this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
175 points (99.4% liked)

politics

23316 readers
2725 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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/29461578

May 1, 2025 5:00 AM ET By Chris Arnold and Quil Lawrence

"The U.S. #DepartmentOfVeteransAffairs, as of Thursday, has ended a new #mortgage-rescue program that so far has helped about 20,000 veterans avoid #foreclosure and keep their homes.

The move leaves millions of military #veterans with far worse options than most other American homeowners if they run into trouble paying their home loans. And it comes at a time when nearly 90,000 #VA loans are seriously past due, with 33,000 of those already in the foreclosure process, according to the data and analytics firm ICE."

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

These veterans should do something enthusiastic about this.

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee -2 points 21 hours ago

Won't someone think of the poor innocent people whose only crime is murdering foreign civilians for oil and corporate interests?

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remember, you took an oath to serve the Constitution first. Time to dust off those uniforms and service rifles one last time

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 12 points 2 days ago (5 children)

You know they don't let us take our guns home, right?

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Yes but we also know veterans tend to keep personal firearms too.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish 5 points 2 days ago

Service weapons. My grandad brought some abomination home from the Khyber pass. Granted I didn't pry too much, cause I did that one time (unrelated story of his) and he shut the fuck down. Like went silent for what seemed like twenty minutes and just left the house. I tried asking my dad and he said he didn't know much about my grandad's time there either as he was born within days of my grandad's deployment.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago
[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Some countries do. Op may not be from the u. S.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He may be, but this is a very US centered post.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Oh for sure. Just giving a bit of info

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

The US army will give soldiers a stipend to purchase their own rifles for use in battle, and those are the property of the soldier. I mean you can use a general issue rifle which you don't get to keep, but everyonei knew opted for the stipend so they could build their own custom rifle and keep it.

Also nearly every police officer opts to use a stipend to purchase their own service firearm which is their personal property. You can use one issued by the PD, but again I don't know of anyone that opted for that route.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

Because the US Army is planning to deliver parts and ammo for 70 different custom rifles to all its bases and outposts.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I don't know any soldiers who have told me that. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that's new info to me.

[–] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

US Army does no such thing.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

The logistics challenges would be incredible.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Know what? Fuck em. Don't leave. They want the bills paid, then they can pay the fucking bills they told those veterans they would.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I struggle to give a single fuck about this predicament that Veterans by and large brought upon themselves.

[–] mrwrinkles@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Common Defense

We're split on Trump, like much of America.

61% to 31%, veterans are not as split as you think.

But either way, veterans get to suffer along with the rest of us with their votes, progressive or not.

[–] quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No.

Not all of them voted for Trump, and even if they did, they're clearly not mentally well and need to be helped.

Whenever anyone disavows Trump and Republicans, we need to embrace them so they stop working against us making things harder.

Plus, turned Republicans are helpful in turning others like themselves over even if just by sheer example.

We must build community, not tear it apart.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Oh please, spare me the kumbya bullshit with Republicans and veterans.

  • 2016, 61% voted for trump and the Neo-Nazis.
  • 2020, 57%, voted for trump and the Neo-Nazis.
  • 2024, 61% voted for trump and the Neo-Nazis.

There's no community to be built here. They've proven they will vote the Hard R after getting fucked over hard the first time and they get to have the day they voted for this election just like the rest of us has to have the day they voted for.

[–] quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When we do not allow people to redeem themselves, they have zero reason to change or work with us, and will continue being our enemies.

Yeah, they voted Trump and Nazis-- they also have PTSD, trauma, may be grappling with addiction, suffering from mental illness, etc.

They also fought our country and are rightfully angry that we left them to rot in the streets.

We ALL created the conditions that led to Trump.

Thinking that we just need to be violent towards Trumpers to defeat them and THAT is going to fix our country is some really smooth brain thinking.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)
  1. PTSD isn't an excuse and it's not every veteran.
  2. We aren't leaving them on the streets, the Nazis they voted for are.
  3. "We All" didn't create the conditions.
  4. Since we're going into insults now, fine, if you want to smooth brain coddle and gargle some Nazi balls, you feel free and let them keep on making America fascist again and stand with Schumer's pathetic strongly worded questions.

If they want to redeem themselves then they need to have some self reflection on their own to understand that voting for Nazis is bad. That's something they have to do themselves and when they actually come out and say, "I'm sorry for being a fucking idiot and voting for a Nazi" and actually back it up with actions like not voting against their own interests because they like racism better, then I'll gladly talk with them. Until then, they can have the day they voted for.

You can continue to be that bleeding heart that thinks being punched in the face time after time without saying enough is enough is a winning strategy, you keep getting punched.

I'll continue to think that Americans need to suffer the consequences of their actions and maybe they'll learn not to hit themselves in the genitals and complain that it hurts afterwards.

[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

61 == 100

Now I may only have a college level understanding of mathology, but...

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Not having the understanding of the colloquial phrase "by and large"?

Or not addressing that veterans in 2024 voted in the same numbers as 2016, supporting the theory that veterans aren't actually changing their views?

What exactly are you not getting here?