this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
11 points (82.4% liked)

Conservative and Conservative2

140 readers
2 users here now

This is a pro-LGBTQIA+ community. We support equal rights.

A community for some conservative points of view. Including general news.

Warning: I have reported, and will keep reporting, violent extremist posts on Lemmy to the FBI. I report comments supporting violence against elected officials, and domestic terrorism activity, to https://tips.fbi.gov/home

Rule 0: Serial downvoters will be banned.

🍃🌻 Rule 1: Kindly be empathetic and kind to others. Trolling and spamming will not be tolerated.

Rule 2: Keep it Civil - It’s NOT OK to say another USER is a (pejorative) or a paid (pejorative).

Making the community a friendly & supportive place is our goal.

All of us are here for a short lifetime. Let’s have a nice time here and avoid negativity. :)

Please be respectful, even if you don't agree.

Don't personally attack people. Don't call them names.

Be grown-ups.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Between the states that don’t participate, and the individuals who don’t qualify, how much is going to buy McDonald’s?

I don't know. I guess enough that the majority of states don't allow it. Are they all stupid and performative?

States that don's allow:

Here are the ones that don’t allow it:

Alabama Kay Ivey Republican

Alaska Mike Dunleavy Republican

Arkansas Sarah Huckabee Sanders Republican

Colorado Jared Polis Democrat

Connecticut Ned Lamont Democrat

Delaware Matt Meyer Democrat

Florida Ron DeSantis Republican

Georgia Brian Kemp Republican

Hawaii Josh Green Democrat

Idaho Brad Little Republican

Indiana Mike Braun / Eric Holcomb* Republican

Iowa Kim Reynolds Republican

Kansas Laura Kelly Democrat

Kentucky Andy Beshear Democrat

Louisiana Jeff Landry Republican

Maine Janet Mills Democrat

Minnesota Tim Walz Democrat

Mississippi Tate Reeves Republican

Missouri Mike Parson Republican

Montana Greg Gianforte Republican

Nebraska Jim Pillen Republican

Nevada Joe Lombardo Republican

New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte Republican

New Jersey Phil Murphy Democrat

New Mexico Michelle Lujan Grisham Democrat

North Carolina Josh Stein Democrat

North Dakota Kelly Armstrong Republican

Ohio Mike DeWine Republican

Oklahoma Kevin Stitt Republican

Oregon Tina Kotek Democrat

Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro Democrat

South Carolina Henry McMaster Republican

South Dakota Larry Rhoden Republican

Tennessee Bill Lee Republican

Texas Greg Abbott Republican

Utah Spencer Cox Republican

Vermont Phil Scott Republican

Washington Bob Ferguson Democrat

West Virginia Patrick Morrisey Republican

Wisconsin Tony Evers Democrat

Wyoming Mark Gordon Republican

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Can you read? I answered this already. The states that allow it explicitly chose to allow it. The states you listed didn't actively decide to disallow it, they just didn't choose to opt in. Have you considered that the ones who opted in did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to employ? This argument is very stupid.

This isn't even a case of Iowa opting out, this is a representative from Iowa trying to eliminate the program entirely. A program that directly helps people who don't have the means to cook at home, for pennies per taxpayer. The qualifications are very explicitly spelled out: the elderly, the permanently disabled, and the homeless.

This program does real good for the vulnerable people who need it. You want to end that program to save a couple pennies. Actually, not even to save a couple pennies, to police how those pennies are spent. You won't save any money, the only change is that the hungry and helpless will suffer. That's performative.

Yes, stupid and performative.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Have you considered that the ones who opted in did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to employ? Your argument is very stupid.

Have you considered that the ones who opted OUT did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to discontinue? Your argument is very stupid.

Stay mad. But no one is listening to you on this subject. So be sure to donate your paycheck to people so they can buy mcdonalds. Nothing is stopping you from donating.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Once again, not how it works. They did not "choose" to discontinue. You don't have to opt out, it's not an active decision. Opting in is the active decision.

Stay mad.

Typical conservative projection. The rest of us don't make decisions based on anger. I don't think this is stupid because I'm mad, I'm not mad. I think it's stupid because it is stupid.

Why do you want to prevent people who can't cook from having food? Why is this the issue you're pushing? It sounds like you're mad over sometime totally insignificant. It's kinda pathetic, really. Unless your time is literally worthless, the time you've spent defending this would be with significantly more than your share of funding the RMP.

That's why I keep saying it's performative. You don't actually benefit at all. You're just attacking poor people for the optics. Very pathetic.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not mad. My state already keeps people on SNAP from buying McDonalds with their benefits, as do most states.

But oh well, because this just came out: https://www.newsweek.com/snap-benefits-update-usda-completely-deconstruct-program-11071472

Rollins said early data already showed that "186,000 dead people are receiving SNAP benefits," while another 500,000 people are receiving the benefits in more than one state.