Why does anyone post this fascist rag?
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
-72 points (9.1% liked)
politics
19241 readers
2259 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
I love how this article leaves whomever wrote this blank.
Probably because some veterans want to make him disabled.
I’m not defending the article, because it’s some serious bullshit, but not having a byline is standard practice at the Economist. It’s one of their gimmicks which is supposed to imply objectivity and represent a “collective voice,” but I think it causes more harm and confusion than anything else.
Meanwhile, they vote maga.
Let's pretend the article's position has any merit. So the fuck what? Veterans deserve even more for laying down their lives. Don't like it? Stop war mongering and killing my friends.
what the fuck is this bootlicking-ass propaganda-ass article and what is it doing on my feed 👎👎👎👎
Unpaywalled archive link for the musk-and-trump fellating propaganda shitfest of an article.
meaning he loves America’s armed forces.
Only the ones that "didn't get caught". In what fucking world do veterans get "absurdly generous" benefits? Definitely not the veterans I know, who wait months to receive middling at best medical care.... Oh there it is. Because the benefits budget has increased, clearly veterans get too much personally. lol
They also seem to think a monthly payment of 2200 to 4000 a month is "absurdly generous". That's not even enough to live (period) as a single-person's independent income in most medium cost of living areas, especially if you have even the tiniest medical expense that's not covered.
Definitely not the veterans I know, who wait months to receive middling at best medical care
I was going to say similar. Maybe their allotted benefits look attractive, but good luck receiving them in any useful timeframe. Even taking the article at face value, they have "absurd" benefits in theory, but get a fraction of them in practice.
Seriously. This article is an embarrassment. Yeah, no shit, our disability payments have gone through the roof. A decade of the War on Terror will due that. Ironically, much of this has come from better medical technology; many people now survive with disabilities that previously wouldn't have come home at all.
I tried to look up the author of the article, but they seem to be cowardly not sharing it. How much you want to bet it was penned by some neocon who was pushing for the Iraq War before it happened?
I'm going to go with absolutely fucking not.