politics
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
view the rest of the comments
DADT welcomed more violence and forced victims to remain silent. You're out of your mind on this one. The correct answer was to allow gay men and women to serve, without question and with The same protections all members of the military had.
Carrying water for homophobic policies is exactly the type of nonsense I expect from apologists that don't have their own standards or morals, though. I love it when this type of person jumps out from the woodwork to scold someone for actually having values worth standing up for.
It was also repealed by a Democrat, don't forget that.
And I actually was serving while DADT was a thing. Most of us on the Enlisted side rolled our eyes at it, because we thought it was dumb af to even have it at all. None of us (in my circle of friends anyhow) cared who wanted to bone who so long as it was all consensual.
I had a very close friend who was gay, and we served in Okinawa together. He actually came out TO his leadership to get his discharge because the mission over there was brutal on the workers (aircraft maintenance). Pretty much everyone knew he was, but leadership wouldn't make a move to kick anyone out unless you were actively like "Hey, I'm gay" straight to their face. And when he told his First Sergeant, the guy was like "Airman _____, are you sure you want to be telling me this?" Basically giving him an out to rethink.
He was a solid worker, just couldn't handle it anymore. And he was not dishonorably discharged. It's been a few years since I've heard from him, I should actually give him a holler and see what he's up to.
Anyhow, I say all that to be like, yes, DADT needed to be repealed, just like the trans ban needed to be repealed. But at the time, DADT really was setting the groundwork for many gay rights victories.
If you were actually serving, then you realize gay people were at extreme risk for being outed. Because if you were out that was considered telling which meant you were dishonorably discharged. So there was no relief from being caught by a fellow enlisted service person.
Back in the '90s I was commuting to Virginia for work. We used to go out in a Navy town and see all kinds of shows. In this particular town. There's a drag club that was very popular with some of the Navy guys, and wouldn't you know it? Every once in awhile someone would show up and everyone would panic and run away. They were desperately afraid of being caught and found out. Don't ask, don't tell. Did not fix that problem in any way shape or form.
The point we were originally talking about was protecting the right to abortion. Something that society has agreed for over 40 years should be a legal right, but nobody bothered to codify it in law. Just like the equal Rights amendment, it's ignored until it can be used as a cudgel to force people to vote a certain way. If Democrats actually passed legalized abortion on a national level anytime the last 40 years, two things would be true. One, we would not be in this situation. And two, they wouldn't have the ability to brow beat us against into electing shitty candidates just to eke out a win over other shittier candidates. Who knows, they might even put up a good candidate for once.