this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
148 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19239 readers
1966 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
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

He's literally patting himself for doing the best job he could instead of bowing out sooner.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 14 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

What a dumb take. If Harris had been in the Presidential seat, she would have lost by more.

Trump's fear mongering and lies are all that got him elected. Plain and simple. Putting ANY candidate up against a sitting president for re-election that just lies and says fascist bullshit non-stop is a sure winner.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck no. Biden, Harris, and the Democratic consultancy machine did not run a presidency or a campaign that came within a million miles of supporting that claim.

In a populist age, like we are in, what beats right wing populists (fascists) is left wing populists. The Biden presidency nudged the party in that direction, but neither he nor Harris were capable of running a populist campaign.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The Biden presidency nudged the party in that direction,

Well, the Biden administration briefly entertained some left-wing populist positions, which were unceremoniously jettisoned along with any credibility Democrats once had on the subject.

As Biden just did with the now-ridiculous notion that Democrats support trans people.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Biden made serious progress for unions, consumers, and in antitrust. I'm not putting him up for sainthood, but progress is progress. He was the most progressive president of the last 50 years which, sadly, is a super low bar.

Politics is compromise. Biden is not supreme leader of the United States. He shares power with Republicans. The Republicans will get some wins, and every one of them will be ugly and outrageous. If America wanted to support trans people, they should have elected a Democratic House.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The Republicans will get some wins, and every one of them will be ugly and outrageous. If America wanted to support trans people, they should have elected a Democratic House.

Our Democratic Senate voted overwhelmingly against trans people.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 49 minutes ago* (last edited 48 minutes ago) (1 children)

The Senate doesn't rule any more than the President. The Senate must also compromise with the House. If America doesn't want Republicans to influence policy, then America has to stop voting for Republicans.

The real question is, why do Republicans choose to use their leverage on this shit? The answer is simple. It allows them to undermine Democrats by splitting the left. Your reaction is the exact reason why trans people just got screwed. You are personally more responsible than anyone in the Senate.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 33 minutes ago

The Senate doesn’t rule any more than the President. The Senate must also compromise with the House.

Compromise is not enthusiastic capitulation, which is what we got. This wasn't a squeaker. Democrats overwhelmingly voted for this in the senate. The party abandoned trans people and you're defending them for it.

If America doesn’t want Republicans to influence policy, then America has to stop voting for Republicans.

Well, Democrats' last word to trans people for the foreseeable future was "we're doing what Republicans want." Democrats had an opportunity to do better here.

The real question is, why do Republicans choose to use their leverage on this shit?

Because they know that Democrats will break solidarity with any vulnerable minority and then blame anyone who is upset about it, like so:

The answer is simple. It allows them to undermine Democrats by splitting the left. Your reaction is the exact reason why trans people just got screwed. You are personally more responsible than anyone in the Senate.

This is bullshit. Centrists are responsible for their own cowardice and their own complicity. Don't blame people who are upset because you got everything you wanted.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

He should have bowed out of the race and let a primary happen, not resigned as president. I agree, any incumbent was fucked, but Harris didn't have to run as continuation and someone else entirely could avoid the association even further. Democrats need to play to win, and that includes (selectively) throwing kind uncle Joe under the bus if it helps.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 9 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

This is not, in general, true, or else everyone would be doing it. Trump is a right-wing populist who's taking advantage of people's dissatisfaction with the status quo and the Democrats' unwillingness to change it. You need both sides for this equation to make sense.

[–] _core@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago

Exactly. The Ds wanted to keep things the way they were, to the point they threw Biden in last minute in 2020 for the Ds to rally around. The Ds had a supermajority with Obama and they did jack shit with it. Unless they abandon the status quo stance they have they will continue to lose, which with Pelosi pushing the old guy over AOC shows they haven't learned yet and will cling to the way things are until we boot them out with prejudice.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 4 hours ago

Yes. Neoliberalism fails wherever it is tried, and the US managed to export it across the western world. What's going on in the US isn't unique and the same dynamics apply.