this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
468 points (82.1% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

208 readers
32 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' etc.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Biden tried to do things like forgive student debt and was blocked by republicans and you scapegoat him for it? That’s a good way to make sure no one tries again. But maybe that’s your true intentions.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

It was blocked by the courts because Biden was trying to use measures that were not within his authority. He was advised multiple times on the proper way to go about canceling student debt. And he never did. Pelosi instructed him that he does not have the authority to use the measures that he tried to do. He talked about student debt as a pr headline.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Biden was actually fairly committed to the student debt forgiveness, but his blind institutionalism meant he couldn't actually achieve much. He wouldn't push to remove the filibuster until late into his presidency and refused to discuss stacking the court. He was the wrong man to meet this moment in history, and we'll be living with his failures for decades.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Democrats never had near enough seats in Congress to actually expand the Supreme Court or remove the filibuster. He said he would support it but if he would’ve said more than that you would be blaming him for not accomplishing that also, even though it was never possible.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

All it takes to eliminate the filibuster is 51 votes. They won't remove the filibuster because that's one of the rotating villains they love to utilized whenever they don't want to do something.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

There were procedural methods they could have used to eliminate the filibuster, which he refused to even consider for half his term. They would have needed the House to expand the court, but if they had the balls to do it, then they could have run on it. Instead, they tried nothing and got nothing.