> there is a clear difference in that those programs have been going on for decades while the 'student loan debt forgiveness' scheme popped into existence at ju

> there is a clear difference in that those programs have been going on for decades while the 'student loan debt forgiveness' scheme popped into existence at just the right time to attract voters for the upcoming elections And? You are aware that promising to do things for voters that aren't being done yet is not exactly a Machiavellian scheme. It's how a policy gets started. Do we just not do anything because that would be new and scary? It's a response to the growing balloon of college costs and lack of opportunities for degree holders. Being $100,000+ in debt for no payoff is a scam, not debt relief. I know you're pretending to play devils advocate but you are transparently being critical of politicians doing the bare minimum of their job because they have a D next to their name. Devils advocate means you are taking a position you don't agree with for the exercise of it. You are making bad faith statements about a party you visibly hate. > Apart from the fact that both parties are in on the farm subsidy racket - the main difference being that the 'democrats' specifically target 'farmers of colour' through the 'black farmer relief program' So you think they're both buying peoples votes unethically, but it's worse for the DNC because they're black. Got it. As if white people aren't the most catered to in politics.