383
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
383 points (97.5% liked)
News
23267 readers
2979 users here now
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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm gonna be honest, I'm not trying to be a dick, I supported him doing it all along, especially in the past.
But this close to an election sounds a bit like when Trump sent out stimulus checks and blocked them till they let him sign his name, and claimed all the money came from his pocket.
Giving money before an election should be banned by both sides, if this passed earlier I'd be all in favor, but next republican president is going to give $2000 rebates on all gun and lifted f-150 with covered bed purchases, and knowing Trump he'll give more if they pose for videos with said gun and truck outside minority polling stations.
This is the problem with trash like Trump, it's a race to the bottom and we all lose.
So the sitting president shouldn’t be allowed to keep doing things they have been doing for years, just because it’s close to an election and someone unrelated might do something else after getting elected?
That’s stupid. Sorry but it is. It’s the same logic that prevented Obama from seating Supreme Court justices. And look how that turned out.
If this was the first ever time it was tried, maybe, but even then, we’d never have anything nice in that case. And we’d never get anything done from August to January in election years, which would also be intensely stupid.
We need to take what we can get, not be all weird about when it happens.
And then Trump will pass out crazy rebates on redneck shit himself, or pass tax hikes on everyone he doesn't think will vote for him (he hit me with SALT pretty bad, all blue states were hit).
He’s going to do that anyway, whether it’s allowed or not. His plan is to break the country by any means necessary. What actual difference does it make to trumps plans if Biden keeps doing his job until he’s not in that job anymore?
The answer is none whatever.
So we should all sink to the level of trump then...
As I already said to someone else, I could not care less if people do the right thing for the wrong reason.
People are hurting. This will help some of them. Complaining that people who need help are getting helped for the wrong reason is silly.
If I'm starving to death, I don't care if you gave me a sandwich because you wanted to help me or you gave me a sandwich because you thought it was disgusting and wanted me to suffer by giving me a disgusting sandwich because either way, I won't be dying.
Yeah, that's not my problem.
My problem is it's an escalation of giving away money just before an election for votes, and that's not anything we want to escalate.
I am 100% in favor of giving money for student loan forgiveness, the interest was huge, and it's not purgable by bankruptcy, it needs to be forgiven.
But I'm terrified of the timing, personally we need an expectation that legislation will stop roughly 90 days before an election so you don't have dangerous things like giving money for votes, or passing laws to ban voting by key demographics.
This is bad no matter who does it, let's try to have a 90 day window before elections, let's even do what other countries do, have a 2 week cool down period before voting where ads and other spending are stopped.
Okay, exactly how many days before an election should a president be prevented from doing anything that might help people?
Because spending never stops. You're talking about an election spending cool down period. This is not election spending.
As I said, 60-90.
Otherwise I start passing a law to give $1000 to everyone, and time it so it passes just after the election, and if I lose then nobody gets anything.
This is like Reagan telling Iran to hold the hostages till after the election, and Nixon and Vietnam.
Nobody is really trying to do meaningful legislation before the election anyway, they're focusing on campaigning, so it doesn't matter much that way either.
You can't possibly be saying Nixon shouldn't have taken the U.S. out of Vietnam for the wrong reason or that he should have waited to do so and let more people die because otherwise the election wasn't fair. Can you?
I'm saying Nixon told the NV to wait and he'd give them a better deal after the election.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/
And how is that in any way comparable to Biden yet again trying to give student loan relief, something he has tried every few months since getting into office?
If an earthquake destroys San Francisco tomorrow, I suppose Biden should hold off sending in FEMA until after the election too?
This is a game theory problem to me, and the democrats want to shrink the playing field, not increase it, they have structural advantages and the wider the tools acceptable the more the right can take advantage of it, ala CU and modern media.
The more noise, the more everybody loses. Longer campaign seasons are killing this country.
I am not going to reply to you in multiple threads. If you want me to address this one, I will delete my other comment and do so.
No, because that's established norm.
Again, I'm for the move, I just know what the response will be from the other side.
In terms of game theory this is a short term gain for a massive long term loss, this is like the court appointment nuclear option, it was used more effectively by the other side because they had fewer scruples in the way.
Again, this is like saying if an earthquake destroys San Francisco tomorrow, it's too close to an election for Biden to spend the money it would take to send FEMA in to help people.
People are suffering right now financially, in part because of crippling student loans. If you aren't, that's great. Suggesting struggling people should have to wait to get help they really need from someone who has spent four years trying to help them because now it's too close to an election is ridiculous.
I'm also put in mind of what Obama was told about making a vacant supreme court appointment too close to an election, which resulted in, amongst other things, Roe v. Wade getting struck down.
You're argument has no basis, his administration has been trying to get this done through a broken Congress and Supreme Court for a long time now. It's not "this close to a election". And fuck off with the, "and believe me I ain't no trump fan either" qualifier shit - bad points are bad points, period. You don't get headed on an average of your horseshit opening statement and try to land on something rational as a giveaway.
Rethink your approach or sit down.