> Automatic Refunds for Cancellations
> Transparency of Fees
How does a lawmaker justify this being in the publics interest ? I'm not even joking, I know "well lobbyist going to lobby", but this is a legitimate question. How does a regulatory body say "Yup, that's okay with us to remove" ?
I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. Which is one of reasons I didn't vote for the current administration.
That said, I imagine that among those who did so, some folks are fine with it, some folks didn't care one way or another and some folks were unaware that this would happen.
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.
> 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.
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!
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.
demonrats. that's what they are all about. If you voted for them, you voted for baby molesting and baby eating. Those far-left lunatics hate America and want to destroy it!
Why do you eat babies? Why do you hate America? Why do you want to destroy it?
What's that? You don't do/feel/want those things? But, but, you voted for demonrats! You must be the most extreme version of whatever someone who disagrees says you are!
Does being painted with that brush make you want to reexamine your choices and/or political ideas? No? Why not?
And what for? It's stupid to try to have a dialogue with your fellow citizens about what's important and what we stand for as a nation, right? Because anyone that doesn't agree, in full, with everything you believe is irredeemably evil and must be stopped, right?