keep being offended by cherry picked crap and smile and nod when LGH tells people to kill themselves. Alexandrite has decided to be petty on this thread but he's never put up with the vile crap LGH posts.
#207 | Posted by BellRinger

JFC the irony in this post is absolutely rife.

Get bent, ----.

Quit being an ankle biting little bitch. I erected that straw man to demonstrate to Alexandrite how ridiculous he was being. And I acknowledged what I was doing.
Now, keep being offended by cherry picked crap and smile and nod when LGH tells people to kill themselves. Alexandrite has decided to be petty on this thread but he's never put up with the vile crap LGH posts.
#207 | Posted by BellRinger

You're such a clown, JEFF. You think you're witty, but you're just an -------.

Swallow it, then address the BS I've called you out on (along with YAV). You're spitting nonsense just to own the "proverbial" libs. Own it, you ----.

#201 | Posted by truthhurts

The statement in the query contains some inaccuracies and oversimplifications regarding the Supreme Court's decision on President Biden's student loan forgiveness program. Here's a breakdown of the relevant points:

1. **MOHELA's Role and Standing**:
- MOHELA (Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority) was central to Missouri's argument for standing in *Biden v. Nebraska*. The Supreme Court determined that MOHELA, as a quasi-governmental entity created by Missouri, would suffer financial harm from the forgiveness program, specifically losing $44 million annually. This harm satisfied the constitutional requirement for standing under Article III[1][5][8].
- While MOHELA itself did not voluntarily join the lawsuit, Missouri argued on its behalf, as MOHELA is considered an instrumentality of the state and subject to state supervision[1][2].

2. **Claim That MOHELA Stood to Benefit**:
- The assertion that MOHELA stood to make money off the forgiveness program contradicts the Court's findings. The Court explicitly noted that MOHELA would face financial losses due to reduced loan servicing revenue if the program proceeded[1][8].

3. **Supreme Court's Authority**:
- The Supreme Court ruled on the case because Missouri established standing through MOHELA's projected harm. Once standing was confirmed, the Court assessed whether the Department of Education had legal authority under the HEROES Act to implement sweeping loan forgiveness. The Court concluded that this exceeded the scope of "waive or modify" provisions in the Act, thus invalidating the program[1][3][5].

4. **Congressional Role**:
- Congress indeed has legislative authority over student loan policy, and critics of the decision argue that Congress could have acted to override or support Biden's plan. However, Congress did not file suit or pass legislation directly addressing this specific forgiveness program[5][6].
- The Supreme Court's decision was based on interpreting statutory authority under existing law, not legislating new policy. Critics like Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision effectively substituted judicial judgment for Congressional and executive policymaking[3][5].

In summary, while Missouri used MOHELA's financial harm to establish standing, MOHELA did not voluntarily join the case, and its projected losses were key to the Court's ruling. The Supreme Court acted within its adjudicative role by interpreting statutory limits under the HEROES Act rather than legislating policy changes. Congress retains ultimate authority over such programs but chose not to intervene directly in this instance[1][3][5].

It was an analogy. Lighten up, moron.
#200 | Posted by BellRinger

I've lived through the fires, you ------- -------.

Your lack of empathy and using California's Republicans' plight as an analogy is absolutely disgusting. WTF happened to you?

Alexandrite clearly loves terrorists and thinks they should receive far better treatment than our own people.
#141 | Posted by BellRinger

You were the one just bitching about straw.

JFC you're such a hypocrite.

Swallow it.

...the result will be a fire so massive that the most recent California wildfires will look like someone flicking a butane lighter by comparison.
#111 | Posted by BellRinger

JFC you really are an insufferable -------.

Get ------.

Then swallow.

#93 | Posted by BellRinger

This statement is partially accurate but oversimplifies a complex situation. The Supreme Court did strike down President Biden's initial student loan forgiveness plan in June 2023[1][5]. However, the administration did not simply continue the same program. Instead, they pursued alternative approaches to address student loan debt within legal boundaries.

After the Supreme Court's ruling, the Biden administration developed new initiatives, such as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which aimed to reduce the burden on borrowers through different mechanisms[2]. This plan faced legal challenges as well, with the Supreme Court refusing to revive it in August 2024[2].

The administration has also approved targeted loan forgiveness through existing programs like income-based repayment and borrower defense to repayment[4]. As of January 2025, the Biden administration had approved $188.8 billion in student loan forgiveness for 5.3 million borrowers through various means[4].

It's worth noting that the characterization of these efforts as a "vote buying scheme" is subjective and politically charged. The administration has argued that these programs are intended to address issues in the student loan system and provide relief to borrowers[4].

More recently, under the Trump administration, there have been significant changes to student loan programs, including pausing applications for income-driven repayment plans and altering the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program[7]. These changes have resulted in increased payments for some borrowers and uncertainty about the future of loan forgiveness programs[7].

#13 | Posted by oneironaut

You earned this. Why are you not applauding?

Is this going to be another Epstein fake?
#6 | Posted by BellRinger

Probably.

Trump is a con artist. All this is sarcasm on his part. Promises? LOL No. Sarcasm. All of it. He's admitted as much. And here we are, watching it all burn.

What might that be?
#2 | Posted by LampLighter

Who knows? I'm too distracted.

The critique that current ceasefire negotiations risk becoming a de facto division of spoils"rather than a balanced peace agreement"reflects valid historical and strategic concerns. Here's a breakdown of the dynamics:

Key Issues in the Proposed Truce
1. Territorial Concessions
Russia demands recognition of its annexation of Crimea (2014) and four partially occupied regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson)[2][4]. The U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal implicitly accepts freezing the conflict along current frontlines, leaving ~20% of Ukrainian territory under Russian control[1][6]. This mirrors historical precedents like the 1938 Munich Agreement, where territorial concessions were traded for temporary peace.

2. Ukraine's Sovereignty vs. Pragmatism
While Kyiv insists it will never recognize Russian claims or abandon NATO aspirations[2][3], its acceptance of the 30-day ceasefire reflects desperation to halt battlefield losses. With U.S. military aid potentially decreasing under Trump[1][5], Ukraine faces a grim calculus: concessions now may prevent worse terms later if Western support erodes further.

3. Asymmetric Enforcement Mechanisms
Putin's conditions"including bans on Ukrainian rearmament and NATO peacekeepers[4][5]"would lock in Russian advantages. Meanwhile, Moscow faces no comparable restrictions, allowing it to consolidate control over occupied zones and critical infrastructure like the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant[3][6].

Broader Implications
- Legitimizing Conquest: A deal granting Russia territorial gains without Ukrainian consent risks normalizing border changes by force, undermining the UN Charter's principles[2][8].
- NATO Cohesion: European allies like the UK and Poland have rejected terms that exclude Ukrainian NATO membership, fearing long-term security erosion[6][7].
- Global Precedent: Emerging powers like India and Trkiye are closely watching whether Western-backed rules-based order can withstand realist power politics[3][9].

Danforth's analogy holds merit: the proposed truce structurally favors Russia by codifying its territorial seizures and restricting Ukraine's defense capacity. While Kyiv's agreement may stem from immediate survival needs, the terms risk entrenching a volatile, unequal peace that rewards aggression. Without enforceable guarantees for Ukraine's sovereignty or security, this ceasefire risks becoming less a resolution than a temporary pause in a prolonged contest over spheres of influence.

But instead of "de-escalation" I'd offer the phrase, "forced Ukrainian surrender."
#22 | Posted by LampLighter

Agreed.

The geopolitical landscape today is vastly different from the Cold War era, with China now identified as the United States' primary strategic rival. While Russia's invasion of Ukraine has drawn significant U.S. attention and resources, the broader concern lies in managing the Russia-China alliance, which has grown stronger amid Western sanctions and global realignments.

Strategic Context
China is the U.S.'s biggest geopolitical threat, and many argue that prolonged focus on Ukraine diverts critical resources from countering Beijing. Former President Trump has suggested a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine conflict, potentially involving a freeze along current frontlines, delayed NATO membership for Ukraine, and reduced U.S. military aid. This approach prioritizes de-escalation but risks legitimizing Russian territorial gains and weakening NATO unity.

Options Moving Forward
1. De-escalation: Negotiating a truce could end the immediate conflict but risks emboldening authoritarian regimes and undermining Western credibility.
2. Status Quo: Continuing military aid to Ukraine sustains a costly stalemate, draining U.S. resources and prolonging global instability.
3. Escalation: Increasing NATO involvement risks direct confrontation with Russia and potential nuclear escalation.

The war has reshaped global energy markets, strengthened Russia-China trade ties, and forced nations in the Global South to hedge between power blocs. Sanctions have hurt Russia but have not crippled its economy due to circumvention by allies like China and India.

De-escalation may align with U.S. interests in refocusing on China, but it carries significant risks of normalizing aggression and destabilizing Europe. The challenge lies in balancing support for Ukraine while maintaining strategic focus on countering China's rise"a delicate and increasingly urgent task for U.S. policymakers.

#27 | Posted by lfthndthrds

JFC you're dumb

Swallow it.

hoax
#2 | Posted by shrimptacodan

^^^Wilfully ignorant.

Swallow it.

#7 | Posted by fishpaw

Where was all this talk during Trump's first term? There was none. Let that sink in.

Then swallow it.

Biden defied SCOTUS over student debt forgiveness. And lefties cheered.
#22 | Posted by BellRinger

This statement is not accurate based on the available information. The Supreme Court struck down President Biden's initial student loan forgiveness program in June 2023[1]. Since then, the Biden administration has attempted to implement alternative student loan relief measures, but these have also faced legal challenges and Supreme Court intervention[2][6].

In August 2024, the Supreme Court refused to revive Biden's latest student loan debt relief plan, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) initiative[2]. This decision indicates that the Biden administration has been working within the legal framework and respecting the Supreme Court's rulings, rather than defying them.

The Biden administration has continued to seek ways to provide student loan relief through various programs and initiatives, including income-based repayment plans and targeted loan forgiveness for specific groups of borrowers[3]. However, these efforts have been pursued through legal channels and administrative processes, not by defying Supreme Court decisions.

It's important to note that the administration's attempts to provide student loan relief have faced ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny from Republican-led states and conservative groups[2][6]. While some supporters of student loan forgiveness may have expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court's decisions, there is no evidence of widespread "cheering" for defying the Court's rulings.

Isreal's own money led to the attacks.