474
Pedo party vote NO (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 2 months ago (8 children)

It may be that is the actual reason these republicans voted no. Not that I trust them with kids close by, but 1 vote for a bill that looks more like a Walmart on crack than, well, a proper bill, I can imagine you end up voting in interesting ways sometimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It really is a pervasive issue, similar to how Republicans keep ramming pet projects into budget reconciliation bills in the House. We really need legislation that bars bills from containing unrelated items in them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I’m not from the states so please forgive me if this is incorrect, but I’ve read a “bill” can start out as one thing. Get a load of traction, then be changed last minute to something else entirely just before the vote. Is that true? Seems impossible track if it is

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yup. Check the title of this bill vs the amendment

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s1318/text

    "Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act"

    Amendment: "... Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

    1.Short titles; table of contents (a)Short titles This Act may be cited as the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    So that sounds good in theory, but in practice it is used to prevent anything the judiciary dislikes from being done. Have a single issue bill that all it says is it moves cannabis from class 1 to class 3 controlled substance? Well that affects interstate commerce too so whoopsie can't write that law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    This is a strategy, and has been for years, ever since political advertising became a thing over the air. "Congressman X voted NO on a bill that would stop people from drinking raw sewage (because it also contained a section that would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate food)", etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent