permitting reform is very good and Dems should support it because
1. it will lower carbon emissions
2. it will not help Trump politically (most benefits won’t be felt until 2029)
3. we won’t get a better deal while Trump is President
4. we can always improve it in 2029
oftentimes compromise involves both sides scaling back their ambition so that nothing proposed is too offensive, this permitting deal seems to have been the opposite, both sides scaled up their asks and were able to reach agreement because what was on offer was so good
still baffled that anyone looked at l’enfant plaza and thought to themselves “you know what this station had? too much clarity. too many well marked exits. let’s remove everything.”
Something quite a few Dems have noticed: Jackson had already said there was a "genocide" in Gaza, and it didn't stop voters from showing up at his events to demand he say it on camera, again - or rumors that he would no longer say "genocide" because consultants told him not to.
IE: Pass the "genocide" litmus test and you might be forced to re-take it, again and again.
i don’t fall for the dakota johnson can’t act allegations cause i’ve seen the lost daughter, i’ve seen suspiria, i’ve seen splitsville, i’ve seen materialists, I’VE SEEN CHA CHA REAL SMOOTH
A good case study is Copenhagen—which got the hierarchy of transportation exactly right (walk/wheelchair, transit, bike,car) vs Amsterdam which prioritized the bicycle and walking feels like playing frogger. I love bikes, but in a civilized society, the person on foot is king.
Hilarious that Schmitt’s team was so excited about this smoking gun that no one bothered to look up whether “Section 109 Row 1” exists at the Atlanta Hawks’ stadium (it doesn’t) but *did* go to the trouble of blowing up a giant poster board photo of the stadium.
Could’ve saved their dude a lot of embarrassment!