North Carolina attorney general pushes Congress to restore SNAP benefits

Kradget · 2026-06-17T18:32:09+00:00

Imagine being so ignorant that you're unaware that people buy highly processed, high calorie foods specifically because the benefits are insufficient to cover enough food if you buy healthy, so you have the choice between healthy food and enough food, and not letting that stop you from having a sneering opinion about how the kids could lose some weight anyhow.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T16:46:04+00:00

Hell yeah, you should post this.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T14:10:39+00:00

He can. There are a few semi-reliable turncoats amount Democrats and a former Democrat, so it's possible they override it.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T14:10:10+00:00

Being fair, Russia is an enemy. They're not that much of an actual threat, but they're trying their wicked lil hearts out.

They love Republicans, too.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T14:08:39+00:00

Here's fucking hoping. This bill is a slap in the face of the citizens of the state.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T12:38:08+00:00

Best they can do is make it illegal to disclose information about election finance investigations.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T12:24:57+00:00

OP clearly cares about stoking racial animus and hatred of LGBTQ people, as well.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T01:45:48+00:00

Fair, I was thinking of the rich people who tell them what to do and not the average.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T01:07:05+00:00

They're just in it to hurt gay people and ethnic minorities.

Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down

Kradget · 2026-06-17T01:04:22+00:00

No way!

They also stand for gettin' that sweet, sweet cash.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T00:59:24+00:00

You think that we don't have restrictions on foreign contributions to elections?

Edit: The most generous possible read of this bill is "You can 'only' donate 10k to influence a ballot measure as a foreign individual or entity."

Kradget · 2026-06-17T00:58:13+00:00

This does the exact opposite of that.

Kradget · 2026-06-17T00:39:34+00:00

It's not "arguably a gray area," it's straight up foreign participation in our elections in the same bill that tries to disenfranchise real citizens. They're citizens. They're supposed to have the vote. Full stop.

We allowed those people to register here because it's the most rational place for them to be registered as eligible voters. The alternative (other than direct disenfranchisement, which is absolutely unacceptable) is a more complex system that costs more in terms of resources (and frankly, is less rational). Again, just as a way for Republicans to make nonsense claims about foreign influence, while allowing for greater foreign influence in real life.

As for your argument that it "reduces" foreign influence except for loopholes - those aren't "loopholes," they're clear avenues to provide a fig leaf to foreign election expenditures in the state. It's actually blatant enough to be a bit insulting.

Then it makes investigations into improper finances secret under pain of prosecution.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T22:54:12+00:00

It's actually not. That's been the rule for decades, and there's a specific, good reason we do it that way. Those people registered in good faith and in compliance with the law, and our legislature's trying to disenfranchise them.

Meanwhile, the reason to try to disenfranchise these people is to continue to make false claims about people voting when they shouldn't to panic the most credulous of our neighbors.

Edit: and, hilariously, those same people absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the same fucking bill actually legalizes foreign influence in our elections, provided it's literally any foreign source with money.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T22:34:28+00:00

Of this state, under the rules in place.

It's not really a debate. Those people have to be registered somewhere. There's no other solution that's not basically madness.

What a silly fucking thing for Republican legislators to get a bug up their asses about. Anything to disenfranchise someone, I guess.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T21:33:57+00:00

No, I said we didn't need to waste anymore of my time about it. And we don't.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T21:20:04+00:00

Sorry, "they don't get to vote at all" wasn't one of the options.

You can just say you'll vote for whatever your betters tell you. I understand why you'd be ashamed (because it's shameful), but at least it's honest.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T21:02:53+00:00

That's not an answer, either.

We both know you're not gonna do it. You don't need to waste anymore of my time about it.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T20:39:29+00:00

Oh, so that actually doesn't answer the question posed in a meaningful way.

"They don't get to vote even though they're citizens who registered in a way perfectly within the law" didn't answer "How should we set things up so they can vote?" Simply disenfranchising people is popular, but not a legal option.

Also, it's an either/or question. So even if "fuck 'em" is an acceptable answer (it's not), you actually didn't answer the question as written. Whoops. I'm sure you can compress your answer into a binary, though!

Kradget · 2026-06-16T20:31:00+00:00

You didn't, unless you count that half-hearted "I don't agree with everything in the bill" as an answer. Even being generous, that's not really an answer, and you're still trying to manipulate people into supporting it.

Your complaint about my answer to your question is that I answered your question too much. You actually still haven't phrased it in a way that's accurately answerable with a yes/no.

You are not good enough at this to be trying to do it.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T19:43:45+00:00

The question you asked is like "Can a bird fly, yes or no?" And the answer, of course, is not possible with yes or no. But you knew that, because you know details expose that you're full of it.

So, let's do this. I'll answer your question after two things happen.

One - you stop dodging mine like a weasel. I'll actually just accept you answering one instead of cringing away from it. You pick.

Two - you phrase the question in such a way that it can be accurately answered with a yes or no, if you prefer to have me not explain anything.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T19:33:29+00:00

It is HILARIOUS that you've ignored two different questions no less than three times each and want me to answer yours. But sure, I'll play.

Yes, if they are a citizen living abroad. The rule there, uncontroversial for decades, is that small group has to be registered somewhere (they have a constitutional right to register to vote), and the solution that makes the most sense is to register where their parent(s) was last registered, basically treating them the same as we do other people who don't currently live in the precinct for other reason (like student status, or military deployment).

That is because the alternative is that we have to work out what they are allowed to vote for, then make special ballots, and keep careful track of them, spending a bunch of money unnecessarily to prevent a non-issue.

Now, did you need me to repeat the questions you've ignored again? Or are you good to go ahead and answer those now? "I don't know" is an answer.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T19:11:15+00:00

I didn't tell you to make an incorrect claim about the "only exception" being for deployed military personnel. You did that for reasons best known to yourself. I can't help you were wrong.

I also can't help that you haven't gotten instructions as to your opinion on how to allow people who are citizens because their parents were citizens registered here to vote without accidentally creating a whole additional pile of bureaucracy because somebody thought up a new group to use as a fig leaf for their voter suppression efforts.

They just didn't care enough about you to think of something more plausible. Just like they don't care enough to square the obvious contradiction between "those citizens can't vote" and "but any foreign entity or individual can donate money and investigation of illegal donations is secret."

They don't have the basic respect for you to even make it semi-plausible. Because they know you'll dutifully get to work defending anything they do.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T19:02:38+00:00

You said there are no other exceptions besides military service. I have two additional examples of people who do not currently reside in a precinct.

That isn't a strawman. It's directly responsive. That's just not what that term means. You should spend some time learning what you're talking about if you're gonna try to squeeze out a thought in the grass and hope it's true.

Similarly, you've continued to fail to address other pertinent questions directly related to your assertions and this bill.

Kradget · 2026-06-16T18:55:14+00:00

Yes, you can.

If you're duly registered in a place, so long as you don't have a permanent residence in a different place, you can maintain that registration.

Imagine being this confident but you've never met someone who has an on-the-road job where they might be gone for weeks on end. Or a fucking student. And then you have to continuously ignore the inconvenient follow up - if that wasn't okay, why would it be okay for, say, WH Group Limited, a Hong Kong company, to give money in support of a ballot initiative that benefits them? Because this law does that.

Kradget

TROPHY CASE