this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
252 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1685 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 5 hours ago

This is the bill in question: H.R 5009

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5009

I implore anyone defending Biden for this as him having to make a "tough decision" to review the roll calls for the votes on this bill.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00325.htm

40 Democratic senators voted yes.

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024500

81 Democratic represenatives voted yes.

This anti-trans bill was passed with support from the Democrats. The bourgeoisie political parties of the United States will never protect your human rights, especially when dollars for the military are on the line.

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 28 points 12 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 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 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?

[–] Saleh 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

What about flipping the script and accusing the Republicans on every avenue that they want the troops to go without coverage, unless they get their bigotry in it too?

Why not accuse them of wanting to deny coverage to all these troops?

The reality is that the Dems are fine with this and never cared about Trans rights past identifying it as relevant to get votes with progressives. Now as it has served its usefullness to them, they discard Trans people, like they will discard other LGBT, ethnic and religious minorities...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Because the election was a month ago and a new congress is about to take over immediately after a recess, at which point Trump will be entering office. Either a bipartisan bill passes now or a conservative one passes after January.

[–] Saleh 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So what is the difference between a bipartisan anti-trans bill and a republican anti-trans bill, if both bills are designed by the Republicans?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Several Republican Amendments were removed from the final version of the bill, including blocking Palestinian Refugees, defunding the Pier in Palestine used to ship necessary aid in, stopping any military academy from engaging in Critical Race Theory, blocking reproductive care reimbursement for military, among many other things.

If you want to read up on it, heres a good SUMMARY

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 17 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

we should swap the pardon power for line item veto

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago (18 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 (18 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 6 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›