Not every piece of legislation needs to benefit you. It’s okay if others benefit and you don’t get hurt in the process.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
431 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19119 readers
3459 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good, because the next best option was probably to get together and burn down the Aidvantage headquarters
That's not off the table
Republicans propose and pass blatantly unconstitutional stuff that there base wants right before elections all the time, then gets mad when courts overturn it right after the election. I'm glad Biden finally got rid of the "legal high ground" concept and started to do some of these "the worst they can say is no" measures.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The problem is that everything is now legislated through the courts which is now how this system was designed.
This was not stopping legislation but instead executive action not backed up by legislation. Wouldn't the next logical step be to actually pass a law?
It is stopping legislation, the Heroes Act specifically. Congress acted to give the Executive branch this power, the Executive branch acted well within that scope, and SCOTUS struck it down by ignoring the plain text of the statute.
It was judicial action to stop legal executive action backed up by legislation. Unless you think Missouri actually had standing and the phrase "waive or modify" doesn't mean what it clearly means.
They'll just rule against the law, too. That said, the next step is another executive order ("taking into account the ruling, here's a new EA") and a law.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Its seems as though the sentiment among the high middle class and up is:
-
College is important to advance in our societal hierarchy. It is not absolutely necessary but generally you are rewarded for having a higher education in more prestegious institutions.
-
People can afford college because they have been saving up generational wealth. Naturally, increasing costs of living shouldnt be an issue.
-
College should be about merit not affirmative action. Giving spots for less fortunate makes us less competitive as a nation.
If you cant see how the issues in these statements then i believe you are part of the problem.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›