Even more reasons the SCOTUS needs ethics reform.

[fatman76]

So you don't understand. Wait, so you're trolling because I addressed this in post 49, in response to another question by you. Stop trolling, it's against the rules.

Oh I understand, I just didn't remember your lame excuse from last August.

You're twisting yourself into an intellectual pretzel to make your double standard not seem so terrible. Biden has so much more power than Justice Thomas.

Again, pointing out hypocrisy isn't trolling.

 

[RussellCasse]

I am just not into you.

Your response to ignore ratio says otherwise. Bad news for you, I prefer women who can comprehend what they read.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Oh I understand, I just didn't remember your lame excuse from last August.

You're twisting yourself into an intellectual pretzel to make your double standard not seem so terrible. Biden has so much more power than Justice Thomas.

Again, pointing out hypocrisy isn't trolling.

Like I said I said it's either or. So I'll be nice and take you for your word. So you don't understand the difference.

I'll waste my time and try to explain slowly. Elected officials and Justices are not and should not be held to the same standard. Elected officials can be voted out if the people disagrees with their actions/corruptions. If their constituents is ok with it then whatever. Justices will never be able to held accountable by the people. So because of that, they should never be corrupted.

If The SCOTUS were elected officials then I wouldn't have any issue with what Thomas, Sotomayor or Alito did because we could just vote them out, since we can't, it matters.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just my thoughts. I am sure nothing I said will register because you must protect your people.

 

[RussellCasse]

Like I said I said it's either or. So I'll be nice and take you for your word. So you don't understand the difference.

I'll waste my time and try to explain slowly. Elected officials and Justices are not and should not be held to the same standard. Elected officials can be voted out if the people disagrees with their actions/corruptions. If their constituents is ok with it then whatever. Justices will never be able to held accountable by the people. So because of that, they should never be corrupted.

If The SCOTUS were elected officials then I wouldn't have any issue with what Thomas, Sotomayor or Alito did because we could just vote them out, since we can't, it matters.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just my thoughts. I am sure nothing I said will register because you must protect your people.

I get it. Justice Thomas is standing in the lefts way. It’s the only reason this is an issue, and the marching orders are clear.

It’s Interesting that you didn’t start a thread after Fani’s nice slip of using campaign money to pay back her lover for trips.

I have this feeling that if he were on the left, Racism would be used.

This…is why this is suddenly an issue. “It’s about ethics, keep it there”. Nah man, it’s about politics. Always is. You’re the most disingenuous poster here, and it’s not close.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Like I said I said it's either or. So I'll be nice and take you for your word. So you don't understand the difference.

I'll waste my time and try to explain slowly. Elected officials and Justices are not and should not be held to the same standard. Elected officials can be voted out if the people disagrees with their actions/corruptions. If their constituents is ok with it then whatever. Justices will never be able to held accountable by the people. So because of that, they should never be corrupted.

If The SCOTUS were elected officials then I wouldn't have any issue with what Thomas, Sotomayor or Alito did because we could just vote them out, since we can't, it matters.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just my thoughts. I am sure nothing I said will register because you must protect your people.

That's easily fixable. Create a standard and have it made into law.

 

[kalimgoodman]

That's easily fixable. Create a standard and have it made into law.

That is what I've been saying but these guys are trying to make it about them defending Thomas. I don't want any of them doing corrupt stuff.

The SCOTUS needs ethic reform. It's pretty simple to me.

 

[LordofallSocks]

That is what I've been saying but these guys are trying to make it about them defending Thomas. I don't want any of them doing corrupt stuff.

The SCOTUS needs ethic reform. It's pretty simple to me.

Well, one down. I get it.

 

[fatman76]

Like I said I said it's either or. So I'll be nice and take you for your word. So you don't understand the difference.

I'll waste my time and try to explain slowly. Elected officials and Justices are not and should not be held to the same standard. Elected officials can be voted out if the people disagrees with their actions/corruptions. If their constituents is ok with it then whatever. Justices will never be able to held accountable by the people. So because of that, they should never be corrupted.

If The SCOTUS were elected officials then I wouldn't have any issue with what Thomas, Sotomayor or Alito did because we could just vote them out, since we can't, it matters.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just my thoughts. I am sure nothing I said will register because you must protect your people.

So you’re big mad about Sotomayor taking millions from a book publisher while presiding over cases involving them? Nope, not a word.

There are 3 branches of gov’t. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Answer a question - the three branches have checks and balances over each other.

Which is more powerful - 1/9th of one branch or 100% of another? Which should we be more concerned with taking bribes?

You really, really suck at this. This is hypocrisy in it’s most basic form.

 

[kalimgoodman]

So you’re big mad about Sotomayor taking millions from a book publisher while presiding over cases involving them? Nope, not a word.

There are 3 branches of gov’t. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Answer a question - the three branches have checks and balances over each other.

Which is more powerful - 1/9th of one branch or 100% of another? Which should we be more concerned with taking bribes?

You really, really suck at this. This is hypocrisy in it’s most basic form.

Yes, I think they all can better. Congress needs to pass reform for all 9 justices, not just Thomas (this is what I meant when I said , you guys are trying to make this about defending Thomas).

I am more concerned with the unelected officials taking bribes who decision is FINALS, then people that can get voted out.

Well, I made sense to Lord and others. So I honestly don't care what you think is hypocrisy or not because I know you have an agenda.

I'm done with this discussion with you. We clearly have a difference of opinion. You think justices should/can be corrupted and I don't. There really is no reason to keep this going unless you're trying to troll. Next topic.

 

[RussellCasse]

Yes, I think they all can better. Congress needs to pass reform for all 9 justices, not just Thomas (this is what I meant when I said , you guys are trying to make this about defending Thomas).

I am more concerned with the unelected officials taking bribes who decision is FINALS, then people that can get voted out.

Well, I made sense to Lord and others. So I honestly don't care what you think is hypocrisy or not because I know you have an agenda.

I'm done with this discussion with you. We clearly have a difference of opinion. You think justices should/can be corrupted and I don't. There really is no reason to keep this going unless you're trying to troll. Next topic.

No, you didn’t make sense. Your reading comprehension is getting in the way again. It is what it is.

And of course, RIGHT NOW, you are more concerned with unelected officials. Mainly Justice Thomas. You know who else shares that view, and shared it just before you became concerned? CNN, WAPO, MSNBC, Motherjones, Salon, Vox…to name a few.

Interesting.

 

[Orangeclad]

Here's an interesting tidbit:

"Despite all the ethical lapses, at least some justices from across the ideological spectrum are indignant at the notion that their conduct should be scrutinized. When Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2006 proposed an inspector general to keep an eye on the justices, liberal icon Ginsberg likened it to “Stalinism, saying that such oversight ‘is a really scary idea’ that ‘sounds to me very much like [how] the Soviet Union was,’” Roth of Fix the Court wrote.

I wonder if that was because RBG knew of the 225 subsidized trips taken by Stephen Breyer between 2004 and 2016.

 

[fatman76]

Yes, I think they all can better. Congress needs to pass reform for all 9 justices, not just Thomas (this is what I meant when I said , you guys are trying to make this about defending Thomas).

I am more concerned with the unelected officials taking bribes who decision is FINALS, then people that can get voted out.

Well, I made sense to Lord and others. So I honestly don't care what you think is hypocrisy or not because I know you have an agenda.

I'm done with this discussion with you. We clearly have a difference of opinion. You think justices should/can be corrupted and I don't. There really is no reason to keep this going unless you're trying to troll. Next topic.

1) Finals? Really?
2) The point I’m making is, you are either concerned with corruption or you aren’t. If you think one SC Justice has as much power and influence as a POTUS your IQ is either incredibly low or your a dishonest debater. No decision Thomas makes is final, the decisions from a majority of the court. And the Sotomayor thing you refuse to even mention.
And if Biden’s admin gets Ukraine into NATO and starts a global war, is that decision “final”?
Tell me again who is more dangerous if corrupted by money?
That is the essence of hypocrisy - you only care about what your political enemies do, you turn the other cheek when it’s “your” side.
3) You know how I can tell I’ve won a debate with you? You leave the conversation.
Every. Single. Time.

And honestly this is one you should leave, you’re getting body bagged.

 

[Orangeclad]

1) Finals? Really?
2) The point I’m making is, you are either concerned with corruption or you aren’t. If you think one SC Justice has as much power and influence as a POTUS your IQ is either incredibly low or your a dishonest debater. No decision Thomas makes is final, the decisions from a majority of the court. And the Sotomayor thing you refuse to even mention.
And if Biden’s admin gets Ukraine into NATO and starts a global war, is that decision “final”?
Tell me again who is more dangerous if corrupted by money?
That is the essence of hypocrisy - you only care about what your political enemies do, you turn the other cheek when it’s “your” side.
3) You know how I can tell I’ve won a debate with you? You leave the conversation.
Every. Single. Time.

And honestly this is one you should leave, you’re getting body bagged.

I had just started to respond to the word "Finals" when I saw yours. My first thought was what I thought was final when SCOTUS ruled on paying student loans. Biden has given the middle finger to the court and does it anyway. But Trumps the dictator? Biden does whatever the hell he pleases. Refrence the border. Biden didn't need anything but a pen to rip the border open on day one, but he needs congress to be able to close it? You really have to be a sheep to the exponential of exfinity to swallow what sycophants are being fed.

 

[kalimgoodman]

1) Finals? Really?
2) The point I’m making is, you are either concerned with corruption or you aren’t. If you think one SC Justice has as much power and influence as a POTUS your IQ is either incredibly low or your a dishonest debater. No decision Thomas makes is final, the decisions from a majority of the court. And the Sotomayor thing you refuse to even mention.
And if Biden’s admin gets Ukraine into NATO and starts a global war, is that decision “final”?
Tell me again who is more dangerous if corrupted by money?
That is the essence of hypocrisy - you only care about what your political enemies do, you turn the other cheek when it’s “your” side.
3) You know how I can tell I’ve won a debate with you? You leave the conversation.
Every. Single. Time.

And honestly this is one you should leave, you’re getting body bagged.

I'm not talking about this you are. This is a last year conversation.

Declaring yourself the winner, is such the Trump thing to do 😂.

Also, it's not about winning. You have your opinion/thoughts on this and I have mine. We just disagree. Sometimes, it's that simple. I don't and never will consider appointed positions and elected positions the same. Agree to disagree.

 

[kalimgoodman]

I had just started to respond to the word "Finals" when I saw yours. My first thought was what I thought was final when SCOTUS ruled on paying student loans. Biden has given the middle finger to the court and does it anyway. But Trumps the dictator? Biden does whatever the hell he pleases.

I'm willing to bet that you have no idea how Biden is forgiving student loans. You just see that he is and you're saying that he "gave the middle finger" to the court.

Well to educate you, Biden is forgiving loans via laws passed by congress. They are laws that he could enforce that other presidents did not. The SCOTUS told him that he couldn't do it they way he tried to initially without being passed by congress.

So he isn't giving the courts the middle finger. Stop assuming and actually read. I'm sure that you will that you got that criticism wrong. I fully expect that 🙄.

What Biden has been doing – before and after the Supreme Court ruling – is using existing student loan forgiveness programs to deliver relief to certain groups of borrowers, like public-sector workers (through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program) and borrowers who were defrauded by their college (through the borrower defense to repayment program). His administration also made discharges for borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden/index.html

 

[RussellCasse]

Lol. CNN as the source. Perfect. Again, marching orders.

💊

 

[fatman76]

I had just started to respond to the word "Finals" when I saw yours. My first thought was what I thought was final when SCOTUS ruled on paying student loans. Biden has given the middle finger to the court and does it anyway. But Trumps the dictator? Biden does whatever the hell he pleases. Refrence the border. Biden didn't need anything but a pen to rip the border open on day one, but he needs congress to be able to close it? You really have to be a sheep to the exponential of exfinity to swallow what sycophants are being fed.

To reinforce your point about student loan debt...Biden is ignoring the SCOTUS.

Tell me more about "FINALS" @kalimgoodman - and remind me who is more dangerous when corrupt.

I just want to make sure I'm concerned about the right things.

Report: Biden to Submit a Plan to Cancel Student Loan Debt for Millions

pjmedia.com

 

[fatman76]

I'm not talking about this you are. This is a last year conversation.

Declaring yourself the winner, is such the Trump thing to do 😂.

Also, it's not about winning. You have your opinion/thoughts on this and I have mine. We just disagree. Sometimes, it's that simple. I don't and never will consider appointed positions and elected positions the same. Agree to disagree.

You don't get to hide behind "opinions" when there is a clear right and wrong.

There are facts and there are feelings. Liberals almost always let their feelings reign.

 

[fatman76]

I'm willing to bet that you have no idea how Biden is forgiving student loans. You just see that he is and you're saying that he "gave the middle finger" to the court.

Well to educate you, Biden is forgiving loans via laws passed by congress. They are laws that he could enforce that other presidents did not. The SCOTUS told him that he couldn't do it they way he tried to initially without being passed by congress.

So he isn't giving the courts the middle finger. Stop assuming and actually read. I'm sure that you will that you got that criticism wrong. I fully expect that 🙄.

What Biden has been doing – before and after the Supreme Court ruling – is using existing student loan forgiveness programs to deliver relief to certain groups of borrowers, like public-sector workers (through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program) and borrowers who were defrauded by their college (through the borrower defense to repayment program). His administration also made discharges for borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden/index.html

Do you understand the concept that every debt - not just student loan debt, but every debt in existence - is paid by someone? In other words, there's no such thing as debt "forgiveness"?

 

[kalimgoodman]

Do you understand the concept that every debt - not just student loan debt, but every debt in existence - is paid by someone? In other words, there's no such thing as debt "forgiveness"?

That's not the conversation.

 

[kalimgoodman]

You don't get to hide behind "opinions" when there is a clear right and wrong.

There are facts and there are feelings. Liberals almost always let their feelings reign.

There is a legal way and an illegal way. He was told that they way he tried to was illegal and they told him how to go about doing it legally. That is what he is doing.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Lol. CNN as the source. Perfect. Again, marching orders.

💊

Here is Fox explaining the SAME thing. Next...

Biden 'cancels' nearly $6B in student loans for public sector workers

Around 78,000 public sector workers are about to have their student loans canceled in a $5.8 billion plan announced by President Biden Thursday,

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[fatman76]

Here is Fox explaining the SAME thing. Next...

Biden 'cancels' nearly $6B in student loans for public sector workers

Around 78,000 public sector workers are about to have their student loans canceled in a $5.8 billion plan announced by President Biden Thursday,

www.foxbusiness.com

Not next. You need to read and try to understand what I posted.

This is new regulation, not an existing program. Biden is buying votes with his loan forgiveness initiative from several different angles. And it's not shocking, Dems rely on handouts and free money to attract voters.

There's no mention of being a public servant. The tidbit mentioning "other federal programs" may include the 2007 debt relief program, but this is much broader than that.

Still think SCOTUS is more powerful than the Executive branch? Their ruling was a fairly strong 6-3.

"The proposed regulation is expected to outline several categories that would qualify borrowers for debt relief, including financial hardship, the people said. For example, borrowers with high debt loads and low incomes could see their loan balances reduced or eliminated under the plan. It could also outline a path to relief for borrowers who have carried their debt for decades; who now owe more than their initial loan amount because interest has piled up; or who are eligible for relief through other federal programs, but haven’t applied.

Administration officials are developing estimates for how many borrowers could see relief through the plan. Outside experts said the proposal could lower or eliminate student debt balances for millions of people if the administration opts to embrace the most ambitious version of the regulations that have been discussed."

And you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again...because it is 100% "the conversation".

Do you understand the concept that every debt - not just student loan debt, but every debt in existence - is paid by someone? In other words, there's no such thing as debt "forgiveness"?

 

[RussellCasse]

Here is Fox explaining the SAME thing. Next...

Biden 'cancels' nearly $6B in student loans for public sector workers

Around 78,000 public sector workers are about to have their student loans canceled in a $5.8 billion plan announced by President Biden Thursday,

www.foxbusiness.com

First, you missed the ENTIRE point. Shocking. The point? The first place you ran was to CNN, errr the marching orders you got came from CNN.



And….

The two articles literally don’t spin things the same way, and the FACT you cannot discern that, explains EVERYTHING. One provides just the information, the other tries to sway opinion.

The FACT that you support someone who gets shutdown by the Supreme court, and then does everything he can to subvert the law and judicial system is quite telling. You are who you are.

A self proclaimed independent with partisan takes.

And Joe is who he is. A Marxist dictator.

Next…

💊

 

[kalimgoodman]

First, you missed the ENTIRE point. Shocking. The point? The first place you ran was to CNN, errr the marching orders you got came from CNN.



And….

The two articles literally don’t spin things the same way, and the FACT you cannot discern that, explains EVERYTHING. One provides just the information, the other tries to sway opinion.

The FACT that you support someone who gets shutdown by the Supreme court, and then does everything he can to subvert the law and judicial system is quite telling. You are who you are.

A self proclaimed independent with partisan takes.

And Joe is who he is. A Marxist dictator.

Next…

💊

Using existing laws

Thursday's announcement will see public service employees such as teachers, nurses and firefighters have their debt written off under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF), an initiative created in 2007 and signed into law by President George W. Bush to forgive student debt for Americans who go into public service. It also applies to nonprofit employees.

 

[fatman76]

First, you missed the ENTIRE point. Shocking. The point? The first place you ran was to CNN, errr the marching orders you got came from CNN.



And….

The two articles literally don’t spin things the same way, and the FACT you cannot discern that, explains EVERYTHING. One provides just the information, the other tries to sway opinion.

The FACT that you support someone who gets shutdown by the Supreme court, and then does everything he can to subvert the law and judicial system is quite telling. You are who you are.

A self proclaimed independent with partisan takes.

And Joe is who he is. A Marxist dictator.

Next…

💊

The articles aren’t talking about the same actions by Biden at all…God forbid Kalim ever reads anything.

So much for our resident “independent researcher”.

💊 indeed

 

[nothergator]

Yes. Ethics issues. See the point?

Trivial pursuit!

 

[kalimgoodman]

Not next. You need to read and try to understand what I posted.

This is new regulation, not an existing program. Biden is buying votes with his loan forgiveness initiative from several different angles. And it's not shocking, Dems rely on handouts and free money to attract voters.

There's no mention of being a public servant. The tidbit mentioning "other federal programs" may include the 2007 debt relief program, but this is much broader than that.

Still think SCOTUS is more powerful than the Executive branch? Their ruling was a fairly strong 6-3.

"The proposed regulation is expected to outline several categories that would qualify borrowers for debt relief, including financial hardship, the people said. For example, borrowers with high debt loads and low incomes could see their loan balances reduced or eliminated under the plan. It could also outline a path to relief for borrowers who have carried their debt for decades; who now owe more than their initial loan amount because interest has piled up; or who are eligible for relief through other federal programs, but haven’t applied.

Administration officials are developing estimates for how many borrowers could see relief through the plan. Outside experts said the proposal could lower or eliminate student debt balances for millions of people if the administration opts to embrace the most ambitious version of the regulations that have been discussed."

And you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again...because it is 100% "the conversation".

Do you understand the concept that every debt - not just student loan debt, but every debt in existence - is paid by someone? In other words, there's no such thing as debt "forgiveness"?

The ruling was based on using the HEROS act. I had to re-read the opinion. I don't think you guys actually read it. I think you just saw it was rejected with reading why. That's the biggest problem with today's world. People don't read or know jack but like to be experts on everything.

Roberts opinion was specific to the HEROs act. Biden isn't canceling student loans via that act.

"The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the
ground up."

To see the ruling, go lookup 22-506 on the Supreme Court website.

 

[kalimgoodman]

The articles aren’t talking about the same actions by Biden at all…God forbid Kalim ever reads anything.

So much for our resident “independent researcher”.

💊 indeed

I literally copied and pasted something from the article to show that they both speak to Biden forgiving student loans via existing laws.

 

[RussellCasse]

The articles aren’t talking about the same actions by Biden at all…God forbid Kalim ever reads anything.

So much for our resident “independent researcher”.

💊 indeed

The FACT he can’t figure out the difference is actually entertaining.

I used to think he was being intellectually dishonest, but that would imply there is a level of intellect involved. There isn’t.

 

[RussellCasse]

The ruling was based on using the HEROS act. I had to re-read the opinion. I don't think you guys actually read it. I think you just saw it was rejected with reading why. That's the biggest problem with today's world. People don't read or know jack but like to be experts on everything.

Roberts opinion was specific to the HEROs act. Biden isn't canceling student loans via that act.

"The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the
ground up."

To see the ruling, go lookup 22-506 on the Supreme Court website.

I say again….he is trying to subvert the law with handouts. It is what it is. Be better.

 

[RussellCasse]

At least this leftist says the quiet part out loud. Notice they say…despite SCOTUS. So in other words, we will find a way around the law. Just be honest about what it is.

 

[fatman76]

I literally copied and pasted something from the article to show that they both speak to Biden forgiving student loans via existing laws.

Holy crap you can’t be this dumb.

The article you posted was ONLY talking about the 2007 policy relieving debt of ONLY public servants.

The article I posted is talking about NEW PROPOSED REGULATION that is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS decision. It’s a means tested debt forgiveness program.

Those are extremely different stories.

 

[fatman76]

I say again….he is trying to subvert the law with handouts. It is what it is. Be better.

View embedded media

View embedded media

I’m old enough to remember when Biden emptied the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower gas prices ahead of the mid terms.

They will literally buy votes, no matter who they hurt.

 

[fatman76]

At least this leftist says the quiet part out loud. Notice they say…despite SCOTUS. So in other words, we will find a way around the law. Just be honest about what it is.

View embedded media

Maybe this tweet will clear it up for you @kalimgoodman

Now answer my question.

 

[RussellCasse]

I’m old enough to remember when Biden emptied the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower gas prices ahead of the mid terms.

They will literally buy votes, no matter who they hurt.

The good news? It’s still not where it needs to be.

 

[RussellCasse]

Holy crap you can’t be this dumb.

The article you posted was ONLY talking about the 2007 policy relieving debt of ONLY public servants.

The article I posted is talking about NEW PROPOSED REGULATION that is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS decision. It’s a means tested debt forgiveness program.

Those are extremely different stories.

Exactly. Which is why he just got smacked down again.

 

[Orangeclad]

I'm willing to bet that you have no idea how Biden is forgiving student loans. You just see that he is and you're saying that he "gave the middle finger" to the court.

Well to educate you, Biden is forgiving loans via laws passed by congress. They are laws that he could enforce that other presidents did not. The SCOTUS told him that he couldn't do it they way he tried to initially without being passed by congress.

So he isn't giving the courts the middle finger. Stop assuming and actually read. I'm sure that you will that you got that criticism wrong. I fully expect that 🙄.

What Biden has been doing – before and after the Supreme Court ruling – is using existing student loan forgiveness programs to deliver relief to certain groups of borrowers, like public-sector workers (through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program) and borrowers who were defrauded by their college (through the borrower defense to repayment program). His administration also made discharges for borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden/index.html

I literally copied and pasted something from the article to show that they both speak to Biden forgiving student loans via existing laws.

The FACT he can’t figure out the difference is actually entertaining.

I used to think he was being intellectually dishonest, but that would imply there is a level of intellect involved. There isn’t.

Holy crap you can’t be this dumb.

The article you posted was ONLY talking about the 2007 policy relieving debt of ONLY public servants.

The article I posted is talking about NEW PROPOSED REGULATION that is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS decision. It’s a means tested debt forgiveness program.

Those are extremely different stories.

I’m old enough to remember when Biden emptied the Strategic Oil Reserves to lower gas prices ahead of the mid terms.

They will literally buy votes, no matter who they hurt.

I actually read the article from CNN and one of the sub topics was how much political gain might Biden get out of this. Anybody who thinks no connection between debt forgiveness (aka debt transfer to taxpayers) and vote procurement is a ninny. Know any?

 

[fatman76]

The good news? It’s still not where it needs to be.

View embedded media

He can’t even say the words…

How anyone still supports this evil ahole I’ll never understand.

 

[kalimgoodman]

I actually read the article from CNN and one of the sub topics was how much political gain might Biden get out of this. Anybody who thinks no connection between debt forgiveness (aka debt transfer to taxpayers) and vote procurement is a ninny. Know any?

Switching topics, instead of acknowledgement. I can't 😖