this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
231 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1994 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
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 128 points 1 day ago (4 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.

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

The next administration wants the government to shut down and grind to a halt. This is all Biden can do to slow the bleeding.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago

Stupidity and cowardice.

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

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 89 points 1 day 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.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I think he signed this one because the threat of what is coming is much worse. But I do agree, I wish Biden were a better man than he is.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It really is a shame. His administration did a lot of good stuff and ultimately it's going to be completely overshadowed by his inaction on a few really important issues.

I don't know if he could've prevented the coming disaster, but he sure as fuck could've put us in a better position to weather the storm, and he absolutely did not.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Could he have? Even if he takes drastic action (as an official act, of course), it's not guaranteed things will turn out better.

[–] Lemming421@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

But at least he’d have tried… history remembers that too.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

The number of times the Democrats have said "We couldn't have won that vote, so we didn't push the issue" and I'm like, that's how you change the conversation! You get Congressional candidates on record as opposing this thing that would have helped. You don't avoid the issue because you'll lose.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I think he signed this one because the threat of what is coming is much worse

I think he signed it because he hates all trans people. After a whole-assed year of supplying a genocide, he gets no benefit of the doubt.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

That's possible. Dude is ancient, and has often been on the wrong side of history. Who knows what he actually believes.