355
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
355 points (86.3% liked)
politics
19254 readers
2514 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My comments were mostly directed at the summary, although a couple criticisms apply to the article as well. As I said, it's legitimate to discuss how complicit Biden is, and you can add the Senate to that as well. The problem is doing it in the context of incomplete and misleading information about what was actually in the bill, who put it there, and why. Such a discussion does more harm than good in the ways that I explained.
The bit at the end was perhaps over the top, but it's not wrong that this kind of reaction against the Democrats is exactly why the Republicans put it in the bill.
You weren't privy to the negotiations, so your commentary that Democrats just passed it because it was "easier" is entirely speculation. Stating that as fact is something I consider offensive. It also didn't just "sail right through". The negotiations took months, and the negotiations on such a bill don't end until the votes are known. The actual process of calling the vote is irrelevant. I criticize Democrats myself, but not for things I just make up in my head.
OH WELL THAT'S OK THEN.
Hey, I've got an idea MAYBE FIGHT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE BILL THEN. "They made a really damaging modification, oh well, guess we just have to take our (well earned) beatings then, we've tried nothing and we're all out of options."
And fuck you Out magazine isn't blowing things out of proportion to harm the Democrats. The HRC, GLAAD, and ACLU aren't just making up things in their head. Your capitulating ass doesn't get to decide when LGBTQ people are allowed to get upset at the representatives they support and voted for throwing them under the bus. YOU, who is postulating on complex negotiations behind closed doors that tried their best but simply couldn't find a way to say "that's unacceptable" are the one who is actually making things up.
We know they didn't remove it from the bill. We don't know that they didn't fight to remove it from the bill. We do know that they objected and negotiated it down for what it originally was. We also know that passing no bill would be worse, even for any children impacted by the coverage restrictions.
My comments were directed at the summary more than the article. The article does have some of the same flaws though.
I hope they are clear eyed about who is responsible. I don't think it likely that they would blame Democrats and ignore the Republicans who pushed it.
I made no objection to anyone being upset. It absolutely sucks that this was included and I'll fight right along side you to get it changed. We should all be upset. But, we are in a split power situation with the Democrats seriously weakened after the election. That's going to have consequences, and I'm afraid this was the tip of the iceberg. No President with a split Congress has ever been able to control everything in every piece of legislation they sign. That's just not reality.
Postulating that negotiations happened, or what happened in those negotiations? We know the negotiations happened, and we know that early drafts were worse on this and other Republican culture war issues. Beyond that, I don't claim to know anything, but you seem to. It was you who postulated that they didn't try to remove it.
Maybe in the near future we'll learn something about the negotiations that will change my opinion. Maybe the Democrats traded this to the Republicans in exchange for more pork for blue states or more bombs for Israel. Are you aware of any such dealings?
Oh my god you fucking apologists. Every assumption of Democrats giving 110% good faith efforts with NO EVIDENCE they did so and the temerity to act offended that they receive flak for failing. They had veto points all along the path. They had an amendment to remove it that wasn't even voted for. They had a broad array of civil rights organizations tell them to stand up for one of the most vulnerable populations in the entire country. And Biden for sure had no excuse because he was a single decision point. This isn't "make M4A happen by executive fiat" it's "maintain the status quo". That was entirely within their power. They just didn't want to.
HRC, GLAAD, and ACLU aren't the problem. The "white moderates" with every excuse for why the minorities must sacrifice and backsliding is actually peak performance are.
Exactly. This headline could also have easily been "Republicans hold government funding hostage to force first federal anti-LGBTQ legislation in nearly 30 years."