this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
340 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19243 readers
2350 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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (4 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.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day 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.

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 3 points 1 day 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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day 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.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 54 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.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

It's not like his own opponent did something like that in the past because he didn't like the text of the bill. Surely not...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/TrumpDJ.htm

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 150 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Stupidity and cowardice. He’s a lame duck; he could’ve gone down swinging and let the next administration take the heat for this. But no, he had to show his true colors.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 104 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This will be his legacy. Opening the door wide open to the wolves and supporting the worst genocide since Rwanda. And he deserves it.

I said it before and it bears repeating: he’ll be remembered as a combination of the worst failures of Neville Chamberlain and Paul von Hindenburg.

That’s it. That’s his legacy. Every other aspect of what he did - positive or negative - pales in comparison.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Stupidity and cowardice.

The defining characteristics of the Biden administration and the centrist wing of the Democratic party.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day 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.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 101 points 2 days ago (54 children)

Biden isn’t the worst president ever, but he’s a piece of shit. He was entirely not up to the task of our time, and that was obvious in 2020. His presidency had more to do with fulfilling an old man’s lifelong desire to sit in the big seat, rather than meet the needs of the citizenry. It was basically a make-a-wish project for establishment Democrats who desire gentlemanly order and aggrandizement more than any meaningful policy goals. This was a group project, and all of the self-interested facilitators that covered up his senility (going back before the 2020 race), are directly culpable in the emerging feudal reign that Republicans are orchestrating, as well as the unjust murders of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Gaza. I started his administration feeling weary but cautiously hopeful that we may have averted calamity. I end his administration having lost confidence in not only our government, but of our people. I could not have more contempt for the entire American project and all the hollow sentiments that cloak the inhumanity of it. Biden is such a clown.

load more comments (54 replies)
[–] macattack@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›