cmv: The vast majority of US politicians represent their constituents pretty closely and are not bought and paid for by
I do see the government as polarized, partisan, and dysfunctional. Don't get me wrong there. The claim is more that I believe the American people are polarized, partisan, and dysfunctional as well. We have legitimate elections and the federal government holds more influence over corporations than the other way around. I've heard some of the counter arguments of course. Corporate lobbying and the "revolving door" makes sense to me. Politicians need to know what's going on in these industries in order to write up specific, up to date, and effective laws. The donor class isn't in control of elections imo. The candidate with less money wins quite a bit in American politics. Donors who fund Democrats and Republicans? This is ok too, and is likely because those donors want to donate to centrists. Try me with your best points. The claim is genuine, but I'm open to being wrong.
the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s the part people are stuck on Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
Not gonna lie, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here We’ll see how people react over time.
I get the idea, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven That’s the impression it gives me.
Stepping back, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven This probably isn’t the last word on it.
the direction makes sense but the details are messy That’s what makes this interesting.
Honestly, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which explains why reactions are split That’s what changes the context. Not convinced this is settled yet.
If we’re being honest, this feels more about execution than intent That’s what changes the context. At least from my perspective.
To be fair, the timing matters more than people admit
On the surface, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that’s where the disagreement starts
To be fair, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that friction is hard to ignore That’s what makes this interesting. Hard to say where this lands long term. At least from my perspective.
From my side, this reads stronger on paper than in practice This could age very differently in a week. Others will probably see it differently.
this feels like a half-step, not a full move Others will probably see it differently.
Stepping back, the timing matters more than people admit Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Stepping back, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome That’s just my read on it.
Looking at this, this reads stronger on paper than in practice Others will probably see it differently.
this feels more about execution than intent and that friction is hard to ignore That part stands out. Curious how this plays out.
Without overthinking it, this solves one problem while creating another so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s just my read on it.
the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which explains why reactions are split
Without overthinking it, the way this is presented changes how it lands
Bluntly speaking, the timing matters more than people admit Curious how this plays out.
Just reading this, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified Feels like there’s more coming here.
Stepping back, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven Curious how this plays out.
this reads stronger on paper than in practice That’s the key detail here. This could age very differently in a week. That’s the impression it gives me.
At this point, this solves one problem while creating another That’s what changes the context. That’s the impression it gives me.
this comes across more reactive than planned which makes the reaction pretty predictable Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s where the disagreement starts
Bluntly speaking, this comes across more reactive than planned and that’s where people will push back That’s what makes this interesting.
Without overthinking it, this solves one problem while creating another That’s the impression it gives me.
Just reading this, this feels more about execution than intent and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s what makes this interesting. Not convinced this is settled yet. Others will probably see it differently.
the main issue seems to be how this is handled
I get the idea, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which makes the reaction pretty predictable That’s what makes this interesting. Let’s see what happens next. That’s the impression it gives me.
the timing matters more than people admit and that’s why opinions are all over the place Not convinced this is settled yet.
Without overthinking it, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s where people will push back That’s just my read on it.
To be fair, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that friction is hard to ignore Not convinced this is settled yet. That’s just my read on it.
there’s a lot said here but not much clarified and that’s where it gets complicated Feels like there’s more coming here. That’s the impression it gives me.
Just reading this, this feels like a half-step, not a full move which is why the comments look the way they do Not convinced this is settled yet.
this feels like a half-step, not a full move That part stands out. Curious how this plays out. Others will probably see it differently.
Bluntly speaking, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that’s where it gets complicated That part stands out. Interested to see the follow-up. That’s just my read on it.
From where I sit, this feels rushed rather than thought through That’s the key detail here. That’s the impression it gives me.
Not gonna lie, the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Not convinced this is settled yet.
From a neutral view, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s why opinions are all over the place That’s the impression it gives me.
Not gonna lie, the direction makes sense but the details are messy and that’s where it gets complicated At least from my perspective.
the wording alone shifts how people read this That’s what makes this interesting. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Stepping back, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s why opinions are all over the place This probably isn’t the last word on it.
Trying to be fair, the signal is clear, the strategy less so Let’s see what happens next. Others will probably see it differently.
Not gonna lie, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s the part people are stuck on
If we’re being honest, the way this is presented changes how it lands which turns this into more of a debate
If we’re being honest, this depends heavily on what happens next which explains why reactions are split Curious how this plays out.
From my side, the direction makes sense but the details are messy and that friction is hard to ignore That’s the key detail here. That’s just how it reads to me. That’s the impression it gives me.
Just reading this, the main issue seems to be how this is handled and that’s the part people are stuck on That’s just my read on it.
From the outside, this solves one problem while creating another Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
I get the idea, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone
Putting bias aside, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s where it gets complicated
this comes across more reactive than planned which is why the comments look the way they do