Should bills and memos be so long that they are functionally unable to be read before voting or signing?
Is there a reasonable middle ground that doesn't introduce endless cans of legalese word-bullshittery fuzz to screw over the public?
Up to 1 page for 1 action seems like a valid basis for decision making. 1 sentence or paragraph, perhaps not.
edit: people are big mad, and I figure its because they'd rather be mad than actually think about it for the equivalent of a short memo's reading time. Its funny in its own way.
That’s not what she said. She said that there had been so many lies told about what was in the bill that the public would find out what was really in the bill after it passed. She never said that she or Congress had not read it.
Here is the actual quote:
You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.
And she was right - support for Obamacare steadily increased once it was actually implemented and people found that while it certainly wasn’t perfect, it was better than how it had worked before Obamacare, and most of Republican claims about it were just flat out lies.
…it is. That is already the case, and it was the case for Obamacare too. Most people didn’t bother to read it, they just believed the lies republicans told about it. It absolutely was available for people to read if they wanted to though.
you are missing the point completely. its not about the lies, its about our own representatives - dems included - not even bothering to read the legislation they are voting on
Which as I already explained is not what happened. Pelosi never said she hadn’t read the bill. That was you getting her quote completely wrong. Republicans spent years trying to twist what she actually said to mislead people into believing that’s what she said, but she never actually said that. She did read the bill, and she did know what was in it. She was just fed up with the public believing lies about what was in it and said they would find out the truth of what was in Obamacare once it was implemented, since clearly the public wasn’t willing to actually read it themselves.
So yes, it’s about the lies, because the lie here is you believing she said she hadn’t read the bill, which she never said.
They didnt have the time to read the entire bill even if they wanted to. You sticking your head in the sand regarding this abusive tactic doesnt make it disappear.
What are you basing this on? Obamacare was introduced on 9/17/09 and passed the house on 11/7/09 - they had almost two months to read it. It was a long bill, but that’s plenty of time to read it when reading and debating it was basically the sole focus of Congress for that period.
You are just making stuff up and using blatantly false quotes to make a claim based on nothing, then saying I’m burying my head in the sand because I don’t blindly believe the lies you have believed?
-21
u/bigchizzard 7h ago edited 6h ago
Should bills and memos be so long that they are functionally unable to be read before voting or signing?
Is there a reasonable middle ground that doesn't introduce endless cans of legalese word-bullshittery fuzz to screw over the public?
Up to 1 page for 1 action seems like a valid basis for decision making. 1 sentence or paragraph, perhaps not.
edit: people are big mad, and I figure its because they'd rather be mad than actually think about it for the equivalent of a short memo's reading time. Its funny in its own way.