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
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.
I expect the party that ran on protecting trans kids to take a stand. But I am done supporting the democrats now.
So you choose 0%, wow thats sick anon.
Anything else is just the illusion of choice. They control the options. So they can always come up with something worse to set next to the option it wants. The only influence you have as a chooser is to call thier bluff. If you don't you might as well just let have whatever they want.
In this case, I hate to ask more of our service members. But I know I can count on them to fight back. Choosing zero is calling them to service once more to protect the freedom of our nation. Specifically thier freedom to use the benefit they were promised when they enlisted. And I have faith that they will rise to the occasion.
What, do you think Congress would just not pass a NDAA?
If they hadn't, then it likely would have led to a Bonus Army scenario. If you're not sure what that means, in 1932 tens of thousands of military servicemen and veterans gathered to protest congress and essentially force them to pay out bonds to soldiers.
We've had Government shutdowns before and this would be no different. Plus, the actual fund distribution wouldn't happen until the Appropriations bill comes later, anyways. In fact, theres a non-zero chance that Republicans rip this bill up and replace it after they gain majority and before the Appropriations bill comes.
The 118th congress is coming to an end, and changes to this bill have been in the news since June.
Oh no, a protest followed shortly thereafter by a bill that passes presidential veto. And that the Republicans have the power to do whatever they want in January is exactly why this should have been vetoed. They can do whatever evils they want, but at least then it's on them rather than further eroding the idea that Democrats will stick up for their constituent minority groups.
I didn't say the protest was bad, just answering your question about hypothetical outcomes.
I don't really follow your logic about vetoing this now because of the changing congress, you're saying not passing the bipartisan bill and waiting for a more conservative bill that harms more people would be your ideal?
So you're just a Republican?
The "bipartisan bill" doesn't protect us on anything. There's nothing stopping them from passing any measure we avoided by accepting the "imperfect" bill, so they don't need to surrender to Republican priorities when they only control 1/3rd of the current legislative process. They're going to do the "more harms" regardless of what Democrats do here. Nothing has been averted with this complicity.
Plus my expectation is that a vetoed NDAA doesn't result in a month with no NDAA until the new Congress. It's a "must pass" bill. Cancel recess.
Oh, actually, this is after they talked down a ton of other Republican amendments including stripping reproductive care, denying refugees, banning CRT in military academies, etc.
But hey, the "must pass" part gives Biden the authority to sign it without Republican approval, because Republicans could actually try to drag it out to add in all of their amendments like they have been doing for many months, it doesn't literally force the congress to pass something before the time limit because there are no consequences for not doing so aside from the military going unfunded: which Republicans have demonstrated they would absolutely do.
Oh ok, they got some of the terrible stuff out, I guess good job, call it a day! /s
WTF is wrong with you people. He doesn't need to be a king to not just roll over and accept their poison pills. "They're crazy, they'll do anything" is clearly wrong, as they back down from government shutdowns all the time. It's just a convenient excuse for people like you that, despite failure after failure after failure, think the Democrats are always on the top of their game and just lost because there were no other options.
And if Republicans refuse to write a "clean" bill... OK. If Congress can't get it together to pass something that is acceptable that just funds the military (a thing the Republicans desperately care about), then it's the same blame game that occurs every time a shutdown is imminent. A game the Republicans usually lose.
He passed the bill not because he had too, but because he didn't care enough not to. It's the same lack of courage and triangulating that plays out time and again with centrists and civil rights for minorities. In 20 years we'll all look back at the 2020s centrist triangulation and see it as shameful while the centrists will have moved on to throwing a new vulnerable group under the bus for just not being practical to defend while they don't even try to.