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.
Check the trends: https://apnews.com/article/global-elections-2024-incumbents-defeated-c80fbd4e667de86fe08aac025b333f95
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?