494
Florida ‘callously’ strips healthcare from thousands of children despite new law
(www.theguardian.com)
Depends on if they draw a trump judge or not
Ron Desantis is trying to kill your children!
Don't get why his opponents aren't running ads like that continuously.
Make sure they are born, so they can die to the system like normal people.
mulching is a key step in the process of producing soylent green.
Children without health insurance rarely have the spare coin necessary to run political ads.
That's not who would run them ..?
Liberals are over reacting AGAIN! This isn't callous. These are redundant programs. The children of Florida already get insurance through their employers. In fact Swamp Harvesters LLC has the most comprehensive children's insurance for maiming by an alligator in the country people!
not gonna lie, I thought you were legitimately posting until like the last third of your post.
The pro-life party at it again.
I'm old enough to remember conservatives crowing about how "All Lives Matter".
I can’t wait to piss on this assholes grave someday
I’ll shit on it, you piss on it.
And Trump’s too.
I would, but doing so would involve visiting Florida.
This man just lives to be cruel. Given any opportunity to do something cruel, he takes it.
Must be some kind of bully complex. He desperately wants to be seen as strong, but only ever comes across as cruel. As much as I love a good chuckle on Florida Mans, I feel for them that lil’ Ronda is still in power.
Definitely a bully. Going all the way back to the "thigh food" story where he would mispronounce the word on a date and then dump the woman if she told him he was mispronouncing it back in college. And I'm sure way back before that. I'd love someone to dig up some of the kids that I'm sure he bullied in grade school.
I’d love someone to dig up some of the kids that I’m sure he bullied in grade school.
I bet his 5'2" ass was the one getting bullied.
Maybe he was the short kid who stood next to the bully and laughed at everything he did.
what should I do?
As a mod of the sub, I can't ethically support this path of discussion and advise that you tread carefully as to not run afoul of various possible interpretations of Rule 1.
As a Floridian, I upvoted that shit before I walked in the room.
It should be fine...it's clearly not a realistic depiction. No normal person could reasonably be expected to believe that a stick man that tall is Ron DeSantis.
Fuckin gottem. Although I regret not trying to draw the boots. Maybe in a future iteration
Thank you for your service o7
I cannot give you advice in this situation, but I do know you'll do the right thing.
I promise to live up to the faith you've put in me
I always believed in you.
what should I do?
Add a furnace behind the wood chipper
Fertilize the tree of freedom.
Shoot him in the gut. Wood chipper would be too quick for him.
What if the wood chipper has a pulse button like on a blender?
Make sure it's on.
Unsurprising. Bans gender-affirming care but he wears heels to help him feel more masculine. Only thing he hasn't done is wear a cowboy hat (that's I've seen).
Why a cowboy hat? Has he banned those too?
He watched Porky's and decided the titular character should be emulated.
Nah, just it's the quintessential conservative costume piece when they're desperate for votes.
load more comments
(2 replies)
*intentionally
Ron DeSantis, American cock holster for fascists.
Have fun losing in court again.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Forgive my potential lack of understanding, but when a federal law and a state law clash, isn't the federal law the winner? So if the state law requires monthly payment of premiums, but federal law requires 12 months of coverage from a single premium, Florida is supposed to be SOL?
Normally, yes.
With this supreme court? Who knows.
Yes. This is performative except for all of the children he's hurting.
For the most part, federal law will override state law. However, states have broader powers in the kinds of laws they can make, while the federal government is more limited. That's part of why the commerce clause comes up so much, it's frequently used to justify federal authority in things that would normally be handled at the state level, even if it means stretching the definition of commerce from time to time.
In this case, I'm guessing that this challenge is based on this being a program administered by the state, and partially funded by the federal government. Programs like that generally come with federal requirements that the state has to follow in order to get the funding. The federal government can exert significant influence over state policy this way, (for example, the drinking age went from 18 to 21 largely because states that didn't make the change would have lost federal funds for highways). But there have been cases where the requirements were thrown out for being too coercive and undermining constitutional authority delegated to the states.
Of course, I highly doubt that such a claim would have any merit in this case. But meritless lawsuits aren't a problem when they stir up support from your base while having no negative consequences for you if you lose. Sure, it costs the state a lot of money, but when the state's lawyers are your buddies, that's just doing them a favor.
Someone federal should "callously" charge him for mass child endangerment and "choose not to wait for a ruling" before throwing his ass in a jail cell
Repubs are ghouls.
Ghouls on Parade
that downvote brought to you by another person who didn't think RATM was talking about politics
Cruelty is the point.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
494 points (98.6% liked)
News
23287 readers
1687 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS