Biden Signs Defense Bill That Bans Medical Care For Military Family LGBTQ+ Youth, Says He Thinks This Shouldn't Happen
Biden Signs Defense Bill That Bans Medical Care For Military Family LGBTQ+ Youth, Says He Thinks This Shouldn't Happen
Thousands of Military Families Now Face Loss of Medically Necessary Care for Their Children
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're viewing part of a thread.
Lol, that's clearly not the take away, but you do you.
It's absolutely the takeaway. Did you even read your own link? It's not about "incumbents" it's about "establishments".
Mexico also had an aging president who named a younger woman as his successor in a 2024 election, and she won in a landslide. The difference was that Obrador and Sheinbaum are left populist. That is despite the fact that Mexico is less educated, more religious, and more culturally conservative.
Yes, but your take that neoliberal whatevers is the cause is your own slant. Has nothing to do with it.
What do you think western establishment political philosophy is? You can pick from neoliberalism or neoconservativism. There's not much difference.
The article has nothing to do with "western establishment politics".
Also, you just played your idiotic hand right there by even making this comment. Take your shit back to Magacialist territory.
Since the pandemic hit in 2020, incumbents have been removed from office in 40 of 54 elections in Western democracies
This is what happens. Neoliberals trap voters between two nearly identical parties. They try punching blue and life gets worse. Then they try punching red and life gets worse. Then they try punching blue...
Eventually a populist movement rises up. The more conservative party gets swept up and the neoliberal party resists. Left populists threaten power, and right populists don't, so neoliberals risk defeat by ignoring populism altogether. The populist movement therefore shifts right where it gets traction and fascism breaks out again. That's how fascism gains a foothold every single time, going all the way back to the French revolution.
The fact that Mexico was the great exception this time around with it's left wing populist government should tell you something, but apparently it's something you don't want to know.
You've just now categorized a broad number of people as "neoliberal". You don't even know what that means because it has no context globally. You are clearly from the US and have an agenda.
Let me break it down for you:
- "Liberal" in the US is like center in the EU.
- "Right" in Australia, is like Center in the US.
Just using an idiotic term like "neoliberal" in the context of global politics doesn't just show you have no understanding of it all, it also just makes you sound ignorant, and pushing an ignorant agenda.
The article I posted is simply about incumbent policies being unpopular because a lot of shady people are showing and promising shit they can't deliver. Trump is the keystone of that ideal.
You don't even know what that means because it has no context globally. You are clearly from the US and have an agenda.
From the Wikipedia page on Neoliberalism:
Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy that originated among European liberal scholars during the 1930s. It emerged as a response to the perceived decline in popularity of classical liberalism, which was seen as giving way to a social liberal desire to control markets.
Yeah, neoliberalism isn't a "US" thing. I do have an agenda though, but it's not like I hide it.
Just using an idiotic term like "neoliberal" in the context of global politics doesn't just show you have no understanding of it all, it also just makes you sound ignorant, and pushing an ignorant agenda.
Aside from pronouncing your own ignorance of neoliberalism as referenced above, I think it's important to note that this entire paragraph says nothing that wouldn't be just as well expressed with "you're dumb".
because a lot of shady people are showing and promising shit they can't deliver. Trump is the keystone of that ideal.
Empty promises were not what I would consider the exceptional or defining thing about Trump's campaign. It's also barely mentioned once in that entire article. Most of the article speaks of how unhappy people are with their current economic circumstances, not about what political challengers promised to do about it.
It's all about narratives. People are suffering economically due in no small part to economic inequality. In the US, Republicans have a story to tell about how immigrants, or trans people, or atheists are to blame. The job of Democrats is to put the blame where it belongs, with the oligarchs. Democrats won't do that, so only one narrative remains and that narrative wins by default.
Do you say these things out loud before you type them? The dissonance of all these thoughts is amazing.
You go from one thought with no connection to another like you're just parroting keywords and ideas that don't connect.
"You're dumb."
Just chiming in to say that if your only counterargument is "lol no," consider your own stance could be due for reevaluation.
I don't really strongly agree with either of you, but you've thrown in the towel with this bit.
Read the article.
What do you think I missed and what is it about whether I did or did not miss a salient point that excuses your dismissive attitude during a debate?