this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
166 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19517 readers
5449 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phughes@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Every single loan forgiven was one that was always supposed to have been forgiven under the terms that existed at the time they were taken out. Biden followed the existing law.

Yet somehow we went 4 years before (and will go another 4 years) without any loans being forgiven. I don't get how your argument supports your Biden Bad narrative. I understand that he wasn't able to forgive more loans without breaking the law. Is that what you want, a president that breaks the law to uphold his campaign promises? Because, if so, I've got great news for you!

[–] grue@lemmy.world -2 points 7 hours ago

I don’t get how your argument supports your Biden Bad narrative.

It doesn't! Of course it doesn't! Because I'm not making a "Biden bad" narrative in the first place!

Biden mostly competently executed the law (with the glaring exception of prosecuting Trump). He faithfully upheld the status quo. Kamala would certainly do the same. Almost none of that is "bad."

But what I'm saying is that being "not bad" clearly wasn't enough! You can't deny that, at least -- the election results prove it. It is now a historical fact, not an opinion, that in order to actually win, the Democrats needed to do more than the bare minimum of not being bad. Why is that so fucking hard to get the people in this thread to understand?!