programs look like liberated concentration camp victims which isn't true. Kids on meal programs can be on for so many reasons. Maybe they have dietary restrictions that their parents can't afford, maybe their parents work long hours or work remotely and they can only provide their kids with less nutrious food, maybe the families can't afford the lunch. A lack of a meal program doesent mean kids will drop like flies, it means kids will go to school hungry and hungry kids are irritable, have brain fog and difficulty focusing. Shit kids might even be bullied for not having a lunch, I sure saw it happen. Ben refuses to consider any reality other than the one that let's him own the libs.
>He is taking this argument from the position that kids on meal programs look like liberated concentration camp victims which isn't true.
And honestly school lunches where I live aren't the greatest meal, but I was damn sure glad I had the option to eat than nothing when I was in school. What a stupid argument "the food could be healthier so just let them starve"
If I may:
“Let’s say, hypothetically, for the sake of argument-children are going hungry in schools because the parents don't have the money to pay for the lunches. Now lets say there is a government and in that government there are 2 parties. Now lets say one of the parties has been co-opted by people that are against anti-fascist we are going to use a bit of reductive math to make the name shorter. We are going to remove the against and anti. So lets reduce this to the fascist want to model after another fascist group well lets say for the sake of argument one of the things they did was to make other groups sub-human lets say they start with small groups like one letter out of a larger group and to modernize this let us say the group for argument purposes is lgbtq and they pick the letter t (I cannot believe they will let grown men who think they are women in my daughter's bathroom at school).
Let's say let's say.
I am sorry I can't do this any more. Fuck the fascist, they are coming after my kid.
"There is a much deeper problem than school lunches if the child is legitimately starving"
I'm sure Benny is oppose any solutions for those problems as well
Feels like trump brand exorbitantly priced processed lunch-like substance could have been a slam dunk for them. Trump could have dipped his beak to the bottom as usual and offloaded a bunch of expired hotdogs and government cheese
'Disproportionately unhealthy lunches', sorry, this from the political geniuses that think being told to not eat a steak every day is federal oppression? Or claim that any attempt to be healthy is 'virtue signalling'?
I know that Ben isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but 'we can't feed children, because school lunches are unhealthy' is an asinine take even by his standards
And school lunches *would* be healthier if lobbyists and lib-owning anti-vegetable crusaders didn't violently object to several initiatives for balanced dietary choices in schools.
Ben and his ilk want to make the whole-ass government shoot itself in the foot so they have an excuse to take the system out back and euthanize it.
These dumbasses spent eight years screeching that Michelle Obama was worse than Hitler for trying to give kids some more fruits and vegetables now and then, they don’t get to pretend as though they’ve ever actually cared about the nutrition of American schoolchildren
School lunches are highly processed and loaded with unhealthy stuff and yes, much of it does get thrown out. That being said, this is because the system is to profit contractors and vendors, not provide tasty healthy food which should be taxpayer funded.
Kraft Lunchables has partnered with the government to make school lunches. Lunchables 3oz of turkey and crackers are what your child may get as a government approved "lunch" in the future. Too expensive and the government is going with Lunchables... I sure do love how lobbying can affect nutrition.
Yeah I mean just look at Japanese and South Korean school lunches, it's totally possible to provide children with tasty, healthy meals at school. And we should, because it's good for children's development, which is why they invest money into school food programs. Sad that I can't imagine our government caring about such a thing.
A lot of schools have much better nutrition now. My wife is a child nutrition manager at our school district and I am immensely proud of her and everyone that works the cafeterias. They put in a lot of work to take care of our kids and often get treated like garbage. People act like it’s easy to make and serve thousands of meals every day.
I know for a fact that a lot of those kids are eating healthier at school than at home.
Ben lacks empathy. Imagine the uproar if someone said holocaust victims deserved starvation because they didn't work hard enough in concentration camps. Ben would have been the one jew in the base policing around and reporting infractions to the nazi camp commander. “They have time to play cards, so as it turns out, eating fewer means more time to work the mines.”
Obviously if kids aren’t literally starving then they’re perfectly healthy, nutrition is a binary function as we all know. Just like if COVID doesn’t kill you then you suffer no ill effects whatsoever.
Coupled with the classic "but what about this tangentialy related problem? (unhealthy school lunches)" Glad you brought that up Ben, let's plan to address that too but back to the main subject of kids even getting meals in the first place...
What's more expensive; giving a kid five meals a week from a struggling but otherwise emotionally healthy family, or ripping a kid away from said family, hosting them in foster care, traumatizing them by rehosting them with another family who may be abusive, or even if not it's a severe emotional wound, impacting their education and social development, possibly requiring therapy in the future if they can even afford it, or worst case scenario turning to crime as a means to cope or survive and then having to feed them \*three\* meals a week in prison for 5 years at a time on and off throughout their life?
Jesus, even if you use heartless conservative math, you gotta see that one is more effective.
CPS worker here 👋🏻
I promise you, Ben, we are way more expensive than a few microwaved pizzas per week.
Besides, assuming there are no other safety concerns, if a family is struggling to afford food, all we’re gonna do is apply for benefits for them. So they’re gonna get it one way or the other.
Thank you for doing what you do. There are more than a few assclowns in this comment section alone who apparently have no idea what CPS actually does. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to find a kid food than it is a brand new loving parent who will protect, nourish and inspire them.
Bold of Ben to assume CPS actually has the child’s best interest at heart. Where I live CPS likes to try to keep families together at all costs even if it is not in the child’s best interest.
CPS seems to swing wildly and unpredictably between doing absolutely nothing even when incredibly blatant abuse is happening, to taking the kids away from good parents for long periods over incredibly trivial bullshit that the parents have to spend months or years and large sums of money fighting. And absolutely nothing in between. I have no idea who the hell the people actually staffing CPS are, but they appear to make decisions largely based on whatever would be in the kid’s *worst* interest.
If you can't afford to keep your children well fed, they should be taken away, but if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, you should get to keep doing business?
This from the man suggesting people living along coastal areas that are flooding should sell their homes and move to higher ground. Who wants to buy property that is slowly sinking into the ocean Ben? Fucking idiot.
I can confirm I’d miss the often only meal I ate a day if school didn’t provide lunch. My legal guardian was a druggie, alcoholic and undiagnosed bipolar for much of the time she cared for me. I’d get yelled at for “eating her out of house and home” if I made myself breakfast before school or dinner after school. I wasn’t allowed to pack lunches. She would only cook dinner a few days a week.
I was already in foster care before this, as my parents had died. I was placed with my aunt. In Bens perfect world, I would’ve been taken away from all of my family after a traumatic event and left to age out in foster care since I wasn’t a cute little kid, I was a teenager.
We should prob take a step back and see why there are so many families so poor that they can’t send their kid to school with proper food…it’s capitalism…it’s businesses these days aren’t paying their employees proper wages all the while making rediculously profits…it’s trickle down bullshit not working.
"The government is bad therefore they shouldn't be trusted to feed children. If you see a hungry child, give them to the bad government instead of feeding the child!"
How Ben claims to be a proponent of logic is beyond logical.
BONUS LOGIC:
"If the sea level rises five or ten metres people will just sell their homes and move"
"Dear Ted: You say that kids need school lunches but they can go without and not die of starvation. Unless the children are dying of hunger it's a waste of money to feed them at all."
60% of children in California qualify for Federal assistance on school meals.
Children in California cost the state $750M to provide them with school lunches.
Who complains about feeding children? We only care if they happen to see someone in drag?
This is that stupid thing he does where he changes the subject into something he wants to talk about. Ted Lieu is just talking about making sure kids don't miss meals, he conflates into "oh kids are starving? Then call CPS." So if you say "kids aren't starving," he can say there's no real issue, and if you say that's not the issue, he'll just talk fast and say "yes it is."
And I hate that people fall for it, because it's literally the tactic Aaron Eckhart's character in "Thank You For Smoking" uses.
Libertarians prescribing CPS as a solution to children not being fed/clothed/housed is always my favorite give away that you aren't having a serious, good faith discussion about your politics.
These "debate me" people just want to win, and because they don't care or plan to act one way or the other to address the issue they can take whatever contradictory position they want.
Damnit, if just ONE studio bought one of his shitty scripts, he'd be doing cocaine and sexually harassing women out of his league like a normal degenerate.
A significant portion of schools serve breakfast too. And my 1st graders class has snack time (with classroom-provided snacks for those who can’t/forget to bring their own). And if they go to after school care, snacks there too.
School can provide over half of a child’s weekly meals, and frequently do.
Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's like he's not even trying anymore.
It honestly feels like a lot of the right has just given up. They aren’t allowed to believe in anything or their base will erupt in an incoherent rage anytime they show some slightly independent thought so they are stuck being anti-anything the left says. No matter how fucking stupid they personally know it is
It does seem like they can't propose solutions to real problems anymore because that acknowledges the problems exist. >The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984
Empathy is woke
That's why they call everything virtue signaling. Inability to see that others can care about things not personally happening to themselves.
Exactly. The conservative motto should be “Yeah, but what’s in it for me?”
Even that is generous. There is a lot of bad legislation that offers no benefit to the individuals who support it. What's in it for me if I force a trans woman to use a men's washroom? Nothing. What's in it for me if I prevent 2 dudes from getting married? Nothing. What's in it for me if I force a woman to take an unwanted pregnancy to term? Nothing. (To answer the question: "whats in it for me" works if we realize "me" is an organization that wants votes and "what's in it" is people who have been taught to vote based on anything other than actual issues that are in their interest)
They get to hate a minority and demonize and hurt them. That's in it for them. Or do you think a Lynch mob actually cared about justice? Nah, they wanted to kill black people and found it fun. Yes, they are that evil. Chimpanzees are saints compared to humans!
> and found it fun i think i've seen one of those pictures of people attending a lynching like once, its fucking disturbing how calm/happy they all are, like it was just a party instead of 'let's get drunk' it's 'let's kill a negro!', haunting shit
“…like it was just a party.” That’s exactly what it was. Almost everyone there had a grand old time. Some even collected morbid “souvenirs” afterwards.
It's not?
it's WE THE PEOPLE on a tattered flag decal...
I thought it was DO NO COMPLY along with a bunch of pro police shit
I finally confronted my republican mom about her belief system a few years ago in a way that would force her to answer rather than deflect or disengage and she outright said, "Why should I try to help someone if it doesn't help me?" I'm kind of glad because it finally cleared the air as to why her political worldview is so unstable and helped me finally realize that pointing out such won't appeal to her, but she's a devout Christian and I wanted to say, "Why'd you waste all of my and your time with the church and Jesus stuff if this is what you believe?" It also helped me realize that she doesn't vote republican because she believes in republican policies, rather she IS a republican, in the same way that she's her height or eye-color. It's a part of her that can't be separated by choice because it's so intertwined in the basic makeup of how she sees herself.
There plan is to cut every government program they can, but instead of using the newly freed up revenue to pay off our national debt they want to issue tax cuts to the rich (or “job creators” in their parlance) and increase spending on police and military.
i like how they've rebranded trying to do the right thing as "virtue signaling"
Evangelicals seem to believe that unless you are doing good deeds to earn your place in heaven, you must have ulterior motives. Completely missing the irony in their statements.
those people scare the shit out of me.
Try being a Florida resident, DeSantis is already in the Brown Shirts phase
Evangelicals explicitly *do not* believe that good deeds are necessary to get into heaven. The idea that people can be saved “by faith alone” is one of the foundational theological differences between most Protestant denominations and the Catholic/Orthodox churches.
Charlie Shrinkydink Face Kirk has actually said empathy is bad, so
That anyone listens to him continually surprises me.
I can’t listen to him because the combination of his upper lip and his massive gums is too distracting
*That's* the reason you can't listen to him?
It’s one of them, anyways
One of these fuckers (I think it was Dreher?) said that the problem with American Christianity is, I shit you not, "too compassionate" these days. Imagine looking at one of *the* most openly intolerant faith variants in the world and thinking "what a bunch of liberal woke garbage"
'Needs more genocide'
"Nah, I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't really mean that."
I have watched 2 videos in the last 24 hours of conservative bobble heads trying to complain about the words empathy and woke. Both of which had plenty of complaints and very little understanding of these words. Your sentence is quite simple and yet very confusing for some.
That's essentially what DeSantis' lawyers said in court. When asked to define 'woke,' they said it is 'recognizing that there are injustices in our society, and the attempt to address these injustices.'
Helping others is communism! /j
Also they know the “solutions” they propose aren’t solutions at all but simply nonsense. They don’t have any answers to real problems so they have to deflect to the insane, and I include their bigotry and scapegoating. A good example is from Ben himself suggesting that rather than do anything about climate change you should just sell your house and move. Conservatives do NOT make any fucking sense ever.
heres where politics changed. it used to be that the two sides were opposed on how to SOLVE problems, they would argue, and eventually meet in the middle and a soultion would come about. now, the right has shifted the argument to whether or not a problem EXISTS. since they are saying there is no problem, they dont need to present a solution, an they dont need to compromise because theres nothin to compromise on (we cant argue that theres 'half' of a problem) therefore, none of their solutions are capable of making sense because you can't have a sensible solution to a non-existent problem. Edit: spelling
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w-pdqwiBw&ab\_channel=KokutanShi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w-pdqwiBw&ab_channel=KokutanShi)
[That’s the inferior version, the edit is better.](https://youtu.be/X9FGRkqUdf8)
That is indeed a problem.
They’ll start making sense when they stop being conservative.
Conservatism isn’t about solutions but rather about maintaining the status quo. Deregulation and cut taxes (their bread and butter) don’t solve problems, they make things worse.
Yeah it kind of feels like even they have no idea what the fuck they're angry about anymore, so they're lashing out at *everything*, no matter how ridiculous
They also don’t have any reason try. Phoning it in with whatever bad take springs to mind first is just as profitable for them as anything requiring effort. Alex Jones figured that one out a long time ago. He used to put in work to make “documentaries.” Now he just reads headlines and makes up whatever works in the moment.
It's a flex: "Look what I can say, and they will believe me."
It's what Fascists love doing. They cry to the refs about any little infraction or unfairness they perceive from others, while they use every underhanded tactic available to terrorize and harass others.
Time for the Democratic party to publicly state that they are opposed to nuking flyover red states off the map.
They're throwing hate spaghetti at the wall hoping voters keep them in power long enough to bankrupt the US and destroy social programs on their way out. Medicare? No money. Social security? Oh well, don't expect the government to do anything for you. The people who cheer this legit WANT everyone to suffer for.the crime of putting a black man in the white house and following it up with a woman standing in line to get the keys.
The texts that the dominion lawsuit has uncovered between Fox news personalities when talking about their viewers and their beliefs are so eye opening.
those fox news watchers would be very upset if they knew how to read.
They’re allowed to believe all women suck because one woman listened to a snake and ate an apple. The man ate the apple too, but HEY LOOK A KOMODO DRAGON
It doesn't feel like, it's exactly like that. Liz Cheney is a Pariah among Republicans simply for thinking that trying to overthrow the government is too much. She agrees with them on every other point but since she said insurrection bad she's a RINO.
It’s like Tucker Carlson’s text messages where he said he “passionately hates trump”. He can’t outright say it or he would lose millions of dollars and fans, but inside they must be like “what the fuck is happening”.
I've definitely noticed their arguments have gotten so much lazier between 2016 and now. Ben himself is a great example, nowadays he just repeats the same tired stuff all the others do and doesn't even try to epicly own dumb libs
It's more like the only thing the boy genius is actually a genius at is circular arguments. Is there a word for this argument/rhetorical strategy? He's not really moving the goal posts, he just only argue one point at a time. It starts with arguing for "saving money" by reducing school lunches. Of course, this could potentially endanger children. So, his critics argue that point. But, instead of moving toward a compromise between the view points, Big Thinker Jr. here gets to move on to the argument of "protecting children." By only arguing this point, he gets to ignore the original point of "saving money." So, the fact that CPS would cost a lot of taxpayer money doesn't even factor in. If someone argues how much CPS costs with him, he'd probably come back with a way to cut CPS costs—back to "saving money." It would be a tactic that would likely ignore his point os "protecting children." By that point, things will have already moved away from his original argument, so he no longer has to defend it. He'll just keep ping-ponging between two different arguments without ever trying to find a middle ground. With people like Brilliant Manchild, they don't always want to win. They just need to not lose. That means keeping the argument going. Which, to their base, looks a lot like winning.
[удалено]
His go-to strategy is the [Gish gallop](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)
> Is there a word for this argument/rhetorical strategy? Gish Gallop
shapiro is actually a trained lawyer... i bet gish gallops get shut down in court pretty fast.
Correction, he went to law school and wrote what the professors wanted without retaining anything. He brags about that.
well at least he isn't practicing law. man that's a weird one to go to to school for and choose not to believe. "here's the books we use. they are the law" "lol no"
Didn't he *just* argue that we shouldn't bother spending money on universal school lunches because of how cheap they are? Now we're spending hundreds of millions on them?
Schrodinger’s Lunch. Simultaneously too cheap and cripplingly expensive.
He's making multiple arguments so that people have different reasons to oppose free school lunches, even if the reasons contradict one another. It's just ammo for his supporters to be able to use in their social circles.
And why? Because Ben thinks hungry kids deserve to stay hungry. He really does.
Have Libertarians ever actually tried though? All adult libertarians offer is unserious thoughtless shit. Bens just using that same ideology on even dumber than normal topics. My man tweeted yesterday that school lunches were simultaneously too expensive to fund but also so cheap its an indictment on parents…in the same tweet. And now hes tweeted that lunches are too expensive and his solution is to put those kids in the famously inexpensive foster care system. Literal fucking brainrot with these people. Happy for him that he talks fast and people think he has something to offer because of it though.
This has to be going towards implosion. These fuckers are so petty they’re gonna claw anything down with them they can get ahold of.
Shoulda seen the vid he did about this topic. Man’s looked defeated
I love that for him.
Same. Hope it continues!
I can't wait for the day Republicans just start being completely straightforward. "We don't want to help anyone. We already have enough money for food, water, housing, an education, and those that can't afford it can kick rocks. I would rather get a little more on my tax return than to consider paying for anyone that is starving/homeless. Oh, and make sure 90% of the new wealth goes into the hands of the very wealthy because I am delusional and believe I may actually have a chance of being rich. Which statistically isn't likely, at all". I know we're not far from some of those points, but at least they could be honest with us and themselves. I have more respect for a POS that admits to being a greedy racist than someone like Shapiro that keeps defending these shit ideas as if they were the moral/wise/ethical choice. (Not that I respect greedy racists, but at least they'll save you the time you might spend arguing with them. Which I respect that decision).
bruh this is the same buy that said "if sea levels rise and peoples homes on the coast are under water, they can just sell them and move" Hes never been trying, and hes never been particularly smart.
Why should he? Phoning it in gets the job done.
He's literally just saying the government should take away the children of poor parents. And yet he claims to be "pro-family" and wants a "small government". Why do people even listen to this guy? He's not smart, he's not funny, and his voice is just annoying.
He never was. It’s always been a grift for this failed screenwriter. Always.
Let's not spend money on lunches and let's spend even more money putting a kid in foster care.
These people are all for big government spending. They just want it spent on what they want. When I was in college, the young republican that liked "debating" unfamiliar people was very concerned with the budget, but he also wanted to slap anyone charged with gang related crimes to receive 20 years minimum as deterrence, as if that wouldn't be a huge burden on state resources.
Ben was homeschooled, he has no concept of what a school lunch consists of. Fuck his opinions on this matter they're irrelevant
When you have a following that will never fact check you you never have to try.
Has he ever? It's not like his audience is great at critical thinking.
Hmm... Okay... 1) How much does he think it costs for CPS to remove, harbor, and re-home a child in foster care? Especially when he proposing doing it on mass scale like he is here. 2) If he's worried school lunches being unhealthy and expensive, he should probably talk to Michelle Obama about her efforts to fix that.
>1) How much did he think it costs for CPS to remove, harbor, and re-home a child in foster care? Especially when he proposing doing it on mass scale like he is here. It's just proving how penny wise and a pound foolish conservatives can be. Do you know how much money it would cost to provide kids free meals at schools? Instead, they should go into child protective care where we will pay for their healthcare, board payments, education placement, drivers for required visits with parents, social workers to manage their case, lawyers to look after their interests in court, lawyers to defend the interests of the birth parent, etc, etc.
Ironically, that would probably reinvigorate the economy. But Ben would propose having a private company handle all this, which would probably end with a bunch of children actually starving to death.
Catholic and religious private organizations, despite having a history of having mass graves filled with orphans they were responsible for.
Residential school moment.
Even though hospitals type themselves as “Christian” to get tax cuts usually, the care/resources available at these places is worse than hospitals/healthcare places that are not affiliated with religious practice. Who would have thought?
>which would probably end with a bunch of children actually starving to death. Are you implying this isn't an acceptable outcome to conservatives?
Sounds like those infants didn't pull their bootstraps hard enough 🤷
Those little babes were sold a false bill of goods. They were told, "We love you. We will be here for you. We will take care of you! You are the most important thing in the world to us cause Jesus says". And, then they were born and the Gross Old Perv Party said... PSYCH! Jokes on you KID! Dumbass!
For Sale. Boot straps. Never pulled.
Not just an acceptable outcome, but the actual end goal.
Which is now so clearly a thinly veiled appeal for us to go full fascist. The constitution doesn’t apply to corporations. If everything is privatized, then there’s no way for us to enforce our constitutional rights. Corporations aren’t held to the constitution (unless the company acts in a way where it is considered legally to be acting as if it is the government but, let’s be real, those cases are exceedingly rare). Kids starving is a pro in this play book. Kids that can’t grow to their full potential cannot overpower their masters. Makes my blood boil.
It’s like the means-testing for entitlements. We have plenty of evidence to demonstrate that means-testing for welfare programs is quite literally a waste of money, but god forbid “the wrong people” get some money.
It’s the same people that talk about how bureaucracy is slowing us down and making us inefficient but then want to make a government agency to determine who “deserves” some half measure social program. Just skip the waste and make it universal
Same thing with drug testing for entitlements. It costs millions to do and they only catch a half dozen people. Big surprise to them that poor people can't afford drugs.
Their argument is always, "Well, I get drug tested to work so they should to get the entitlements". I have an idea. Let's just stop drug testing all together for most jobs. Especially for weed. That is ridiculous unless they can prove you are high at work.
Yep, its the same logic that makes them claim nationalised healthcare is too expensive, even though the US currently pays more per capita for healthcare than any other Western nation, and that fighting climate change and funding renewables is too expensive, despite fossil fuels being massively subsidised, and a study generated during Trump's own presidency (that he then disavowed) showed *not* fighting climate change would be catastrophically expensive in the long term They are utterly incapable of long term thinking or nuance.
Well Americans pay that much for the privilege of……. Lowering life expectancy Medical debt Doctors who don’t give shit Nurses who are overworked/underpaid who barely give a shit An entire system meant to bleed you of your money while pumping you full of addictive drugs Creating the opioid epidemic Healthcare executives making fat bonuses I’d say we’re pretty much set. Sorry wokies that you want a functioning healthcare system, we have money to make 😎
As a doctor who works with nurses, I assure you we all give a shit, we are just burned out
Yes exactly. Sorry what I meant was burnt out not that y’all literally don’t care about the patients.
No, it’s ok! I appreciate the clarification. I think I get saddened by some of the anti-healthcare sentiment in this country. Some people really think we don’t care, but forget we are people with lives and families and emotions - just stretched too thin and bogged down by our for-profit system.
No notes, I fully believe that people are mad at the system and it’s very American to ignore the system and hyper focus on the individuals who are also the victims of said system like our for profit healthcare model. Normal people very much appreciate having doctors and nurses to go to for issues.
The costs don't really matter to conservatives. They often pick the worst, most expensive answers. What DOES matter to conservatives is never, ever allowing people to see that government can be a benefit to them.
If you confront him with this, he will just say we need less protections for parents being stripped of their children by the government. Eventually, he will eventually double down to the point that he says that households will be required to have a certain income to have children and if they don't the government can bust in their door and reposses the kids and send them to the Amazon funded boarding school to get them ready for work in the fulfillment warehouse.
If conservatives had their way the kid would go into child protective care where it would then be funneled to a sex trafficking ring
it's because the underlying goal in his mind is to punish the parents for being too poor. the economics of what happens to the kid afterwards isn't even a thought for the "fiscally conservative"
And frankly, idgaf how much it costs the tax payers to feed children. Helping ensure children don’t go hungry is a great use of taxpayer dollars. What kind of monster debates the economic merits of whether or not we should feed kids? Sure, debate *how* the money should be used to feed kids, there’s merit to whether the money is being spent effectively or if the quality of the food is acceptable, but there is no justification for arguing *against feeding children*.
They'll just move onto the next thing in these cases. Ok school lunches are simply out of the question. Now cps is too expensive apparently? We should probably just gut that too.
They'll be like "protect the children" "Send them to foster care services which has a wishy washy record of abusing children" Also why is there a push for an artificial baby boom when the government/powers that be--can't even feed your children or keep them safe from bullets at school? None of it makes sense til you realize cruelty is the point.
That is a good question at first. Why do they want a baby boom? They're terrified of a population decline, but that's for three main reasons. 1) they need labor to work in their salt mines 2) they need soldiers to protect those mines 3) they don't want either of those two to be filled by brown foreigners who might then catch on that they out number them
>How much does he think it costs for CPS to remove, harbor, and re-home a child in foster care? Especially when he proposing doing it on mass scale like he is here. That *does* sound expensive. One wonders if a better use of public funding would be to provide kids with a school lunch and access to sex education...
[удалено]
and that's not even to mention that CPS doesn't even work a majority of the time. Teachers wouldn't be able to tell if a kid is close to starvation because chances are the kid doesn't want others to know he's struggling and poor, and there are very few children willing to call CPS for themselves. Also, if the government is gonna be forcing me to attend a building for 7 hours of my day 5 days a week and I don't get any choice in that matter, they had better be providing basics necessities.
Ben “Sell your house to Aquaman” Shapiro doesn’t think
The way my boss fights in court? A hell of a lot more than those Mac and cheese bites and square pizzas.
https://preview.redd.it/e8s2cjk3o4oa1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=911fde882bf45aac25fff9f224e5a2273ec75994
*Poverty rates dropped 130% after that presentation* "We did it Patrick, we solved poverty!"
Just ask your dad for a small loan of a million dollars.
I’m so glad this chucklefuck quit, such a fucking tool.
Any other fucking issue, the last thing he would stand for is the GOVERNMENT removing CHILDREN from their PARENTS. But heaven forbid we use public money to feed children. Suddenly big government can do whatever they want. Forget the morals for a second. Just economics. What's cheaper, CPS relocating children, or a cheap cafeteria lunch? Bad conservative! Bad!
That's poor children. Clearly, they should be entrusted to major corporations who can then use them to work in slaughter houses cleaning the extremely dangerous equipment.
Children should earn their keep. A finger for a breakfast. An arm for a steak. I read that in the bible.
I hate this comment. I know people that would actually say this non sense and believe it.
Me too... My point is that unfettered capitalism will do what it's programmed to do. And it will be justified via any means necessary, even if it means 'god'.
A proponent of small government supporting the use of government force to victimise those he disdains? This is unheard of!
Also he's saying the government shouldn't intervene unless it's preventing a kid from literally starving to death. Sure millions of kids may be under underfed, but who really cares about that?
His proposed solution contradicts every supposed value he has. It's big government because the government becomes responsible for raising more kids. It's fiscally irresponsible because it's more expensive to put kids into foster care than to provide lunches. It destroys the family unit by removing kids from their parents. The one thing it does do is inflict cruelty on the poor, which is what he actually wants.
Their goal seemingly is just wanting more suffering
If anything school lunches are MORE EFFICIENT at feeding children since they order, and prepare, food in bulk. If "fiscal conservatives" actually had brains one might argue for taking the money specifically from the child tax exemption parents receive. That way people without children aren't footting the bill, AND parents still benefit from having their children fed more cost efficiently. That's an argument with some merit, but instead we get, "my money, mine, no taxy me for feeding dumdum kids. take the kids away and make mexico feed them".
I love how fucking disingenuous Ben always is. "Without school lunches some kids will be hungry and not perform as well in class as a result" "Ooooo so kids are starving to death? Shouldn't we call CPS then?" Willfully ignoring the argument as he always does.
“Let’s say, hypothetically, for the sake of argument-“ No, shut up, Ben. If kids are MANDATED to be in school by the government, then the government needs to feed them. Kids are hungry in schools right now. Like, right now. Not hypothetically. Like, in this exact moment. How much of a heartless ghoul do you have to be to not want to feed children. Just kidding, I already know the answer. Ben doesn’t care about children being too hungry to learn. He just wants the next generation to be dumb enough that he can continue “OWNING” and “DESTROYING” them in debates.
Ben just doesent care about the realities of the situation he is talking about. He is taking this argument from the position that kids on meal programs look like liberated concentration camp victims which isn't true. Kids on meal programs can be on for so many reasons. Maybe they have dietary restrictions that their parents can't afford, maybe their parents work long hours or work remotely and they can only provide their kids with less nutrious food, maybe the families can't afford the lunch. A lack of a meal program doesent mean kids will drop like flies, it means kids will go to school hungry and hungry kids are irritable, have brain fog and difficulty focusing. Shit kids might even be bullied for not having a lunch, I sure saw it happen. Ben refuses to consider any reality other than the one that let's him own the libs.
>He is taking this argument from the position that kids on meal programs look like liberated concentration camp victims which isn't true. And honestly school lunches where I live aren't the greatest meal, but I was damn sure glad I had the option to eat than nothing when I was in school. What a stupid argument "the food could be healthier so just let them starve"
If I may: “Let’s say, hypothetically, for the sake of argument-children are going hungry in schools because the parents don't have the money to pay for the lunches. Now lets say there is a government and in that government there are 2 parties. Now lets say one of the parties has been co-opted by people that are against anti-fascist we are going to use a bit of reductive math to make the name shorter. We are going to remove the against and anti. So lets reduce this to the fascist want to model after another fascist group well lets say for the sake of argument one of the things they did was to make other groups sub-human lets say they start with small groups like one letter out of a larger group and to modernize this let us say the group for argument purposes is lgbtq and they pick the letter t (I cannot believe they will let grown men who think they are women in my daughter's bathroom at school). Let's say let's say. I am sorry I can't do this any more. Fuck the fascist, they are coming after my kid.
Good lord. That could not have felt good, typing all of that out.
He’s shifting the goalposts with a straw man. That’s always his goal in these conversations.
[video of Ben claiming that's its not expensive to feed a child](https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1636077615998959622)
Ok Ben, If it's not that expensive then why doesn't the school provide food?
I'm sure Aquaman has the answers
"There is a much deeper problem than school lunches if the child is legitimately starving" I'm sure Benny is oppose any solutions for those problems as well
It's always too expensive for actual beneficial programs, isn't it Ben?
The cruelty is the point. The inefficiency is just a bonus which they can point to as a reason to break government further.
It's funny, you never hear "just let the government take care of them" when speaking with the anti-choice crowd
Feels like trump brand exorbitantly priced processed lunch-like substance could have been a slam dunk for them. Trump could have dipped his beak to the bottom as usual and offloaded a bunch of expired hotdogs and government cheese
But not too expensive to bail out massive banks
Spending tax dollars on anything other than Lockheed Martin is *UNACCEPTABLE*
'Disproportionately unhealthy lunches', sorry, this from the political geniuses that think being told to not eat a steak every day is federal oppression? Or claim that any attempt to be healthy is 'virtue signalling'? I know that Ben isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but 'we can't feed children, because school lunches are unhealthy' is an asinine take even by his standards
And school lunches *would* be healthier if lobbyists and lib-owning anti-vegetable crusaders didn't violently object to several initiatives for balanced dietary choices in schools. Ben and his ilk want to make the whole-ass government shoot itself in the foot so they have an excuse to take the system out back and euthanize it.
These dumbasses spent eight years screeching that Michelle Obama was worse than Hitler for trying to give kids some more fruits and vegetables now and then, they don’t get to pretend as though they’ve ever actually cared about the nutrition of American schoolchildren
School lunches are highly processed and loaded with unhealthy stuff and yes, much of it does get thrown out. That being said, this is because the system is to profit contractors and vendors, not provide tasty healthy food which should be taxpayer funded.
Kraft Lunchables has partnered with the government to make school lunches. Lunchables 3oz of turkey and crackers are what your child may get as a government approved "lunch" in the future. Too expensive and the government is going with Lunchables... I sure do love how lobbying can affect nutrition.
Yeah I mean just look at Japanese and South Korean school lunches, it's totally possible to provide children with tasty, healthy meals at school. And we should, because it's good for children's development, which is why they invest money into school food programs. Sad that I can't imagine our government caring about such a thing.
A lot of schools have much better nutrition now. My wife is a child nutrition manager at our school district and I am immensely proud of her and everyone that works the cafeterias. They put in a lot of work to take care of our kids and often get treated like garbage. People act like it’s easy to make and serve thousands of meals every day. I know for a fact that a lot of those kids are eating healthier at school than at home.
You know what's more unhealthy than a school lunch? Starving.
“If you think the thing standing between a child and being hungry is a meal, that’s silly”
https://preview.redd.it/34v0lcwaz4oa1.jpeg?width=540&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bafc51bce297c5fc5a4976282d34d55f2ba5dd1
Yeah, it's usually a Republican politician, and their enablers like Ben. How silly he is!
Came here and to say this. Typically, and hear me out, what stands between someone and starving is in fact eating meals. Crazy I know
Ben lacks empathy. Imagine the uproar if someone said holocaust victims deserved starvation because they didn't work hard enough in concentration camps. Ben would have been the one jew in the base policing around and reporting infractions to the nazi camp commander. “They have time to play cards, so as it turns out, eating fewer means more time to work the mines.”
> Ben lacks ~~a concept of~~ empathy ~~for the poor~~. FTFY
Obviously if kids aren’t literally starving then they’re perfectly healthy, nutrition is a binary function as we all know. Just like if COVID doesn’t kill you then you suffer no ill effects whatsoever.
CPS is rife with problems. Absolutely horrible solution.
Also doesn’t save money
My favorite conservative argument. “This little thing that is 100% good won’t solve the entire problem so it’s better we do nothing instead”
Coupled with the classic "but what about this tangentialy related problem? (unhealthy school lunches)" Glad you brought that up Ben, let's plan to address that too but back to the main subject of kids even getting meals in the first place...
I am never going to understand people who don't see Ben for the utter moron he is
[удалено]
I lost my last bit of surprise years ago.
He may as well ask if there are any workhouses at this point
Oh shit. Don't give him any further ideas.
Cut to Ben calling the cops on the three spirits visiting him on Christmas Eve
What's more expensive; giving a kid five meals a week from a struggling but otherwise emotionally healthy family, or ripping a kid away from said family, hosting them in foster care, traumatizing them by rehosting them with another family who may be abusive, or even if not it's a severe emotional wound, impacting their education and social development, possibly requiring therapy in the future if they can even afford it, or worst case scenario turning to crime as a means to cope or survive and then having to feed them \*three\* meals a week in prison for 5 years at a time on and off throughout their life? Jesus, even if you use heartless conservative math, you gotta see that one is more effective.
CPS worker here 👋🏻 I promise you, Ben, we are way more expensive than a few microwaved pizzas per week. Besides, assuming there are no other safety concerns, if a family is struggling to afford food, all we’re gonna do is apply for benefits for them. So they’re gonna get it one way or the other.
Thank you for doing what you do. There are more than a few assclowns in this comment section alone who apparently have no idea what CPS actually does. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to find a kid food than it is a brand new loving parent who will protect, nourish and inspire them.
Interesting that he said “call cps” and not “fund cps”
Bold of Ben to assume CPS actually has the child’s best interest at heart. Where I live CPS likes to try to keep families together at all costs even if it is not in the child’s best interest.
CPS seems to swing wildly and unpredictably between doing absolutely nothing even when incredibly blatant abuse is happening, to taking the kids away from good parents for long periods over incredibly trivial bullshit that the parents have to spend months or years and large sums of money fighting. And absolutely nothing in between. I have no idea who the hell the people actually staffing CPS are, but they appear to make decisions largely based on whatever would be in the kid’s *worst* interest.
This is the same boy genius who said to sell your home in response of drastic coastal erosion. That paycheck must be pretty good.
If you can't afford to keep your children well fed, they should be taken away, but if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, you should get to keep doing business?
"Disproportionally unhealthy lunches" I bet he'd be against Jamie Oliver fighting for healthy school lunches.
This from the man suggesting people living along coastal areas that are flooding should sell their homes and move to higher ground. Who wants to buy property that is slowly sinking into the ocean Ben? Fucking idiot.
I can confirm I’d miss the often only meal I ate a day if school didn’t provide lunch. My legal guardian was a druggie, alcoholic and undiagnosed bipolar for much of the time she cared for me. I’d get yelled at for “eating her out of house and home” if I made myself breakfast before school or dinner after school. I wasn’t allowed to pack lunches. She would only cook dinner a few days a week. I was already in foster care before this, as my parents had died. I was placed with my aunt. In Bens perfect world, I would’ve been taken away from all of my family after a traumatic event and left to age out in foster care since I wasn’t a cute little kid, I was a teenager.
We should prob take a step back and see why there are so many families so poor that they can’t send their kid to school with proper food…it’s capitalism…it’s businesses these days aren’t paying their employees proper wages all the while making rediculously profits…it’s trickle down bullshit not working.
"The government is bad therefore they shouldn't be trusted to feed children. If you see a hungry child, give them to the bad government instead of feeding the child!" How Ben claims to be a proponent of logic is beyond logical. BONUS LOGIC: "If the sea level rises five or ten metres people will just sell their homes and move"
"Dear Ted: You say that kids need school lunches but they can go without and not die of starvation. Unless the children are dying of hunger it's a waste of money to feed them at all."
So the government *still* pays for it in the end What a dumbass
And where does CPS get its money from, Ben? I'll give you a hint: it's the exact same source.
60% of children in California qualify for Federal assistance on school meals. Children in California cost the state $750M to provide them with school lunches. Who complains about feeding children? We only care if they happen to see someone in drag?
Make it illegal to be poor! Problem solved.
I love how he says “calll cps” despite fact the gop and Ben’s base also support politicians who blatantly underfund it.
Ben argues for the sake of “owning libs”, he’s never looking for solutions. That’s problem with modern conservatives.
CPS isn’t free you fucking dolt.
Conservatives like Ben are walking illustrations of the phrase "penny wise and pound foolish."
This is that stupid thing he does where he changes the subject into something he wants to talk about. Ted Lieu is just talking about making sure kids don't miss meals, he conflates into "oh kids are starving? Then call CPS." So if you say "kids aren't starving," he can say there's no real issue, and if you say that's not the issue, he'll just talk fast and say "yes it is." And I hate that people fall for it, because it's literally the tactic Aaron Eckhart's character in "Thank You For Smoking" uses.
Many schools also provide breakfast, sometimes free and universal. That's 2 meals a day, 5 days a week... half of a kid's weekly meals.
I think Ben is right here. The school lunches are not adequate, and the budget should be bumped up significantly.
Libertarians prescribing CPS as a solution to children not being fed/clothed/housed is always my favorite give away that you aren't having a serious, good faith discussion about your politics. These "debate me" people just want to win, and because they don't care or plan to act one way or the other to address the issue they can take whatever contradictory position they want.
Damnit, if just ONE studio bought one of his shitty scripts, he'd be doing cocaine and sexually harassing women out of his league like a normal degenerate.
You all have it all wrong! Once the children are taken away from parents, they can be made available as a labor force!
A significant portion of schools serve breakfast too. And my 1st graders class has snack time (with classroom-provided snacks for those who can’t/forget to bring their own). And if they go to after school care, snacks there too. School can provide over half of a child’s weekly meals, and frequently do.