this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
365 points (98.7% liked)

politics

25426 readers
2061 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 91 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

That's a pretty narrow slice. Did he see Starship Troopers and think the line about serving to be able to have babies was a good idea? You were supposed to be paying attention to the boobs in the shower scene not the politics you twat.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you misread the (admittedly awful) title. Congress has a lot of control over veteran health benefits... this shitheel wants to prevent same-sex veteran couples from having access to IVF while retaining access to hetero veteran couples.

The bill in question wouldn't restrict anyone getting insurance without going through Tricare and the VHA/VA. Though I'm sure that's eventually this fuck's goal.

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That makes way more sense, I should probably start reading the articles before commenting.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

What fun would that be?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He was probably paying attention to dicks in the shower scene

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there were dicks in the shower scene?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was a mixed gender shower.

They may have been artfully concealed, but yes. Everyone there was neked.

Not that there’s anything wrong with checking out the dicks. There might be something wrong with being a raging homophobe, though, and still checking out said dicks. It that sounds like a personal problem

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You were supposed to be paying attention to the boobs in the shower scene not the politics you twat.

You were actually supposed to pay attention to the politics too.

Whether you consider them dystopian or aspirational depends on whether you agree with Paul Verhoeven who directed the movie or Robert Heinlein who wrote the book, though 🤷

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Heinlein wasn't spousing fascism. He explored many sorts of governments, social systems and morals. Think Stranger in a Strange Land makes him a hippy?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Heinlein wasn't spousing fascism

I didn't say he was. The book heavily promoted militarism, but that's only ONE of the 14 common features of fascism

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My understanding of Starship Troopers: The Movie is you're supposed to be paying attention to the politics and chuckling "What a bunch of complete dumb fucks" to yourself. Not so much the book it's based on though.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I need to watch that movie

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just know that your desire to know more will intensify as you watch it.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

They don't show any penisis :(

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I love it, the sequels are trash though.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I joined the service so I could get a reproduction licence easier"

Big Starship Troopers vibes

[–] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Literally my first thought too.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

either it’s murder or it isn’t, can’t have it both ways, republicans.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Of course they can. If they get power, they'll define anything to be whatever they want, consistency be damned. Anything that hurts their favorite punching bags will be fair game even if it makes no sense at all. Let's not give them that power, if we can help it.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Surprised he doesn't want to limit it to white people as well.

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He does, he just can't say that part out loud, yet.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So sad to see this happen at all

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Isn't he from Montana that has either already banned IVF or will ban it soon as more severe abortion laws get passed?

Anti abortion laws have the side effect of banning IVF. Because IVF requires aborting non viable fetuses or every IVF patient would be an Octomom and the chance of all fetuses and the mom dying greatly increases.

The press needs to call out the anti abortionists for what they really are doing. They are using the government to sterilize married heterosexual Christian women.

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You can do ivf without that. It would just be very costly, very time consuming, and very frustrating. You just make one embryo at a time. Implant it without testing its viability. If it doesn't take, do it again. One at a time. It's an absolutely idiotic way to do it. But it is possible.

[–] un_aristocrate@jlai.lu 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Wants to ban it completely unless you got your balls blown off in sandfuckistan.

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

Eugenics with extra steps to mask it.

he doesn't need to write that in. the VA will do it anyways.

Well, same sex couples, and by extension their children, are more likely to get harassed by bigoted fucks like Rep Rosendale so I guess there's a sliver of truth in there.