this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
423 points (98.0% liked)

politics

30960 readers
2422 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Paywall removed https://archive.is/UnSQN

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He dithered and only reluctantly did this. And then when he did, he did it in a way that a corrupt SCOTUS could overrule. There were other paths he could have taken, but he chose the least-confrontational approach and ultimately the court negated most of his efforts.

I'm gonna gut check this, because I remember him trying couple of times to work out student debt relief. Also, what other steps would you have taken to get student debt relief/forgiveness pushed though? The only step I can think of is after the "president is a king" SCOTUS ruling he could have just canceled them and told everyone to fuck off, but using those powers was clearly something that he didn't morally agree with.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He picked the weakest method to start with, added many delays and means testing, then after being told no by Supreme Court just changed to going through the backlog of those who should have already been forgiven and called it him fulfilling his campaign promises.

Then on top of that allowed gop to force them to restart.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly. And ultimately, voters don't want to hear excuses. They don't expect perfection, but they do expect some results. Republicans, even with limited majorities, always manage to achieve at least some of what they would call progress. Democrats OTOH just fine endless excuses. At some point, you're either incompetent or admitting to your voters that you were lying to them - promising them something you would never be able to deliver.