this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
276 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2239 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 40 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Further cementing both parties as part and parcel to the problems in America.

One wrecks shop, the other apologizes and "hopes" they don't wreck it more, really really with sugar on top, BLM, 💜💜

I'm not sure what I'm insulted by more, the fascists or the pandering corporate Democrat liars pretending we're all best friends.

Neither speak for our country. We, the workers, the toilers, the sticks that churn this economy should be the ones speaking for it, not these thieves and grifters.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (15 children)

A big part of the issue is they need 60 votes on budgets, constitutional amendments, court decision reversals, and removal from court/congress/presidency.

So either you have bipartisanship between moderates and literally satan to cover 99.9% of troops families, or you have the entire government collapse leaving every single troops family without coverage.

The only way out is to give the progressive party 60 votes, but every election cycle we stray further away from that.

Although there is also a way for 34 states to come together and force a constitutional change, but idk if that has ever once happened in all of US History?

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 21 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

we should swap the pardon power for line item veto

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago (31 children)

we should swap the pardon power for line item veto

Yeah. Would be neat watching Democrats make excuses for why only Republicans could use it.

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

You'll have to get 60 votes to make it happen. I'm game, honestly, nobody should be above the law, and precisely for that reason no Republican would ever vote for this.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

God when will people stop falling for this crap, this is exactly the culture war repubs are waging. Half of them don't even give a crap about shitting on LGBTQ+, what they care about is shitting on the Dems so R's can stay in power. They put the poison pill in a bill that Biden has no choice but to sign, JUST TO GET HEADLINES LIKE THIS, so that progressives will blame Biden and the democrats instead of the magats. And you fall for it every time. Sure, sometimes you also blame the R's for actually doing the bad things, but you always blame democrats when they aren't able to stop R's from doing the bad things. You all might hate the military but we kind of need one and if we just shut it down we're leaving ourselves vulnerable. What you are doing by blaming Biden for this is like saying yeah what the rapist did was wrong but she didn't fight him off hard enough, she must have wanted it. smh

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago (9 children)

They put the poison pill in a bill that Biden has no choice but to sign

He could have refused to sign. But that might have violated one of the precious norms that Democrats care more about than trans people.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 31 points 22 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 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 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 13 points 14 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 20 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 2 points 13 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Well as long as the soldiers get their Christmas bonuses, I suppose a few thousand dead children is an acceptable price to pay. We wouldn't want the soldiers to have their Christmas ruined, and it's not like it would be the Republicans' fault for politicizing a must-pass spending bill. Oh well, it's not like trans kids are really human, a 9/11 worth of child corpses is fine. We wouldn't want to ruin Christmas.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

It doesn't cover their hormone replacement and other trans care, but it still covers all their sickness and injuries.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 17 hours ago

"Biden cares about trans people unlike Trump!"

Old bigot white dude is an old bigot, news at 11. At least Trump makes it clear he wants my kind to die in a fire for good ratings on Fox News.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 24 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

I'm lost. He spoke against it, but signed it anyway. Did they give any rationalization for signing it?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

If he didn't sign it then families would have just gone without coverage and the military would be unfunded until Trump entered office and signed it regardless. In fact, handing it off to the next congress could result in an even worse bill.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 11 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Paraphrasing here, but "we need to spend money on the military otherwise we won't be safe"

Except that doesn't really hold up since they could have sent it back to be modified and voted on again anyways.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

"if we need to do it, you can fuck off with this shit and do it right" should have been the official explanation of a veto.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

No, not enough time to send it back and the R's knew exactly what they were doing here.

[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats are willing to go into a government shutdown rather than cave. Biden should have fought harder.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Actually, Biden signed the congressional budget 5 days ago averting Shutdown. Democrats don't want shutdown, Republicans do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If only there was some way for him to stop it from happening.... Well, Joe, at least you tried.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›