199
Five Dems Crossed Party Lines To Strip Health Care From Trans Servicemembers And Their Families (www.erininthemorning.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

f you’re transgender, you can die for our country—but you cannot receive life-saving health care, access it for your transgender family members, or expect your family to be treated equally in schools run by the armed forces, should a new provision in the House NDAA become law.

This appears to be the politic of Democratic Representatives Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, of Texas; Donald G. Davis, of North Carolina; Shomari Figures and Terri A. Sewell, of Alabama. These lawmakers voted in favor of two proposals by South Carolina’s Nancy Mace, to amend the pending National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If passed in the Senate, Amendment 255 would gut gender-affirming care for uniformed service members, retirees, and their family members around the world. Amendment 256 would in turn ban transgender girls from women’s sports in K-12 schools run by the military.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This only gets put up to vote if Republicans control the house. So if you voted blue no matter who to the point that Democrats controlled the house, this would've never passed.

But if you don't vote because the "blue" doesn't pass the test, then the Republican wins and you get everything you hated about the blue and a whole lot of other shitty stuff.

VOTE IN THE PRIMARY FOR WHAT YOU WANT.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    So if you voted blue no matter who to the point that Democrats controlled the house, this would’ve never passed.

    This seems like a perverse incentive to never actually protect vulnerable minorities. If their rights are forfeit as soon as a republican gets into office, democrats can hold that over their heads forever as long as they don't actually put any protections in place. A lack of protections at a national level is what allows momentum to build against progress as red states put in their own discriminatory laws.

    But if you don’t vote because the “blue” doesn’t pass the test, then the Republican wins and you get everything you hated about the blue and a whole lot of other shitty stuff.

    It would be nice if the margins between the lesser and greater evil didn't narrow every time. One of the pieces of shit you're defending, Henry Cuellar, voted with you and against trans people. He had a primary opponent back in 2022. Jessica Cisneros. Party leadership openly campaigned for the anti-trans anti-choice anti-worker pro-nra Henry Cuellar instead, saying that they have to protect incumbents. Two years later, when Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were up for re-election, the party didn't protect them against the challengers AIPAC bought.

    VOTE IN THE PRIMARY FOR WHAT YOU WANT.

    THIS IS JUST GLOATING THAT THE PARTY INTERFERES IN THE PRIMARIES.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Do you know one of the reasons Trump has power? MAGA votes in primaries, if a Republican steps out of line with MAGA, they lose their next primary. Republicans had a presidential primary for 2024, Trump didn't even go to the debates and still won. Do you think the Republican establishment wanted Trump? No, they pushed back against him, but they can't shake his voting base.

    Progressive need to act like that in primaries and the general, they need to show up with numbers every time.

    This seems like a perverse incentive to never actually protect vulnerable minorities. If their rights are forfeit as soon as a republican gets into office, democrats can hold that over their heads forever as long as they don't actually put any protections in place.

    This would be solved if incumbents feared primaries and Democrats could rely on progressive in the general. This is why I support progressives voting in every election.

    A lack of protections at a national level is what allows momentum to build against progress as red states put in their own discriminatory laws.

    This almost sounds like accelerationism, let the Republican fuck things up to build momentum next election. Which I heard soooo much in 2016, and in 2020 all we got was Joe fucking Biden. I would much rather keep existing protections than risk losing protections because there is zero guarantee you get them back.

    One of the pieces of shit you're defending, Henry Cuellar, voted with you and against trans people.

    I don't support that shit, I literally said if we had more Democrats this wouldn't have passed. I don't want people voting for this. But I bet Cuellar is way better than the Republican he ran against. If all I've got is a piece of shit that votes with you more often than not, that's a hell of a lot better than a piece of shit that never does.

    He had a primary opponent back in 2022. Jessica Cisneros. Party leadership openly campaigned for the anti-trans anti-choice anti-worker pro-nra Henry Cuellar instead, saying that they have to protect incumbents.

    I would fucking love if when people like Jessica run, people would post her name all over the place instead of posting anti-voting rhetoric. Say "Let's support Jessica Cisneros in the primary!" Instead of apathic, nihilist, self-defeating "The primaries are rigged, so let's not vote. Oh shit the progressive lost, don't vote for the democrat in the general, they are a piece of shit. Oh shit Democrats lost seats in the general and Republicans now control the House and they passed an anti-trans bill, fucking Democrats".

    Two years later, when Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were up for re-election, the party didn't protect them against the challengers AIPAC bought.

    I mean I'm not surprised, they use the "protect the incumbent" line when it's who they want and primary those they don't want. Which is why we should primary incumbents if they don't align with our goals, they do it, we should too.

    THIS IS JUST GLOATING THAT THE PARTY INTERFERES IN THE PRIMARIES

    If you don't think the wealthy, powerful and people who will lose their jobs if they are voted out, aren't going to put their foot on the scale during elections, then study more politics. Honestly they just have a stronger campaigning and narrative control, they aren't rigging elections. Voting in every election, campaigning, being a part of your local party are all ways we can push back.

    Don't tell me how Democratic leadership and libs suck, tell me how we overcome that. Give solutions not apathy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    The primaries aren't run honestly. You will pretend otherwise forever because you like the results.

    But I bet Cuellar is way better than the Republican he ran against.

    You don't give a shit who wins as long as progressives lose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm not sorry that your wing of the party failed to stop a progressive. They kept trying after he won the primary, too. "Blue no matter who" has always meant "shut up and vote for genocidal shit."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    I don't know how you can see Mamdani supporting the literal thing I'm saying to do and still think I don't support progressives.

    How can Mamadani back progressives and win primaries if they aren't run honestly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •