5 ms·

>People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because Biden didn't do anything you suggest. You're consuming

>People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because Biden didn't do anything you suggest. You're consuming the propaganda. George Bush made it so that Federal workers with student loans could get them discharged at X years of service. X just happened to fall into Trump's first term. Trump broke the promise made to people doing their civic duty, Biden repaired it. Biden never took on more authority than what was established almost two decades ago.

_heimdall 2y ago
Biden was absolutely trying to cancel, or partially pay for, any federally backed loans and pell grants [1]. It wasn't limited only to federal employees with student debt. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-application-biden-relief-plan/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-applic...
nradov 2y ago
I haven't consumed any propaganda. I read the Supreme Court opinion in Biden v. Nebraska. You should do the same instead of making things up. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Lawyers are paid very well to present the best case possible for their client, you can't honestly believe that every detail of the events are going to be submitted as evidence, right? How do you distinguish between propaganda and a lawyer arguing a political policy on behalf of the president of the united states, with the understanding that a lawyer should make the most compelling case they possibly can? Its political, its a one-sided view, its cherry picked, and its meant to persuade the target audience to believe a certain point - that sounds pretty propagandistic to me.
  - nradov 2y ago
    That's a total non sequitur. Did you even read it? I linked to the final Supreme Court opinion, not the arguments made by lawyers on opposing sides or exhibits entered into evidence by the trial court.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Its not a non sequitur. The court can only rule based on what was admitted into the record, and that's controlled by the lawyers who as I said earlier are there to make the best case for their client, not the most complete and accurate case.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Again a total non sequitur. Both sides had ample opportunity to present evidence and make their arguments. If you think something was missed or wrongly decided then be specific and provide citations.

_heimdall 2y ago

Biden was absolutely trying to cancel, or partially pay for, any federally backed loans and pell grants [1]. It wasn't limited only to federal employees with student debt. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-application-biden-relief-plan/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-applic...

nradov 2y ago

I haven't consumed any propaganda. I read the Supreme Court opinion in Biden v. Nebraska. You should do the same instead of making things up. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

_heimdall 2y ago
Lawyers are paid very well to present the best case possible for their client, you can't honestly believe that every detail of the events are going to be submitted as evidence, right? How do you distinguish between propaganda and a lawyer arguing a political policy on behalf of the president of the united states, with the understanding that a lawyer should make the most compelling case they possibly can? Its political, its a one-sided view, its cherry picked, and its meant to persuade the target audience to believe a certain point - that sounds pretty propagandistic to me.
- nradov 2y ago
  That's a total non sequitur. Did you even read it? I linked to the final Supreme Court opinion, not the arguments made by lawyers on opposing sides or exhibits entered into evidence by the trial court.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Its not a non sequitur. The court can only rule based on what was admitted into the record, and that's controlled by the lawyers who as I said earlier are there to make the best case for their client, not the most complete and accurate case.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Again a total non sequitur. Both sides had ample opportunity to present evidence and make their arguments. If you think something was missed or wrongly decided then be specific and provide citations.