• samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s rarely said in that exact manner because it sounds bad, but the policies they support amount to it.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you don’t realise how supporting a politician who defunds school lunches is an active statement that childen shouldn’t be fed, then your cause-and-effect detector is broken.

        • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m not falling for that, I know the games legislators play with bundling shit into a bill so that anyone who votes for/against it based on one part is now declared as being firmly for/against everything in it, because ‘they voted for/against it’.

          And what you’re saying here takes it a step further than that, by taking it beyond a bill to “supporting a politician”. So let’s say a politician makes it so that hospitals have to be more transparent about itemizing things on their bills. Okay, I support that, and say so. But now people like you come along and say that I’m “supporting a politician who” and then name all sorts of shit I said nothing about supporting.

          No.

          • voracitude@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago
            • Vote for a politician who defunds school lunch programmes
            • Children go hungry
            • ???
            • I did not vote for children to go hungry, Bill Riders said I’m not responsible

            Yeah, your cause-and-effect detector is busted as fuck. Sorry little buddy, good luck fixing it.