It's usually the same people in real life too.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/read-the-jd-vance-dossier

There you go, in case you were wondering.

I could have you arrested for that comment.

Closest I can get is my server is hosted with a company called Mythic Beasts, who use mythological beast names for their hardware.

It's a piece of lemon bun from Botham's in Whitby.

Amazing action shot!

I'm still utterly disgusted that the western media present this as anything other than state-backed terrorism.

Not funny misogynistic shit. Reported.

Meat is only cheap because of the subsidies provided to the industry. It's expensive in environmental terms too. There are many sources of protein that don't have either drawback.

Subsidy example: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/applications-open-for-new-4-million-fund-to-support-smaller-abattoirs

Except that the law says the meals have to be nutritious to a set level. So no, they can't do that.

You seem to be under the apprehension that making food without meat in it is some mystic art that is beyond the comprehension of anyone other than his company. What is stopping any other company producing exactly the same products as his? Changing the law will have no effect on the marketplace.

Any company can provide meat-free food. There is no reason this change in law should disadvantage his competitors.

Any company can provide meat-free food. There is no reason for schools to change their existing suppliers.

Personal gain in the case of green lobbying is a subset of universal gain. Exactly the same as Vince's case. It doesn't follow the he will profit more than anyone else, as anyone else can supply meat-free food too.

He's not campaigning to have his company's food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children's health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he's right. It doesn't automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it's perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.

He's not campaigning to have his company's food served at schools, just for the rule compelling schools to serve meat to be changed. His argument is that it is better for children's health and for the environment that less meat is eaten - and he's right. It doesn't automatically follow that his company will gain from any change, as there are many other options available to schools and it's perfectly possible for existing meat providers to start providing meatless meals.

How do green campaigners not gain from it?

So you are against any lobbying? Green campaigners are lobbying for personal gain because they want a habitable planet. Even if you have a vested interest, surely you are allowed to have an opinion? If you have an opinion surely you are allowed to express it? If you are allowed to express it, surely people are allowed to listen to it? Should politicians be insulated from all industry voices, even if they have a valid point?

Just seems weird that no one really cared about it until this guy popped up on the radar.

Missouri taking decisive action to be tough on the wrongly accused.

So? The meat industry has a massive lobbying section. Are other industries not allowed a voice? Why is everyone presenting this as a massive "gotcha" when it's totally normal practice for any other industry?