Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is it ethical for Democrats to keep SNAP recipients in a protest without their consent? [View all]-misanthroptimist
(1,529 posts)44. Under the circumstances...
...it is not only ethical, it is their job. They failed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is it ethical for Democrats to keep SNAP recipients in a protest without their consent? [View all]
ericjhensal
Tuesday
OP
Theoretically you can still get health care if you don't have insurance. You can't go without food. n/t
valleyrogue
Tuesday
#36
is it ethical to let 50,000+ Americans die each year from lack of healthcare without their consent? nt
yaesu
Tuesday
#2
That's ridiculous. Follow that & everyone would only be allowed to speak for themselves.
bucolic_frolic
Tuesday
#4
A lot of these apologist articles are popping up, wonder how much putin is paying the influencers/bloggers?
yaesu
Tuesday
#8
One of them from someone who only has 8 posts since joining in 2020.
MarineCombatEngineer
Tuesday
#15
The Senate deal fully funds SNAP with an increase in appropriations until the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30, 2026).
lapucelle
Tuesday
#17
Again, we were on the verge of getting SNAP protected anyway. So I'll put you in the
Scrivener7
Tuesday
#25
"It was probably going to happen anyway" is such an *interesting* take, especially when the bill passed last night
lapucelle
Tuesday
#39
"I'm putting my faith in republicans standing by their word rather than in Justice Jackson"
Scrivener7
Tuesday
#45
What are you talking about? If Johnson makes any changes to the bill passed by the Senate
lapucelle
Tuesday
#47
The Senate deal fully funds SNAP (with an increase in appropriations) until Sept. 30, 2026,
lapucelle
Tuesday
#14
The food situation is immediate. The ACA subsidies are 1.5 months away. And if after all of this, we can't draft
Silent Type
Tuesday
#16
The "One Big Ugly Bill" cut SNAP benefits and added work requirements. Those recipients that
walkingman
Tuesday
#19
If we made people go hungry for a few months, what could be gained and what would we leave behind?
ericjhensal
Tuesday
#23
Again, November SNAP went out, and we were on the verge of restoring it permanently.
Scrivener7
Tuesday
#29
Are you of the belief that people were asked to sacrifice and go without adequate food?
Quiet Em
Tuesday
#41
November SNAP went out, and the courts were about to restore it permanently. NO ONE
Scrivener7
Tuesday
#46
It is as ethical (or unethical) as every and any other vote which Congress takes.
RockRaven
Tuesday
#34