politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah. Would be neat watching Democrats make excuses for why only Republicans could use it.
You know, I get that there are problems with the Democrats, I really do. But when a Republican alters a bill to include a massively shitty clause, and the president signs it in place because the alternative is likely people not getting paid, and someone suggests a fix to this shitty behavior in a broken system, you always lean into the response of, "Yep, too bad the Democrats don't want to do shitty stuff, too." While consistently ignoring all the rest of it.
It makes me think you might not be discussing this in good faith.
Where do you draw the line?
If a Republican alters a bill to include "outlaw miscegenation among military servicemembers" and the president signs it because the alternative is likely people not getting paid, are you okay with that?
You sir have sent me to a dictionary. You are hereby awarded one pat to be applied to the back
Nope, but if he hadn't signed it the headline would have been "Biden Canceled Christmas for America's Troops", which is a large part of the reason the Republicans did this, and the same people who are complaining about him signing would be complaining about him not signing.
And honestly, I think this will be forgotten pretty quickly when Trump and the Republicans start rolling out all kinds of regressive laws, some of which I'm sure will supercede this. And some people here will blame the Democrats for not having run a compelling enough campaign, since personal survival isn't compelling enough for some people.
I'm glad the president that already lost the election cares more about headlines than his constituents rights.
Three things. You're surprised the party member is concerned about the optics for headlines affecting his party in a thread entirely about people complaining about the party because of his actions? And what do you think the outcome would be if he hadn't signed it, when the other party has already repeatedly demonstrated that they're happy to watch the whole thing burn for headlines? All while happily ignoring my last paragraph where I quite clearly state that I think this little rider will be shortly superceded by other, more expansive laws the Republicans have stated they will do in Project 2025 and Agenda 47 (or whatever Trump decided to call his version of Project 2025).
Oh no, not a bad headline! Think of what that would do to Biden's reelection chances! 🙄
Do not obey in advance. Democrats, by giving ground here, are laying the groundwork for much worse things that Republicans are going to be able to do in the future. I'm trans and I'm pretty sure I'm going to fucking die, because Democrats would rather sacrifice me to avoid bad headlines.
Ah, the commenter who was dedicated to the loss of the Dems at all costs is now giving advice to the Democratic Party, how wonderful. And blaming the GOP administration that may very well kill her and countless other oppressed demographics, myself included, she helped usher in on the Dems too, how predictable.
By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the Democratic Party is at the same time too strong and too weak, right?
The democratic party is a bourgeoisie party that serves the interests of the ruling class, just like the Republicans. It is irrelevant what you say or do, the outcome of elections is determined by the bourgeoisie of the United States. Democrats have made numerous promises to protect trans people and yet, 121 democrats voted for this bill.
Imagine being this desperate to absolve the electorate for voting in fascism.
I'm sorry that you have no understanding of how legislature and politics actually function.
The turnout of this election was 63.9%, meaning around 88084000 people did not vote for either of the two candidates. That is more votes than for Trump or Harris, making "No One" the real winner of the popular vote. The USA bourgeoisie liberal democratic political system cannot garner large support of the population to "legitimize" it through the process of election.
Republican, AND all voters voters consistently ranked the economy as the number one issue to them this election. Voters flock to Trump due to his perceived opposition to the ruling class of the United States, and the injury to their economic conditions under Biden, mainly through inflation. Fascism coats itself in populist rhetoric to the confused but class conscious, proletariat.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
Democrats control the Senate, and The Presidency. The house has one of the most razor thin majorities in US history. There is simply no world where this bill passed if the Democrats didn't support it.
Spoken like someone who believes that 99.99% turnout and approval is how societies actually function, like the DPRK claims.
Have you ever spoken to a fucking Republican in your life?
Have you ever spoken to an average voter in your life?
'Economy' is a buzzword to them.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. Viewing politics as a series of isolated incidents performed for an audience of completely reasonable voters is utterly absurd, even in an ideal hypothetical situation, much less the current US.
He's having a conversation with you, yes.
That's a definite 'no', then. Unsurprising given your views.
Republicans support genocide like you have done for a solid year now. Now heap on the "No, YOU support genocide by objecting to genocide" shit like you always do.
You support genocide by doing everything you can to support the election of the more genocidal option. Didn't realize "More genocide = bad" was considered a hot take before this election year, but it seems that many online simply have no real sense of morality. But hey, you got your precious Bothsides GOP administration in, so it's a success in the end for you, huh?
Thus.
It is in fact United States liberal democratic theory itself that argues the legitimacy of liberal states occurs through the process of election.
-- Declaration of Independence
The DPRK is a bourgeoisie nation-state much like the United States.
This mind reading of what Republican or the Average Voter "really believes" provides no value. It was consistently shown both before, and after this election, the main concern of the people of the United States was that of the economy, and the worsening of their material conditions through inflation. It can be seen in the rhetoric of the Republican party, through terms such as "drain the swamp", that the electorate of the United States is voting for a Trump as revenge against some kind of Evil Ruling Elite (The Bourgeoisie), while failing to recognize that Trump and the Republican party is a reactionary bourgeoisie party like the democrats.
No idea how this is relevant to what I said. The Democratic Party supported this anti-trans bill that will lead to the deaths of transgender people.
You spent the past year saying that about anyone who was in the least upset about genocide.
It's funny, considering that I'm incredibly anti-Israel, I just thought that enabling multiple genocides, like you and your ilk so tirelessly worked for, was not actually a solution to Palestinian genocide. Ridiculous, I know! Surely the genocide of American minorities and of Ukrainians will bring peace to Palestine!
Or have you already moved on to the next talking point as so many of your compatriots have done, of "Well yes, American genocide doesn't help, but it's only fair if Palestine is genocided that American minorities are genocided too!"
Criticism of those who supply weapons for genocide is not support for genocide. Criticism of those who throw trans people under the bus is also not support for genocide.
Spending a year shouting abuse at anyone who dares to say that Democrats should not be supporting genocide? That shit right there is support for genocide.
We had an election. You can no longer pretend that "We're second worst" is the issue you and the rest of the pro-genocide wing of the second shittiest party spent a year pretending it was. We tried to warn you, and you interpreted being able to see the writing on the wall as trump support from russians.
Good thing I said that Democrats should not be supporting genocide even at the time. But hey, who needs facts when you can engage in delusions to absolve yourself of your guilt? Keep supporting as many genocides as possible, buddy, I'm sure it'll eventually work out and your magic political pendulum will swing the other way.
Tried to warn us of... what? That you were going to do your damndest to ensure the GOP got into power and got to execute all their favorite genocides?
That if Democrats continued their support for genocide, they would lose. You just screamed "Russian"! at anyone who dared to say that.
No, genocide loving shit who didn't pressure Democrats to drop support for genocide accomplished that. And good work. You got the only thing you ever wanted: TRUMP.
So you think that the Dem support of Palestinian genocide is what caused the Dem loss this year? This is fascinating. Literally just outright admitting to the "More genocide is Good, Actually" viewpoint.
lmao, pure projection. You keep licking GOP boots in service to genocide, though, I know genocide is an addiction that's hard for you to break.
It was one of a number of factors.
Do you suppose they lost because they didn't sell enough weapons to your favorite person for your favorite activity?
Nice backpedal, lmao.
Nowhere have I said anything even vaguely resembling that, but I guess that your list of talking points isn't all that great at addressing people with actual political views.
This is a shill accusation.
It's an accusation that all you have are canned talking points with no relevance to the actual person you're claiming to argue with. Like those GOP voters who waddle into their polling place with a handy pamphlet telling them who and what to vote for - it's not that they're shills. It's that they have no understanding of politics and utterly lack imagination, relying instead on repetitive tribalist bullshit to engage, for what little that's worth, in the civic process.
No, it was a shill accusation. I will not continue this conversation any further.
lol
Democrats chose who they wanted to be shitty to.
This is going to be Democrats' last word about trans people for a long time.