• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 25th, 2023
  • firebyte@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•Exclusive: US military to start kicking out transgender troops next month, memo says
    0·
    30 days ago

    Come to Australia! The Australian Defence Force allows eligible U.S. citizens to join, and accepts lateral transfers, after some conditions have been met.

    The ADF allows LGBTQI+ people to serve openly, and will even support transition for trans members.

    And Australia is just awesome. We just re-elected, literally last weekend, a level-headed centre-left government, in what is very likely to be at least for two terms (2 x 3 years), given that the centre-right party was absolutely flogged in the polls. They fucked around with endorsing ‘MAGA’ politics and then found out, by winning less than half the seats required to form majority again.

    Our electoral system generally keeps our politicians sane and centrist: mandatory voting for citizens (you get fined if you don’t - we don’t care who you vote for, just as long as you do); full preferential voting (aka ranked choice voting - where every candidate must be ranked), and a balanced Senate (different kind of ranked choice voting). No first-past-the-post shit that leads to extreme fringe parties gaining any serious power.

    Criteria:

    • be a New Zealand citizen, a citizen of the United Kingdom, United States of America or Canada
    • be a permanent resident living in Australia or holding a 444 sub-class visa
    • have lived in Australia for at least one year immediately prior to applying to join the ADF and
    • have not served in a foreign military in the two years prior to applying to join the ADF

    Overseas applicants with relevant military experience may be eligible to start a new career in the ADF and a new life in Australia through a lateral transfer. To be eligible, you must:

    • be a current serving member, or separated less than 3 years ago from a foreign military service
    • have no less than 5 years’ military experience
    • hold qualifications, skills and experience that can be recognised by and directly transferred to the ADF
    • meet the minimum academic and military educational standards required by the ADF
    • be less than 55 years of age at the time of visa nomination
    • be able to demonstrate ‘Competent English’ ability at the time of application, as defined on the Department of Home Affairs website.

    https://www.adfcareers.gov.au/careers/joining/eligibility?side-tab=citizenship

  • firebyte@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•How pro-LGBTQ+ is Kamala Harris?
    0·
    11 months ago

    It’s worth actually diving into the details. The reporting is burying key details that are often not quoted, making Kamala sound worse than she is.

    I’ll say this: people are complicated. Reasonable people are capable of change within themselves.

    A lot of people suggest that past actions are indicative of future behaviours. People who assert this are flat out wrong. Look at what Trump promised prior to his election in 2016, then compare it to what he actually did. The same is true of anyone else. What someone did, or didn’t do, in the past doesn’t exactly prescribe what they will do in future.

    People are complicated, and reasonable people are capable of change.

    I’ve read into the Kamala Harris denying surgery for a trans prisoner story a bit. It’s worth noting that her role as the attorney general at the time is supposed to represent the state, and is not able to pick and choose battles, irrespective of her beliefs.

    She took full responsibility for her actions [out.com article cited above]. Trump has never done this, as far as I can tell.

    What is not being quoted above, an omission that makes Kamala look bad on trans issues, is that she actually worked with the relevant departments to change the rules [https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/21/harris-takes-full-responsibility-for-briefs-against-surgery-for-trans-inmates/].

    Sure, she might have a spotty record though look at her more recent actions. She co-sponsored the Equality Act when she was elected to the U.S Senate.

    Even if she was ‘against’ trans rights, those actions above suggest there’s not an ‘against’ slant now.

    Don’t take my word for it. Dig out as many articles as you can find, or even transcripts of her debates and speeches.

    People are complicated. You can help shape their views. Get involved. Vote. Read deeper into the news, don’t take news at face value. It is often spun, and misquoted, to portray a particular point of view whether right or wrong.

    (For what it’s worth, I’m a gay trans person though I have no horse in the U.S Presidential election as I don’t live in the U.S. That said, having witnessed how awful the media have twisted issues and facts in my own country, especially over LGBT issues, I wanted to point out that this whole ‘she’s spotty on trans rights’ is not the whole picture. It’s not your fault though, we’re constantly fed bullshit to try sway narratives, or to convince people to stay home, which is disastrous in a first-past-the-post voting system).

  • firebyte@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•SCOTUS Immunity Ruling Will Let Trump be Führer, Here’s My Proof: Michael Cohen
    0·
    11 months ago

    I’ve been thinking about this a bit, I’m not sure it’s been considered and I may be going out on a random tangent…

    Isn’t this whole ‘immunity’ decision just another power grab, or rather further cementing of their power, by SCOTUS? Think about it. They’re essentially the arbiter of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ now, as there’s no further avenue of appeal save for amending the U.S. Constitution.

    Put aside the vagueness of ‘official’ vs. ‘unofficial’ acts for a moment.

    • Trump did something definitely illegal, and Trump argues was ‘official’, like his classified records case. Immune.

    • Biden did something questionably legal yet unofficial, such as forgetfully retaining classified documents after his tenure as VP (which he immediately returned). Supreme Court decides ‘not immune’, and some idiot decides to prosecute.

    Trump might end up as a king, but the conservative majority of SCOTUS are the kingmakers and protectors.

  • firebyte@lemmy.worldtopolitics @lemmy.world•R.F.K. Jr.’s Environmental Colleagues Urge Him to Drop Presidential Bid
    0·
    1 year ago

    Problem lies in the ‘first-past-the-post’, aka ‘winner-takes-all’ system. There are others, like the electoral college, but I digress.

    Third party candidates only ever bleed votes from another in FPTP. Assuming RFK is going after Democratic/‘swing’ voters he’ll potentially end up costing the Democrats votes in key states which, at the margins we’re currently seeing, would potentially allow Republicans to win, holding slightly more votes to be ‘first-past-the-post’ at the end of ballot counting even though a majority of people would’ve preferred a Democrat representative anyway.

    Under the FPTP system, voting for RFK as a protest vote, at his 10% margin, becomes a wasted vote because of how FPTP works.

    The only true way to fix this is ‘single transferrable vote’, or ‘ranked choice’ voting. Voters simply rank their preference from most desired (1) to least desired (n) on a single ballot.

    If the first round of counting doesn’t yield a winner (usually 50% of ballots + 1 ballot in a candidate’s pile), the candidate with the least amount of ballots is eliminated. Ballots are then redistributed from the eliminated candidate, according to the voters next preference on their ballot, amongst those candidates who remain.

    Process continues until a candidate has 50% of ballots + 1 ballot in their pile.

    The best version of this is ‘full’ preferential voting (every candidate must be numbered), rather than ‘optional’ (number at least one candidate; better versions of this are ‘number at least n candidates’). Optional preferential votes ‘exhaust’, potentially becoming wasted, if the voter didn’t number all the boxes.

    This will allow people to protest vote, without actually wasting their vote.