Why couldn’t they forgive student loans? Explain to the rest of Lemmy what happened so we know you have a basic understanding of civics before we proceed with a full back and forth discussion. I’m done arguing with people who operate in buzzwords and have no clue what they are talking about. First demonstrate you understand the basics and what PPP loans even are.
You don’t even know the right debate bro terms. Did I overwhelm you with arguments by asking that you show us you understand what you are talking about? Oh my god. Im so sorry that was so overwhelming for you.
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength
Yes, congratulations, that is what the term means. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. You post a whole bunch of one line comments and expect anyone who challenges them to write up a whole effortpost on each. The amount of effort it takes to just spew a bunch of bullshit is much less than the amount of effort required to refute each point of bullshit.
I’m sorry if asking you to explain the fundamentals of something before continuing a conversation is too overwhelming for you. It’s clear you don’t know what PPP loans are because you already jumped to comparing them to student debt - that was my first clue.
You don’t know what you’re talking about but you are very comfortable repeating buzzwords and catchphrases.
Why should I argue with someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about? It’s pretty clear you don’t because if you did you could have proved it a long time ago.
Wow, I just want to say you’re operating so clearly in good faith that I don’t know which of your good faith behaviors to praise first.
As I already pointed out, you spewed out a bunch of low effort bullshit that would take much more effort to refute, which is again, a textbook example of a gish gallop. You then demanded to control the terms of the debate by subjecting me to some sort of test of knowledge which I obviously refused to engage in, since that’s a ridiculous thing to do. Then, you took a word from the definition of gish gallop and completely removed it of context, and accused me of saying I was “overwhelmed” by your test of knowledge, which I never said. You then interpreted my refusal to engage with your terms as an admission of ignorance. So that’s at least four points of bad faith, just right off the bat.
You don’t get to randomly subject me to tests any more than I get to randomly subject you to tests. That’s not how conversation or debate works. If you’re afraid of engaging me on even terms and want to pull a bunch of bullshit, you do you, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation, which are the things I pointed out.
If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I’m not arguing quantum physics with someone that can’t do arithmetic. You can’t talk US legislation and policy like it’s a soccer game. I’m more than convinced now than ever you don’t know what you’re talking about and Im glad I didn’t waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.
If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I’m not arguing quantum physics with someone that can’t do arithmetic.
And I’m asking you to explain a much simpler, much more fundamental thing, and you can’t. I strongly recommend investing in some diapers.
Im glad I didn’t waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.
Lol you filtered me out because I showed I wasn’t going to put up with your bullshit, bad faith tactics. You won’t submit to my test of knowledge so I won’t submit to yours. I of course understand what the president’s role is and isn’t when it comes to legislation, just as you (presumably) know the answer to my question, but I’m not going to play your game for the exact same reasons you won’t play mine. Because one side doesn’t just get to dictate all the terms of debate.
Still doesn’t change the facts of the matter, which are that everything I said is correct.
but didn’t forgive student loans like they said they would.
Because Republicans stopped them. The same thing would have happened if Sanders was president. Sanders told everybody it wouldn’t be enough just to make him president, there would need to be a “political revolution” such that Dems were in place at multiple levels.
If they were actually motivated, they could’ve done something like tying student loan forgiveness to PPP loan forgiveness. Or packing the courts, or at least leveraging that as a threat the way FDR did.
Ultimately, I just don’t believe that the guy who spent decades working towards a right-wing agenda that included making student loans worse and harder to get rid of was actually motivated to do more than a token effort towards forgiveness. There’s this collective delusion that Biden suddenly transformed into an entirely different person the moment he became the nominee. He contributed to the problem because his donors paid him to, then, with the same donors, conveniently failed to address it. And yet somehow this gets trotted out as a point in favor.
“Alleviating” doing a lot of work here. They forgave PPP loans (which went mostly to the wealthy) but didn’t forgive student loans like they said they would. Biden also helped create the problem in the first place by arbitrarily making making such loans ineligible for bankruptcy forgiveness
Why couldn’t they forgive student loans? Explain to the rest of Lemmy what happened so we know you have a basic understanding of civics before we proceed with a full back and forth discussion. I’m done arguing with people who operate in buzzwords and have no clue what they are talking about. First demonstrate you understand the basics and what PPP loans even are.
I’ve rarely seen such a textbook example of a gish gallop.
You don’t even know the right debate bro terms. Did I overwhelm you with arguments by asking that you show us you understand what you are talking about? Oh my god. Im so sorry that was so overwhelming for you.
Yes, congratulations, that is what the term means. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. You post a whole bunch of one line comments and expect anyone who challenges them to write up a whole effortpost on each. The amount of effort it takes to just spew a bunch of bullshit is much less than the amount of effort required to refute each point of bullshit.
I’m sorry if asking you to explain the fundamentals of something before continuing a conversation is too overwhelming for you. It’s clear you don’t know what PPP loans are because you already jumped to comparing them to student debt - that was my first clue.
You don’t know what you’re talking about but you are very comfortable repeating buzzwords and catchphrases.
Why should I argue with someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about? It’s pretty clear you don’t because if you did you could have proved it a long time ago.
Wow, I just want to say you’re operating so clearly in good faith that I don’t know which of your good faith behaviors to praise first.
As I already pointed out, you spewed out a bunch of low effort bullshit that would take much more effort to refute, which is again, a textbook example of a gish gallop. You then demanded to control the terms of the debate by subjecting me to some sort of test of knowledge which I obviously refused to engage in, since that’s a ridiculous thing to do. Then, you took a word from the definition of gish gallop and completely removed it of context, and accused me of saying I was “overwhelmed” by your test of knowledge, which I never said. You then interpreted my refusal to engage with your terms as an admission of ignorance. So that’s at least four points of bad faith, just right off the bat.
You don’t get to randomly subject me to tests any more than I get to randomly subject you to tests. That’s not how conversation or debate works. If you’re afraid of engaging me on even terms and want to pull a bunch of bullshit, you do you, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation, which are the things I pointed out.
If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I’m not arguing quantum physics with someone that can’t do arithmetic. You can’t talk US legislation and policy like it’s a soccer game. I’m more than convinced now than ever you don’t know what you’re talking about and Im glad I didn’t waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.
And I’m asking you to explain a much simpler, much more fundamental thing, and you can’t. I strongly recommend investing in some diapers.
Lol you filtered me out because I showed I wasn’t going to put up with your bullshit, bad faith tactics. You won’t submit to my test of knowledge so I won’t submit to yours. I of course understand what the president’s role is and isn’t when it comes to legislation, just as you (presumably) know the answer to my question, but I’m not going to play your game for the exact same reasons you won’t play mine. Because one side doesn’t just get to dictate all the terms of debate.
Still doesn’t change the facts of the matter, which are that everything I said is correct.
Because Republicans stopped them. The same thing would have happened if Sanders was president. Sanders told everybody it wouldn’t be enough just to make him president, there would need to be a “political revolution” such that Dems were in place at multiple levels.
If they were actually motivated, they could’ve done something like tying student loan forgiveness to PPP loan forgiveness. Or packing the courts, or at least leveraging that as a threat the way FDR did.
Ultimately, I just don’t believe that the guy who spent decades working towards a right-wing agenda that included making student loans worse and harder to get rid of was actually motivated to do more than a token effort towards forgiveness. There’s this collective delusion that Biden suddenly transformed into an entirely different person the moment he became the nominee. He contributed to the problem because his donors paid him to, then, with the same donors, conveniently failed to address it. And yet somehow this gets trotted out as a point in favor.