3 ms·

Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations is listed a half dozen times in your link. Do you need exact quotes or can you look for yourself? > I understood

Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations is listed a half dozen times in your link. Do you need exact quotes or can you look for yourself? > I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. It honestly takes less effort to listen to his speeches and look at his record than to read the official platform document or the one we knew was the actual plan (P2025). I'm happy to hear out anyone that pleads ignorance but they're probably still busy celebrating deportations. > As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that. What a weird thing to be offended by. Voters voted for this. There's no ambiguity here. Even the ones who don't consider deregulation a pet issue decided that it was worthwhile to get what they wanted.

nobody9999 1y ago
>Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point? >What a weird thing to be offended by. Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too broad a brush. And the "folks:" to whom I referred didn't include me. As such, I'm not offended by you. Or at least not WRT the broad brush you used. I can't say for sure, but your patronizing tone appears as to assume I'm not so bright. Which might offend me, except the source is some rando on the inter tubes (that'd be you in case you were confused). So no. You haven't offended me. In fact, you gave me a chuckle. Thanks!
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  > don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. I mean if they're unaware that a politician will dress up their policy with pejoratives then I'd be happy to have a conversation with them. To be more explicit regarding your other groups, they affirmatively voted for a president and one or more legislators. They can claim ignorance about a particular policy but it is willful ignorance. As in the kind where they get to own the implications of deciding to not to do any research beyond their one issue.

nobody9999 1y ago

>Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point? >What a weird thing to be offended by. Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too broad a brush. And the "folks:" to whom I referred didn't include me. As such, I'm not offended by you. Or at least not WRT the broad brush you used. I can't say for sure, but your patronizing tone appears as to assume I'm not so bright. Which might offend me, except the source is some rando on the inter tubes (that'd be you in case you were confused). So no. You haven't offended me. In fact, you gave me a chuckle. Thanks!

cosmicgadget 1y ago
> don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. I mean if they're unaware that a politician will dress up their policy with pejoratives then I'd be happy to have a conversation with them. To be more explicit regarding your other groups, they affirmatively voted for a president and one or more legislators. They can claim ignorance about a particular policy but it is willful ignorance. As in the kind where they get to own the implications of deciding to not to do any research beyond their one issue.