The bills he's signed haven't been real laws though, it's just 2 removing regulations using the backdoor channel of that congressional oversight act for regulations finalized in the last 6 months, and the waiver for allowing Mattis through.
Comparing the raw numbers is a bit odd, as ARRA or FMLA isn't really 1:1 with backdooring a few regulation removals. But 538 has been a bit odd for months.
It gets a bit different though when you consider that they've been pushing for some sort of Obamacare repeal for about 7? years now, and they still haven't even agreed on a plan, let alone implemented it.
+7
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I mean, it's true that they've had no incentive to actually craft any legislation to replace the ACA, because you don't need to in order to just yell "REPEAL OBAMACARE!" for seven years.
It's also the case that the Republican party, broadly speaking, doesn't need to craft legislation. The Democrats are the ones who want to do stuff. The Republicans want to not do stuff, or undo stuff.
Repeal Obamacare. Kill regulations. Dismantle the DoEd. Eliminate taxes. Get rid of Social Security. Undo Roe v Wade. Ignore social and environmental problems and let the free market sort it out.
They pride themselves on being the party of inaction. The conservative poster child is Calvin Coolidge, whose signature quote was literally about ignoring problems and hoping they go away.*
Partly, their inaction was about cynically exploiting their status as the minority party so they could score cheap political points. But partly, that is just fundamentally what they're all about.
*"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That kind of ignores the quality of some of them. Obama had ARRA and Ledbetter. Trump's got what, a waiver for Mattis and the let's pollute our water regulation repeal.
Late EDIT: 99% of "Actually" takes are dumb, the only exception was "Actually Ken Bone is a fucking asshole," which was conclusively proven today when he got a booth at CPAC.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That kind of ignores the quality of some of them. Obama had ARRA and Ledbetter. Trump's got what, a waiver for Mattis and the let's pollute our water regulation repeal.
To be fair, he also had poorly drafted Executive Orders.
I mean, it's true that they've had no incentive to actually craft any legislation to replace the ACA, because you don't need to in order to just yell "REPEAL OBAMACARE!" for seven years.
It's also the case that the Republican party, broadly speaking, doesn't need to craft legislation. The Democrats are the ones who want to do stuff. The Republicans want to not do stuff, or undo stuff.
Repeal Obamacare. Kill regulations. Dismantle the DoEd. Eliminate taxes. Get rid of Social Security. Undo Roe v Wade. Ignore social and environmental problems and let the free market sort it out.
They pride themselves on being the party of inaction. The conservative poster child is Calvin Coolidge, whose signature quote was literally about ignoring problems and hoping they go away.*
Partly, their inaction was about cynically exploiting their status as the minority party so they could score cheap political points. But partly, that is just fundamentally what they're all about.
*"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."
But the Republicans do want to do stuff. Dismantling the modern US nation state, which is what they want, requires active action. Social Security isn't gonna destroy itself, you gotta pass a bill for that.
And they just aren't. They can't even get the ACA repealed.
I mean, it's true that they've had no incentive to actually craft any legislation to replace the ACA, because you don't need to in order to just yell "REPEAL OBAMACARE!" for seven years.
It's also the case that the Republican party, broadly speaking, doesn't need to craft legislation. The Democrats are the ones who want to do stuff. The Republicans want to not do stuff, or undo stuff.
Repeal Obamacare. Kill regulations. Dismantle the DoEd. Eliminate taxes. Get rid of Social Security. Undo Roe v Wade. Ignore social and environmental problems and let the free market sort it out.
They pride themselves on being the party of inaction. The conservative poster child is Calvin Coolidge, whose signature quote was literally about ignoring problems and hoping they go away.*
Partly, their inaction was about cynically exploiting their status as the minority party so they could score cheap political points. But partly, that is just fundamentally what they're all about.
*"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."
True, but a lot of that still requires enabling legislation. Part of the impetus for the EPA's Clean Power Plan were lawsuits by the NRDC over failure to enforce the Clean Air Act on carbon emissions. You have to legislate that away, not just appoint horrible people. Hiring a deportation force takes legislation. Damn near everything takes legislation. And so far...nothin'
I mean, thank god. But they've had the House for 6 years. They shod have horrible draft proposals in legislative language from two Congresses ago to at least be in the Hopper and sent to committee.
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
On some level, a lot of these are potentially one-sentence bills.
"Fuck the ACA."
"The DoEd terminates."
"Roe v Wade more like NO v Wade lolz."
It may count as "doing stuff" but it doesn't really require fancy language. It requires scrawling "NOPE" across the page.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
On some level, a lot of these are potentially one-sentence bills.
"Fuck the ACA."
"The DoEd terminates."
"Roe v Wade more like NO v Wade lolz."
It may count as "doing stuff" but it doesn't really require fancy language. It requires scrawling "NOPE" across the page.
They really aren't, though. Like, un-reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank didn't actually get rid of it and it was reauthorized later in an Omnibus bill. Partly that's because of fault lines in the caucus, but still.
I mean, it's true that they've had no incentive to actually craft any legislation to replace the ACA, because you don't need to in order to just yell "REPEAL OBAMACARE!" for seven years.
It's also the case that the Republican party, broadly speaking, doesn't need to craft legislation. The Democrats are the ones who want to do stuff. The Republicans want to not do stuff, or undo stuff.
Repeal Obamacare. Kill regulations. Dismantle the DoEd. Eliminate taxes. Get rid of Social Security. Undo Roe v Wade. Ignore social and environmental problems and let the free market sort it out.
They pride themselves on being the party of inaction. The conservative poster child is Calvin Coolidge, whose signature quote was literally about ignoring problems and hoping they go away.*
Partly, their inaction was about cynically exploiting their status as the minority party so they could score cheap political points. But partly, that is just fundamentally what they're all about.
*"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."
But the Republicans do want to do stuff. Dismantling the modern US nation state, which is what they want, requires active action. Social Security isn't gonna destroy itself, you gotta pass a bill for that.
And they just aren't. They can't even get the ACA repealed.
Never say never. I thought Trump would never be President. Anything is possible.
I mean, it's true that they've had no incentive to actually craft any legislation to replace the ACA, because you don't need to in order to just yell "REPEAL OBAMACARE!" for seven years.
It's also the case that the Republican party, broadly speaking, doesn't need to craft legislation. The Democrats are the ones who want to do stuff. The Republicans want to not do stuff, or undo stuff.
Repeal Obamacare. Kill regulations. Dismantle the DoEd. Eliminate taxes. Get rid of Social Security. Undo Roe v Wade. Ignore social and environmental problems and let the free market sort it out.
They pride themselves on being the party of inaction. The conservative poster child is Calvin Coolidge, whose signature quote was literally about ignoring problems and hoping they go away.*
Partly, their inaction was about cynically exploiting their status as the minority party so they could score cheap political points. But partly, that is just fundamentally what they're all about.
*"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."
But the Republicans do want to do stuff. Dismantling the modern US nation state, which is what they want, requires active action. Social Security isn't gonna destroy itself, you gotta pass a bill for that.
And they just aren't. They can't even get the ACA repealed.
Never say never. I thought Trump would never be President. Anything is possible.
I never said never. I said they aren't. They aren't doing it right now. They can't get their shit together yet.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
On some level, a lot of these are potentially one-sentence bills.
"Fuck the ACA."
"The DoEd terminates."
"Roe v Wade more like NO v Wade lolz."
It may count as "doing stuff" but it doesn't really require fancy language. It requires scrawling "NOPE" across the page.
They really aren't, though. Like, un-reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank didn't actually get rid of it and it was reauthorized later in an Omnibus bill. Partly that's because of fault lines in the caucus, but still.
Fair enough, I guess?
Like, we know dismantling the DoEd, et al, consist of one sentence bills, because that's what they actually are. Repealing the ACA might not literally be one sentence, but it would just consist of changing whatever law exists now to what it was prior to 2009, yes? What would it actually take to un-reauthorize the Ex-Im bank? Is it conceptually complicated (like, say, the ACA) or is it just a matter of tweaking a lot of verbiage in a lot of places?
My larger thesis is that Republicans do not have complicated ideas, and so concern themselves less with formulating the implementation of their ideas, but maybe I need to rethink this.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
But it seems clear that many of these executive actions really were crafted ahead of time, and just sat in a drawer since 2012. Then there's the GOP state legislation mill whose name escapes me. The only Republican group with no prepared plans seems to be Congress.
Freedom caucus already demanded the "one-line" repeal by re-submitting the bills Obama vetoed, but leadership shut them down. So no, this isn't going to be that simple.
Republicans in congress internally had diverse reactions to the ACA at first. Some liked some aspects but didn't want others. Some wanted to amend the bill rather than deleting it. But the teeper's helped push the consensus position of repealing the entire thing, which became the orthodoxy they started running elections on. There was interest from many (but not all) pubs on doing some degree of "something else" about health care, but no agreement on what that was. That lack of consensus is simply being exposed now. There are people with detailed plans, just not ones that make everyone happy.
"Repeal the ACA" was also an easier position when it was in its infancy. Now that markets have adapted to the law over the past 8 years, they can't simply drop us into 2008 without big and obvious economic consequences, and the special interests in that industry will bring pressure against congress if they eff with that too much.
rahkeesh2000 on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
You're thinking of ALEC, I believe.
They've been behind the rollouts of several nasty red state bills.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
ALEC seems to mostly write bills for the state level. I don't recall them having a ton of influence at the federal level directly via writing legislation the same way.
Freedom caucus already demanded the "one-line" repeal by re-submitting the bills Obama vetoed, but leadership shut them down. So no, this isn't going to be that simple.
Republicans in congress internally had diverse reactions to the ACA at first. Some liked some aspects but didn't want others. Some wanted to amend the bill rather than deleting it. But the teeper's helped push the consensus position of repealing the entire thing, which became the orthodoxy they started running elections on. There was interest from many (but not all) pubs on doing some degree of "something else" about health care, but no agreement on what that was. That lack of consensus is simply being exposed now. There are people with detailed plans, just not ones that make everyone happy.
"Repeal the ACA" was also an easier position when it was in its infancy. Now that markets have adapted to the law over the past 8 years, they can't simply drop us into 2008 without big and obvious economic consequences, and the special interests in that industry will bring pressure against congress if they eff with that too much.
The problem is that everyone can get behind a slogan like "Repeal the ACA". But the minute that slogan becomes policy, the diversity of opinions begins to surface. It's the same shit that made the ACA hard to pass for the Democrats in the first place. The reason nothing has happened yet is because the Freedom Caucus in the House and rest of the GOPers in the House and the GOPers in the Senate can't all agree on what they want.
Constituents have been frustrated that Sen. Pat Toomey of PA hasn't been having town halls, so they set up their own. He didn't show, so they dressed up an empty suit and talked to it!
On some level, a lot of these are potentially one-sentence bills.
"Fuck the ACA."
"The DoEd terminates."
"Roe v Wade more like NO v Wade lolz."
It may count as "doing stuff" but it doesn't really require fancy language. It requires scrawling "NOPE" across the page.
Exactly, it's like they're nor caring about hiding anymore - no secret attachments in bills or anything. This feels like their end game.
It's their imagination endgame, but government doesn't work like that. Unfortunately for them, their constituents almost certainly don't know that, either.
Constituents have been frustrated that Sen. Pat Toomey of PA hasn't been having town halls, so they set up their own. He didn't show, so they dressed up an empty suit and talked to it!
Constituents have been frustrated that Sen. Pat Toomey of PA hasn't been having town halls, so they set up their own. He didn't show, so they dressed up an empty suit and talked to it!
Eeeeh, this feels a little too close to Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair for my tastes.
They are so completely different. Republicans are avoiding town halls in record numbers during the first congressional recess where you traditionally go, y'know, chat with your constituents.
Clint Eastwood displayed his increasing senility by presenting strawman arguments to a chair he said was Obama, in front of a very large crowd.
Yup. The key difference is that the Congressperson is supposed to be doing these events and they have set one up because said person has refused to do that and then they even invited said person and going to these things is like actually part of their job.
It's nothing like Eastwood's insanity. It's a public demonstration that the person in question is a coward hiding from the people they represent.
Not that it's really helping them. That angry town hall with chanting at Joni Ernst? Located in Maquoketa, population 6000-ish, an hour from the nearest major city. That angry town hall of Chuck Grassley's? Iowa Falls, population 5000-ish, also about an hour from the nearest major city. They thought they could just get patted on the head by content rural folk and be told they were doing a great job or something since by and large that's where their votes came from.
Also surprised no one posted the video of the woman eviscerating/trolling Mitch McConnell:
Not that it's really helping them. That angry town hall with chanting at Joni Ernst? Located in Maquoketa, population 6000-ish, an hour from the nearest major city. That angry town hall of Chuck Grassley's? Iowa Falls, population 5000-ish, also about an hour from the nearest major city. They thought they could just get patted on the head by content rural folk and be told they were doing a great job or something since by and large that's where their votes came from.
Also surprised no one posted the video of the woman eviscerating/trolling Mitch McConnell:
Local turd farmer, Tom Cotton, is having a town hall tonight and I might just go. The question I've been rolling around in my head is along the lines of "Why are you choosing party over country with your rubber stamp confirmation votes for those who have given you money rather than those who are qualified?" If we had much coal industry here I'd ask about the repealing of the clean stream dealy.
They can't hide from us forever. If they think that's a winning strategy they are going to be sorely mistaken. My own representative has cancelled all of her town halls, so there's now been a request from multiple community organizers for her to visit the local area and talk to her constituents at "community gatherings".
Local women's groups are chomping at the bit hoping that she accepts.
That kind of ignores the quality of some of them. Obama had ARRA and Ledbetter. Trump's got what, a waiver for Mattis and the let's pollute our water regulation repeal.
Hey.
He's also got "lets not report fees paid to foreign governments for resource extraction rights."
Local turd farmer, Tom Cotton, is having a town hall tonight and I might just go. The question I've been rolling around in my head is along the lines of "Why are you choosing party over country with your rubber stamp confirmation votes for those who have given you money rather than those who are qualified?" If we had much coal industry here I'd ask about the repealing of the clean stream dealy.
Ask him anyway. You're more likely to get an answer with a less loaded question.
+14
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
WaPo local news desk coverage of Brat's townhall includes a video of the crowd (in a hilariously tiny room) if you'd like to check it out. Am also loving the headline: The women got up in Brat’s grill, and then some
Local turd farmer, Tom Cotton, is having a town hall tonight and I might just go. The question I've been rolling around in my head is along the lines of "Why are you choosing party over country with your rubber stamp confirmation votes for those who have given you money rather than those who are qualified?" If we had much coal industry here I'd ask about the repealing of the clean stream dealy.
If you want to ask about clean streams, coach it in terms of outdoor sportsmanship.
"You voted to repeal Clean Stream Protection, what are you planning to do to keep Arkansas' fisherman from getting sick when they eat what they catch? How are you going to compensate local businesses that focus on fish and game sport, who need clean water for the fish and game to, you know, not die off?"
Yeah, if you present it that way, he looks like a complete turd for not answering it, and suddenly a few people on the fence go, 'OH YEAH,I WAS ANGRY ABOUT TAXES BUT WAIT A MINUTE MAH FISH'.
It works surprisingly well in rural Canada. If you invoke something people deeply care about, suddenly some far-off boogeyman becomes palpable and life threatening. I've seen constituents go 0 to 100 when they realize they have some minor pleasurable stake.
'Oh, well the existential crisis to the human race isn't a big deal for me, but fuck man - I gotta fish.'
Effectively, do the thing with Environment and Climate change that Republicans are doing with Muslims.
Don't be racist to the weather, but probably do your best to scare the shit out of everyone with equal fervor (but a good reason).
Local turd farmer, Tom Cotton, is having a town hall tonight and I might just go. The question I've been rolling around in my head is along the lines of "Why are you choosing party over country with your rubber stamp confirmation votes for those who have given you money rather than those who are qualified?" If we had much coal industry here I'd ask about the repealing of the clean stream dealy.
If you want to ask about clean streams, coach it in terms of outdoor sportsmanship.
"You voted to repeal Clean Stream Protection, what are you planning to do to keep Arkansas' fisherman from getting sick when they eat what they catch? How are you going to compensate local businesses that focus on fish and game sport, who need clean water for the fish and game to, you know, not die off?"
You could also hit the jobs angle in how the reguations require additional waste transport. The extra costs ARE jobs, not fees paid to the government.
E: I say this because the environmental angle, and liabilities therein, were status quo not too long ago. That system already worked in their minds.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Local turd farmer, Tom Cotton, is having a town hall tonight and I might just go. The question I've been rolling around in my head is along the lines of "Why are you choosing party over country with your rubber stamp confirmation votes for those who have given you money rather than those who are qualified?" If we had much coal industry here I'd ask about the repealing of the clean stream dealy.
If you want to ask about clean streams, coach it in terms of outdoor sportsmanship.
"You voted to repeal Clean Stream Protection, what are you planning to do to keep Arkansas' fisherman from getting sick when they eat what they catch? How are you going to compensate local businesses that focus on fish and game sport, who need clean water for the fish and game to, you know, not die off?"
You could also hit the jobs angle in how the reguations require additional waste transport. The extra costs ARE jobs, not fees paid to the government.
E: I say this because the environmental angle, and liabilities therein, were status quo not too long ago. That system already worked in their minds.
Unfortunately, sometimes government jobs don't count as jobs to people who are on this part of the political spectrum
Posts
every time someone points this out it's exactly like the end of the first act in every two-bit horror flick
"that house has been empty for twenty years!"
"but she's been dead for ten years!"
"trump's only been in office for a month!"
Comparing the raw numbers is a bit odd, as ARRA or FMLA isn't really 1:1 with backdooring a few regulation removals. But 538 has been a bit odd for months.
It's still better than counting the other way! 47-95 months to go.
It gets a bit different though when you consider that they've been pushing for some sort of Obamacare repeal for about 7? years now, and they still haven't even agreed on a plan, let alone implemented it.
It's also the case that the Republican party, broadly speaking, doesn't need to craft legislation. The Democrats are the ones who want to do stuff. The Republicans want to not do stuff, or undo stuff.
Repeal Obamacare. Kill regulations. Dismantle the DoEd. Eliminate taxes. Get rid of Social Security. Undo Roe v Wade. Ignore social and environmental problems and let the free market sort it out.
They pride themselves on being the party of inaction. The conservative poster child is Calvin Coolidge, whose signature quote was literally about ignoring problems and hoping they go away.*
Partly, their inaction was about cynically exploiting their status as the minority party so they could score cheap political points. But partly, that is just fundamentally what they're all about.
*"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."
Late EDIT: 99% of "Actually" takes are dumb, the only exception was "Actually Ken Bone is a fucking asshole," which was conclusively proven today when he got a booth at CPAC.
To be fair, he also had poorly drafted Executive Orders.
But the Republicans do want to do stuff. Dismantling the modern US nation state, which is what they want, requires active action. Social Security isn't gonna destroy itself, you gotta pass a bill for that.
And they just aren't. They can't even get the ACA repealed.
True, but a lot of that still requires enabling legislation. Part of the impetus for the EPA's Clean Power Plan were lawsuits by the NRDC over failure to enforce the Clean Air Act on carbon emissions. You have to legislate that away, not just appoint horrible people. Hiring a deportation force takes legislation. Damn near everything takes legislation. And so far...nothin'
I mean, thank god. But they've had the House for 6 years. They shod have horrible draft proposals in legislative language from two Congresses ago to at least be in the Hopper and sent to committee.
"Fuck the ACA."
"The DoEd terminates."
"Roe v Wade more like NO v Wade lolz."
It may count as "doing stuff" but it doesn't really require fancy language. It requires scrawling "NOPE" across the page.
They really aren't, though. Like, un-reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank didn't actually get rid of it and it was reauthorized later in an Omnibus bill. Partly that's because of fault lines in the caucus, but still.
Never say never. I thought Trump would never be President. Anything is possible.
I never said never. I said they aren't. They aren't doing it right now. They can't get their shit together yet.
Fair enough, I guess?
Like, we know dismantling the DoEd, et al, consist of one sentence bills, because that's what they actually are. Repealing the ACA might not literally be one sentence, but it would just consist of changing whatever law exists now to what it was prior to 2009, yes? What would it actually take to un-reauthorize the Ex-Im bank? Is it conceptually complicated (like, say, the ACA) or is it just a matter of tweaking a lot of verbiage in a lot of places?
My larger thesis is that Republicans do not have complicated ideas, and so concern themselves less with formulating the implementation of their ideas, but maybe I need to rethink this.
Republicans in congress internally had diverse reactions to the ACA at first. Some liked some aspects but didn't want others. Some wanted to amend the bill rather than deleting it. But the teeper's helped push the consensus position of repealing the entire thing, which became the orthodoxy they started running elections on. There was interest from many (but not all) pubs on doing some degree of "something else" about health care, but no agreement on what that was. That lack of consensus is simply being exposed now. There are people with detailed plans, just not ones that make everyone happy.
"Repeal the ACA" was also an easier position when it was in its infancy. Now that markets have adapted to the law over the past 8 years, they can't simply drop us into 2008 without big and obvious economic consequences, and the special interests in that industry will bring pressure against congress if they eff with that too much.
They've been behind the rollouts of several nasty red state bills.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The problem is that everyone can get behind a slogan like "Repeal the ACA". But the minute that slogan becomes policy, the diversity of opinions begins to surface. It's the same shit that made the ACA hard to pass for the Democrats in the first place. The reason nothing has happened yet is because the Freedom Caucus in the House and rest of the GOPers in the House and the GOPers in the Senate can't all agree on what they want.
Here is Dave Brat, Republican Rep who said women were "getting in his grill" about having town halls:
Good job voting these fucks in, America.
Exactly, it's like they're nor caring about hiding anymore - no secret attachments in bills or anything. This feels like their end game.
Toomey a no-show at protesters' town hal
It's their imagination endgame, but government doesn't work like that. Unfortunately for them, their constituents almost certainly don't know that, either.
Eeeeh, this feels a little too close to Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair for my tastes.
They are so completely different. Republicans are avoiding town halls in record numbers during the first congressional recess where you traditionally go, y'know, chat with your constituents.
Clint Eastwood displayed his increasing senility by presenting strawman arguments to a chair he said was Obama, in front of a very large crowd.
These people are protesting a shit politician.
It's nothing like Eastwood's insanity. It's a public demonstration that the person in question is a coward hiding from the people they represent.
They are terrified of having to take a stand on the positions their party actually holds that they know are actually hugely unpopular.
Not that it's really helping them. That angry town hall with chanting at Joni Ernst? Located in Maquoketa, population 6000-ish, an hour from the nearest major city. That angry town hall of Chuck Grassley's? Iowa Falls, population 5000-ish, also about an hour from the nearest major city. They thought they could just get patted on the head by content rural folk and be told they were doing a great job or something since by and large that's where their votes came from.
Also surprised no one posted the video of the woman eviscerating/trolling Mitch McConnell:
"If you can answer any of that, I will sit down and shut up like Elizabeth Warren." Dang.
These town halls are inspiring
"You wasted a lot of money on Benghazi, waste a little on Trump!"
Nice, anonymous audience dude. Nice.
NNID: Hakkekage
Local women's groups are chomping at the bit hoping that she accepts.
Hey.
He's also got "lets not report fees paid to foreign governments for resource extraction rights."
Dozens of people have been hoping for that.
Ask him anyway. You're more likely to get an answer with a less loaded question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/the-women-got-up-in-brats-grill-and-then-some/2017/02/21/9e8db1fa-f855-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_no-name:homepage/story&utm_term=.ecebeda20300
NNID: Hakkekage
If you want to ask about clean streams, coach it in terms of outdoor sportsmanship.
"You voted to repeal Clean Stream Protection, what are you planning to do to keep Arkansas' fisherman from getting sick when they eat what they catch? How are you going to compensate local businesses that focus on fish and game sport, who need clean water for the fish and game to, you know, not die off?"
It works surprisingly well in rural Canada. If you invoke something people deeply care about, suddenly some far-off boogeyman becomes palpable and life threatening. I've seen constituents go 0 to 100 when they realize they have some minor pleasurable stake.
'Oh, well the existential crisis to the human race isn't a big deal for me, but fuck man - I gotta fish.'
Effectively, do the thing with Environment and Climate change that Republicans are doing with Muslims.
Don't be racist to the weather, but probably do your best to scare the shit out of everyone with equal fervor (but a good reason).
You could also hit the jobs angle in how the reguations require additional waste transport. The extra costs ARE jobs, not fees paid to the government.
E: I say this because the environmental angle, and liabilities therein, were status quo not too long ago. That system already worked in their minds.
Unfortunately, sometimes government jobs don't count as jobs to people who are on this part of the political spectrum