News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
That would be relevant if Biden were currently president, and it would have been somewhat less relevant had Biden even been the Democratic nominee for president in 2024.
But Biden wasn't even on the ballot. It's almost completely irrelevant.
When people talk like this, it just reminds me of how they talked about Hillary for Trump's entire first term.
It just gives off the air of bad faith. We're talking about things that are happening right now and are relevant to millions of people. Former politicians can't be anything except a diversion.
They are a known both sideser
God forbid the Democrats ever get criticized for anything. 🙄
I see more criticism of Democrats than Republicans on this website.
Just my personal experience.
I mean it is fine if someone wants to input some yelling about our distressing "left" party in power in the hopes that it will make it better. What makes it irritating to me is the dishonesty, with made-up attacks that have resonance and emotional weight but no real accuracy to them, and the total disconnection with any type of strategy that could help anything.
"Uncommitted" movement? Fine. Let's put pressure on the Democrats to be better, in a way that's organized and has some passable chance of saving some lives. Great stuff.
"Genocide Joe" and "I'm sitting out this election and you should too"? Great, you made things worse for the Palestinians. Joe Biden isn't running, and Kamala's opponent just wants to kill them all.
Jon Stewart interviewing AOC about all the horror and corruption in the Democratic party? Great stuff. She's got some good insight and they both clearly care and are alarmed about the bullshit and trying to do something about it. Great stuff.
"Yeah but while we're talking about Reagan, isn't it really Senator Biden's fault and mostly his along that things are bad in America right now?"
It's just a bunch of shit. Always has been. And they never change their mind: The "Democrats are shit" theory is all they want to talk about, and if you discuss them into a corner, they'll just fall back to some kind of generalized nihilism or change to some other assertion about bad things the Democrats did.
There is a theory that it's proper to block these people, to reduce the blood pressure of your Lemmy experience, but in my opinion it is better to call them out on it when they start up with it.
No you don't. This place is filled with articles and tens of thousands of comments criticizing the shit that Republicans are doing and Democrats are helping them achieve a lot of their goals, so why shouldn't we throw these people under the bus too? Quit treating politics like a team sport and wake up to the fact that they're working together to fuck us all over.
It's taken for granted that "Republicans are bad" is the default here. So what I only ever see here are leftists complaining about how bad the Democrats are.
LOL, is Reagan currently President? Read what I replied to before telling me if my comment is relevant.
"Yeah that makes sense, he was the 2nd worst Republican."
"Why are you bringing up someone who's no longer president? Why do you hate the guy who didn't try hard enough to fix his mistakes?"
Weird how calling someone out from a while for their actions works, but not calling someone out for their actions.
My point was that the relevance of Reagan and Biden go hand in hand. If one is relevant then they both are. We either examine the past and learn from it, or we continue to repeat the mistakes.
There is one type of person who looks at a fucked up situation in the world, and things "Who can I talk about who is responsible?" They often pick the biggest, or most recent or relevant target.
There's another type of person who looks at a fucked up situation in the world, and thinks "Can I connect this to Joe Biden or Kamala Harris in some way?"
It really looks a lot to me here like you are doing the second of those things. You're allowed to, sure, just like we're allowed to tell you that it's a weird thing to do.
If you need more proof, they said Biden was most responsible, but he wasn't. He didn't propose the bill. He only tried to improve the bill, knowing that it would pass no matter what he did, and the things he changed did not do what they were talking about. That's assuming they're talking about the 2005 bill.
This does not surprise me in the slightest to hear.
Have I said anything that's not true?
I have no particular personal animosity towards Biden or Harris, except perhaps their handling of the 2024 campaign - and I put that way more on Biden than Harris. I do, however, think that Democrats need to accept that they lost to Trump twice now and start grappling with the question of how they failed so spectacularly. It's easy to blame MAGA and voter apathy, but how does that lead to better outcomes in the future? What led to the sociological problems that gave rise to the far right in the first place? How did a populace that voted in the first black president suddenly become so racist and bigoted again? Maybe we can blame Republican disinformation, but I don't see that going away any time soon. The question we have to ask is, what did Democrats do, or not do, that contributed or made things easier for the Republicans? That's the important question, because it's the one thing Democrats can actually do something about.
According to logicbomb, you're misrepresenting Biden's involvement with the student loan bill you're talking about. Was the 2005 bill the one you were talking about? What was in it that you didn't like and how was Biden responsible for that part of it?
Yes, it was the 2005 bill, and Biden was one of the few Democratic Senators to support and ultimately vote for the bill. He also was also one of the most powerful members of the Senate, not a follower being pulled along.
Biden did make claims that it was a Republican bill that he tried to soften, but nothing in the story of the bill's authorship or passage supported that. In fact, he was a champion of it's passage from the start, and had been so twice before when it had been previously proposed. He also helped write a failed bill way back in 1978 that specifically disallowed bankruptcy for student loans.
Biden and Warren debating 2005 bill
Biden also received more campaign donations from the credit industry than any other Senator at the time, and his son Hunter was employed as a $100k/year "consultant" at MBNA.
Dude... I think you are literally just making this up (or repeating it from someone who made it up.)
I looked into the 2005 bankruptcy bill which they are arguing about in this clip. I couldn't even find anything in it about student loans. I searched the text, and followed the links to read the article Mother Jones wrote about the issue. Nothing about student loans. The Wikipedia page does have a single sentence claiming that it impacted student loan formulas in some way, with a "citation needed." Where in the text does it do that?
I have found some pages (one, two) that claim that the 2005 bankruptcy reform included making private student loan debt non-dischargeable. So maybe there is something to this argument? Like I said, I couldn't find it in the actual text.
As far as I can tell, deciding whether student loans are dischargeable mostly roots back to a 1987 court case and has to do with having to prove certain elements in bankruptcy court. I don't really know. But regardless, this whole bankruptcy bill had a huge impact on a wide variety of stuff, Biden didn't create it or sponsor it. It does look like he went to bat for it, which was probably bad, but the student loan stuff was a tiny part if it even existed in the bill at all. (Which, maybe it did, I reached my limit for wanting to look into this.) And saying that he was "the Senator" who was most responsible for this thing is just weird, even if he supported it. Presumably, a lot of people supported it, including the authors of the legislation.
Also, micro-focusing on just whether student loan debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, and saying that is the issue that is competitive with the issue of forgiving loans for the vast majority of people who are paying them who are not bankrupt, is super weird.
Also, you know what Biden is responsible for? In 2022, the DOJ released new guidance indicating that they would not oppose in bankruptcy court anyone who wanted it discharged and could prove that it would be a hardship otherwise.
I have reached a firm conclusion that you are twisting facts around to bad-mouth Biden on this issue.
See "Sec. 220. Nondischargeability of certain educational benefits and loans." Also, the following is from the Wikipedia entry on BAPCPA.
Yes I do, and I spoke to it in another thread. President Biden was a huge improvement over Senator Biden, and I give him full credit for that.
Got it. Where did he come out specifically in favor of this one specific provision?
Yeah, I'll make sure not to go back in time to 2005 and elect him for anything back then. Back then, I didn't support Democrats either, they were mostly shit with Al Gore as a rare exception. Now they're getting significantly better, and you are casting this massive multi-decade net to try to find little individual things somewhere in the history that you can bring up and make this freakout about, and misrepresent.
Like I say, now that I understand the full scope better, it is impossible for me to see this any other way than just finding random bullshit to throw at Biden.
Let me turn it around since the opposing claim is that he worked with Republicans to soften the bill. Where did he come out specifically against it? Finding clips of Biden back then is near impossible with all the results that come up from his presidency, and I honestly don't care enough to keep digging.
Is he running for something now? I hope you are aware that we aren't talking about a current or future Democratic candidate for anything.
Biden was among the most conservative Democrats in congress. As president he was one of the furthest left office holders in the party. Biden got way better in the context of the Democrats. I don't see Democrats as a group getting better at all, with rare exceptions that the establishment does everything they can manage to suppress. You Don't Hate The Democrats Enough.
Okay so you have literally no idea whether he even ever expressed any specific approval for the part of the bill you're blaming him for being more responsible for than any other US senator. He didn't write it, he didn't make that amendment, and he supported some other parts in debate. But you definitely know he's most responsible. Out of everyone.
Good to know.
Dude. I've put up with your demands for evidence and proved you wrong several times. I'm not your fucking man servant and I figure at this point it's your turn to prove that he opposed that particular section of a bill he championed through congress. The bill did what I said it did, and he backed it. If you think he opposed that section, then I think it's on you to show that me made some effort to fix it.
Three prominent Democrats pushed the bill through congress, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. Of the three, only Joe Biden ended up voting for the final bill. That's about as much of a smoking gun as your ever going to find.
You sound lovely
Now we're down to the ad hominem. I'll just point out that you got there first and leave it at that.
"I have evidence by reputable places to prove your beliefs wrong."
"You're an asshole, no one likes you."
Thank god we're not in a place where Philip can mod, or they'd ban you and then say they're sorry. Check !yepowertrippingbastards@lemmy.dbzero.com
Um, what? I find your reply incoherent and your link doesn't work.