Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.
But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.
There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?
Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.
Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.
But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.
There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.
But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.
There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?
Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.
Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.
But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.
There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.
But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.
There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.
Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.
But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?
Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.
Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?
Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.
Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?