this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
280 points (95.2% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2234 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

HRC Article:

WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.

Biden's press release:

No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 31 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

I guess if there was any doubt before, it's gone now. Neither party is suitable. Time to really vote progressive. We need a new party that isn't deeply entrenched with whatever made hime sign that.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Out of curiosity if I made you choose between:

  • 0% of military troops' families getting salaries and healthcare

  • 100% of military troops' families getting salaries and healthcare with the sole exception of trans care

What would you choose?

Although, honestly, since we're in hypotheticals and foresight, Biden could have let them go without pay and possibly triggered a Bonus Army type scenario where the military protests.

[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 14 points 15 hours ago

Time to do more than voting, comrade. The rule makers will never allow real change within the rules that they create.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 10 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Agreed, and what we really need is to actually end the duopoly by changing the voting system to a more fairly representative one like ranked-choice or rated, in the first place. Voting third party will just increase the chance of Republicans winning if that third party is left-leaning, and no third party will get a majority vote if you can't convince the vast majority of Americans to completely change their entire understanding of political parties that they've held on to for the past decades.

Just my opinion here, but the primary thing we should focus on is changing voting systems, because that's what will actually allow us to have a third party be successful in the first place.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Voting systems are extremely hard to change in most states. But progressive candidates usually support voting changes too. So two birds with one stone. It will be a painful few cycles with the Republicans winning. But they have shown they will turn on each other rather fast. And once we show we just aren't going to vote democrat or republican, momentum will build. Things can't get much worse.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

How exactly do we focus on changing voting systems? Obviously vote for Democrats who support giving power to the people. What if they don't?

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 1 points 21 minutes ago

It works best when you start at more local levels.

Many states already require ranked-choice voting, and that makes it easier to get progressive candidates in positions like senator, as well as non-federal state positions. Smaller state elections are much easier to change than the entirety of federal elections, and are often influenced by door knocking campaigns, various charitable organizations, and community organizing.

Hell, this can even be done at the city level. The smaller the elections get, the easier it is to change them. But the more progressive smaller elections get, the easier it is to progressively impact other systems, and then get people in federal positions of power that are open to the idea.

For now, we're effectively just stuck with what the Democrats are up for if we want any chance at actually having a better voting systems, but working up from local levels can be a very effective way to slowly push the changes on a federal level.