The Democrat Utopia
- Thread starter GBR0988
- Start date
BigRedBuster
Active member
Do you have more proof of this?
Dr. Strangelove
New member
The tweet starts off with "Biden Regime" and is from a podcaster, so I mean, what more do you need man. This is how people consume information now.
What, you have trouble believing that Harris (as Vice President?) handed over a $7 billion dollar check (from her personal bank account no doubt) to a group that is shady (probably her husband?) I'm sorry, but if you don't buy that, you're just a libtard full stop.
Let me guess, as a libtard, you buy the complete BS!!!11! that the 'Climate Action Fund' or 'Climate United' is an alternative and common name for a program called "Solar For All" and that the $7 billion dollars was actually "appropriated by Congress" in a way that is "legal" and not a check handed over by Harris. Wow, and let me guess, you think that this program is good policy because it has helped as part of the $27 billion allocated through the EPAs Greenhouse Reduction Fund from the Inflation Reduction Act which was completely paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy. And if you think this isn't SHADY just know that the INSIDIOUS authors of this fund "prioritized stakeholder engagement" and you can voice your opinion on matters.
These libtards are completely off the rails. This is shady business. It's not something that you can just... check on the website, with links that allow you to contact the EPA directly to inquire about the allocation of money, including state websites where you can just download PDFs freely available to read how the money is being spent and how it will be used. Wow, you think you can also EMAIL the individual states agencies in question and attend meetings as a citizen to give your voice on how you think the money should be used? Get out of here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove
New member
Resurrecting this gem because it's absolutely hilarious. Just over a year old. Truly astonishing.
Yeah I don’t think most people are under the assumption a literal check was hand delivered. Nor do I believe a personal bank account was mentioned? The library stuff though….well….thats not for me to say.
LOL. Your comedy routine is getting better by the day I gotta admit. Which you would also have to admit, it wasn’t posted anywhere that the funds were illegal.
by all means though, if you think allocating billions of dollars of resources to a nebulous notion of environmentalism to a new company that I’m sure has highly paid C level employees that’s gives money to other companies with other highly paid employees that’s waters down the end monies spent which most likely ended up not impacting the environment much at all.
Alright, I will let you get back to talking about libtards and providing EPA links not related to the company in question.
BigRedBuster
Active member
Yeah like Solindra? Newsflash, it doesn’t have to be a “shady business” to be a grifting waste of money. I’m sure they could someone show some small storyline of “here we saved the small toothed red spotted snail from losing one habitat in Bangor, Maine” for $20 billion or whatever it ended up getting. All the while it’s top employees rake in the dough! Get outta here
Dr. Strangelove
New member
This was pretty clearly a joke about how the Conservative media echo system strings together a bunch of nonsense and throws whatever name in the accusation that goes with the zeitgeist.
By naming HARRIS that she just HANDED over a CHECK to a SHADY group is just typical Republican information slop - it stupefies the readers and provides no evidence of anything because the readers don't have the attention span nor the cognitive ability to actually verify if the information is true.
Then what's the issue?
That the money was legally allocated? That the Biden Administration passed a law and... GASP... allocated money for it? That you can keep track of and inquire about via a website?
I'm not a fan of dumb advocacy groups getting involved in the allocation of Congressionally approved money - but the faux-outrage at the perceived corruption, which is not substantiated beyond your feelings and a post from a podcaster with ZERO links, evidence, or anything other than inflammatory right wing slop language is funny. Hold up a mirror if corruption is genuinely a political concern of yours.
Dr. Strangelove
New member
I mean, everybody wants government to be better. That would require the ability to hire more employees; to simplify state laws that make it easier to allocate money; a host of things can be done that doesn't require the outsourcing of the work to private sector elements that are in on the take.
But the idea that this money was super shady, handed over by the Biden administration with no oversight, or anything like that is just pure outrage slop that isn't true. You can monitor all of the money, email the EPA, find the grant programs for each state listed, email the state stewards of the money, attend webinars, and show up in person to talk about how the money is being spent if you want to.
The Right Wing belief that there's just HORDES of money sitting in the deep state just needs to die. DOGE isn't uncovering anything other than it takes a lot more money, time, and effort to properly implement congressional law than lawmakers intend. If you want to make money more efficient, it starts with Congress.
Good try. I actually believe the monies were delivered to the company in question.
I don’t receive any government funding!
No, many just want it to be bigger.
Again, no.
Again, you are making an argument no one here is making. I didn’t talk about no oversight. I get it that you want to bring in the typical talking points rather than what was presented.
That’s cute to think it will stop the flow of the wasteful money greasing the friends of DNC.
Here’s a pro tip for you. The bureaucracy is designed to be complicated, nebulous in nature, and full of red tape in order to make accountability that much harder to achieve. Congress is part of the problem (on both sides) not the solution. They may hold a hearing or two, stomp their feet a bit and the other side will talk about anything other than the oversight, aaaaaaaannd then nothing gets done and we move on to the next shiny object that they do nothing about. All the while monies associated with USAID grease lots and lots and lots of high salaries and travel watering down the money. Being used to fund things we have no business funding. And giving government military contracts with little oversight while those companies overcharge us and come in with massive cost overruns and those executives make bank.
Congressional law is written so vague as to allow the unelected bureaucrats to decide what those laws actually mean. It’s a feature not a bug. And that’s a problem (with both sides of the aisle)
Lorewarn
New member
If we can, for a moment, separate out the '20 billion for transgender mice!!!' red herrings, it's pretty easy to see why the unelected bureaucrats are often charged with actually dictating the function of the laws.
In a lot of instances, that is absolutely a feature and not a bug, because it pretty much has to be that way. Let's say you need some enforceable laws on the books regarding the the proper disposal of nuclear waste (shouldn't be hard, because we do need and we do have those laws). Nuclear waste disposal is an intensely technical issue that involves expertise in physics, geology, engineering, and weighing long-term environmental risks.
Here's your two options:
• Have Congress, a bunch of politicians -- many of whom struggle to understand even basic scientific principles -- write a law that spells out every hyper specific technical detail regarding the how/when/where of disposing of nuclear waste, and dictates every minute and complex safety standard.
or
• Have Congress set a broad policy goal, and let the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, comprised of scientists and engineers who are competent in expertise regarding nuclear waste, figure out the how in a way that is safe and feasible.
Which one sounds like a smarter and more efficient approach?
In a lot of instances, that is absolutely a feature and not a bug, because it pretty much has to be that way. Let's say you need some enforceable laws on the books regarding the the proper disposal of nuclear waste (shouldn't be hard, because we do need and we do have those laws). Nuclear waste disposal is an intensely technical issue that involves expertise in physics, geology, engineering, and weighing long-term environmental risks.
Here's your two options:
• Have Congress, a bunch of politicians -- many of whom struggle to understand even basic scientific principles -- write a law that spells out every hyper specific technical detail regarding the how/when/where of disposing of nuclear waste, and dictates every minute and complex safety standard.
or
• Have Congress set a broad policy goal, and let the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, comprised of scientists and engineers who are competent in expertise regarding nuclear waste, figure out the how in a way that is safe and feasible.
Which one sounds like a smarter and more efficient approach?