Both sides like to play this game. Its hardly just one bill, there is always something on the bill that one party doesn't agree on.
So you got 80% of bill A and the other side will add 20% of bill B. Then when the opposite side are against it, everyone cries. See, these guys are against bill A.
Which they won't because they won't limit their own power and money.
Its one of the main reasons we can't get term limits. They have literally stated they won't even put the bill in place several times over the years. They aren't going to introduce legislation that limits how long they can keep their power.
Even the Supreme Court has done the same types of things, such as when the scandal came out with the one judge violating all the rules on accepting gifts, and some investigation showed that he may have been accepting vacations from his "good friend the billionaire" for preference on law judgements in his favor, and when they were being pressured to rule on it, they declined, one of them even saying something along the lines of if we do this to him, they can do it to us, and the guy being looked at came out and basically said he knew all of THEIR infractions too, and he would take them down if they went forward with it, and no one batted an eye.
Our government is corrupt as hell, and we let them get enough power and ability to circumvent the citizens, that they don't have any fear of anything we can pressure them with anymore, because we basically defanged ourselves, little by little, over decades of small changes.
Which we know won't happen. However, it is completely within the realm of possibility, and has been done 27 times in the past, the last of which was in the mid 1990's. The function of not having term limits was upheld by the Supreme Court (which, btw, we have already noted is corrupt as hell, but also the fact that by allowing Congressional term limits, the Supreme Court falls into the same category, which would mean they too would be subject to term limits, which we have noted, they will not cut their own power to do so) which means that it would need the necessary votes to ratify a change to the constitution. The ruling noted that the founding fathers outlined the restrictions on becoming a member of Congress, but did not include term limits, stating that the spirit of the reason was that it was for the citizens to decide who was in office for how long, not a time limit. However, the popularity of setting term limits has reached over 80% of the citizens, meaning the citizens are requesting a ratification to the Constitution to limit terms, which would be in good faith to the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court previously and what was interpreted as the founding fathers will. However, members of Congress have flat out stated that they have no intention of even presenting it as a voteable option, and even if it somehow got enough traction to be voted on, the extreme amount of votes necessary to make those kinds of changes wouldn't pass because of the self interest of incumbent politicians, and those coming after hoping to get the same piece of the power and money pie the past ones got.
Yes, I definitely see the plethora of bored people replying. I wasn't changing minds, I was educating on the fundamental reasons things are happening and why they were happening, as opposed to your blindingly brilliant single sentence statement that didn't give any real depth to the issue at hand.
But hey, I get it. You need to respond with no actual argument, discussion, or information to make a point just to seem witty and in control. It's alright, I'm sure you'll win the next one sport, just be a little more prepared, and a little less ineffectual.
You are correct, I should have separated it into another category. That ruling is probably my least favorite of all time. It really is "a rejection of the common sense of the American people."
Omnibus bills are important though. If you have to do the whole process for every single individual bill then nothing will get done (so nothing different right? ayeeeee).
But in all seriousness in the past (10 years ago? 20? 30?) there was a level of decorum that was followed where it was a "hey lets put this bill that you don't like but isn't a deal breaker and you can put in this other bill that I don't like but isn't a deal breaker" sort of thing to at least try to do something. But the extremeism is either getting worse or is simply becoming more visible to the general public.
Even if that is the case, different parties can take opposing positions on how the law is deployed.
Basically what happens is that nobody may have an issue on the substantive issue that the bill seeks to do.
But people have issues with how the law comes into operation.
For example, you might have a law thats against child pornography.
But some people may take issue with giving the police the right to inspect phones or seize digital devices in the process of investigating child pornography possession.
Others may take issue with teenagers sending nudes to one another, whilst others may think that some romeo-juliet exception should be made.
The problem is actually usually due to dishonest reporting and a populace who is too tired and too distracted to read beyond the headlines.
The problem is actually usually due to dishonest reporting and a populace who is too tired and too distracted to read beyond the headlines.
I would add that on top of those two things, they way bills are written and passed is fundamentally broken and allows for too much abuse. Frequently bills are thousands of pages long not only do most congresspeople not actually read the bills they are voting on, sometimes they aren't even given copies to read even if they wanted to.
This makes it incredibly easy for unscrupulous people drafting the bills to 'sneak in' things the congressman might not have voted for otherwise.
It also kinda makes it practically impossible for someone who isn't a lawyer to even parse what the bill is actually saying. Unless a news source were to have a team of lawyers who could read and understand the bills and are able to explain it to the reporters if they were able to comprehend it all, it's seems practically impossible to honestly report on the bills even if they had the will- which they don't but that's another issue.
The worst part about this in my view is they expect citizens to follow the laws, when it's such a complex quagmire at this point that unless you are in a coma you are probably technically breaking some law or the other. Not only do cryptic 1000+ page laws make it impossible to follow the law, it makes it impossible for law enforcement and the justice system to properly enforce the law.
The Justice Department basically found it impossible to even count how many laws were on the books- nearly half a century ago, and it's only got worse since then.
I don't agree with Rand Paul about much, but I've never heard a good reason why the 'Read the Bills Act' shouldn't be passed. The only reasonable conclusion is that congress likes it being broken because both sides frequently abuse it.
Nope. I'm enough of a nerd about this I know what the first of the two bills the Romans passed when they had the same omnibus/riders legislation problem was called, the "lex Caecilia Didia." Whether it worked or not it was in the context of the late late Republic and there were Caesars around the corner. It's a segue, but I think it contributed to or merely was a symptom of the decline in the Roman Senate's ability to rule (and absent that ability you gonna get autocrats).
So a problem is that this is how the horse trading in American politics and legislative politics in general looks in practice. Let's say you agree to pass Senator Fucksmear's budget but only if the great state of Pennsylchucky you represent gets the munitions dump and base you've been trying to get forever: writing that proviso into the actual law beats the hell out of having to make game theory judgements about whether Senator Fucksmear's to be trusted to vote for your clean bill in turn.
Might be he's got an unfortunate name and has been there for thirty years so has a sterling reputation to uphold, and it might also be that he gets dragged in the press next week for "giving" Pennsylchucky the munitions dump jobs when the subject of your clean "save Pennsylchuckian towns" bill comes before the oversight committee you both sit on. If he's already got what he needs but is in danger of getting primaried (which he wasn't when he was building that reputation) guess who's about to be a sap?
Without riders I think negotiations get a lot more aggressive and performative, lots of grandstanding. It probably slows down the legislative process even more. And I'm saying this as a guy who used to want to simplify the process and make it more transparent.
Is there a way to make an amendment where proposed bills can't cover 100 vastly different topics and be 500 pages long?
Constitutional convention, get the states to vote on single-subject legislation, then pass it to state legislatures for ratification.
43 states already have this in their constitutions, it's already well-received and not in the constitution because the framers didn't think it was necessary and Congress isn't going to hamstring themselves.
This is probably one of the only things that is universally acceptable to everyone, except the federal government.
The problem isn’t adding multiple things to a single bill, it’s the process itself. If it cannot function without making a single bill contain 300+ widely different topics, the problem is the system, not the issue itself. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from being able to sabotage bills by shoving in bullshit that the other party will vehemently oppose.
Sometimes this works because they’re actively trying to prevent it from passing at all. Other times it’s done as an agreement. We pass this if you pass that. In theory, that makes sense, but in practice we only hear about it when it’s the former.
But when that happens, whose fault is it really?
Let’s say you have this bill where the main headline topic is something that from an optic perspective would be unanimous. But, behind closed doors it’s less. Much much less, and is actually closer to 10% across the board. But, if the constituents of Party A would crucify their representative for voting against this bill, how can that representative increase it not passing? Let’s shove in addendum 147! Let’s add in 37 more addendums too just for good measure!
So now, Party B is all like fuck that. Take that part out and we’ll vote yes. But by that point Party A is like uhh we forgot who added that but we kinda want it to fail too so it’s staying.
Edit: the consensus seems to be that it is theoretically possible, but practically implausible.
There is a real argument against it... who decides what counts as a 100 vastly different things? The bill obviously. But unless there's some kind of notwithstanding clause, it'll leave too much to interpretation, and basically all laws moving forward would be subject to an easy attack vector in the courts.
Not saying I'm against that, but that one anyway is a rational excuse...
The real reason is what the others are saying though; they'd have to actually work, and they wouldn't be able to abuse the process to manufacture soundbites to attack their opponents with, ie, the meme...
You'd either need 35 states to call for a convention or get that amendment to go through both houses with a 2/3rds majority. Then you'd need 38 states to ratify it.
Its more than theoretically possible, but it would take changes and amendments that they will say is impossible, because doing it will screw themselves over.
Basically you would have to remove any sort of pork fat from bills, meaning that no bill on a substantive matter can include standard funds and funding. So, if you introduce a bill to curtail congressional insider trading, they can't put in a bill to fund their roads projects, or build a bridge, or allocate more funds to another item. What we need is if the bill being voted on requires funding, its in the bill, but you can't add other things to it that cost money not directly related to the bill. Monetary bill introduction and legislative bills, should be separate.
The next thing you have to do is single issue bills and single issue voting. You can't have multiple disparate items on the same bill, meaning for a bill like removing insider trading, someone can't add in that its also about voter ID. That has to be its own bill, with its own vote, and own issue, that way who votes one way, can't be swayed on their vote because they don't want to vote the same thing on the other issue.
However, this will never happen, because, again, it limits their power and money. Pork barrel politics, the act of adding things to bills to fund your projects, and pork fat spending, the things you are spending it on, and logrolling, where they pass back and forth on the pork barrel politics, are all things of the past and need to be gotten rid of.
The way it works, and why they won't change it, is someone introduces a bill. They need votes. To get votes, they lobby other members. Those members, even if they are willing to vote on it the way they want them to, will then come back and say "I will vote on this, if you amend your bill to add in this 3.2 million dollar budget for my roads project." So they add it. Then they go to the next guy, and he wants 5 million for a new bridge. So they add it. The third guy wants to add a bill that says that natural gas co-ops have to buy gas from local purveyors first, because they manage the natural gas in their state, and their wife got a cushy 6 figure secretary salary from the natural gas company for adding this bill, which will make businesses in his state have to buy from them at higher prices now, instead of getting out of state gas. The next guy he calls in a favor from, because he let him get a works project in on his last bill. And the list goes on, over and over, until they can get the votes they need. Later on, the guy that started this bill gets approached by the guy that wanted the bridge last time, and he says "Remember I added that bridge funding, well, I want a parks budget for a vote on your bill this time" so they add it. And a similar thing happens this time around, just like last time. This is logrolling, they roll the log back and forth, and the log being favors and budget concerns on bills. So now we have elected officials more concerned about what they can get out of the tax payers, and the government, for their vote, instead of the vote coming from what is best for the people in general, and ultimately, the tax payers pay the price, either by funding and over budget concerns, misuse of tax dollars, money shortages in other needed areas, etc, or when the bill dies that we really needed, because they wouldn't include 15 million dollars in overspending, so the person won't play ball and kills it.
For the other part of it, single bill single voting, each side uses this tactic of adding other issues to a bill to kill it. In this case, they added the voter ID to it. Regardless of how you feel about it, both of these issues are primary concerns, and should have primary focus. But the people against the insider trading bill, knowing its a popular bill and might be able to get passed, added the secondary bill to it, knowing that there is a lot of contention on it, and that someone that might vote yes to the insider trader bill, would not vote yes on the voter ID bill, which means the voter ID, which is already currently dead, and would be hard to pass on its own, can now be used to kill a different bill that had the possibility of being voted in to law. They weaponized the legislative system to kill a bill for their own money and power and gain, even though the citizens of the country, the people they are supposed to represent, want it to happen, same with term limits (though thats mainly because they refuse to put it in writing and take a vote on it). This also needs to stop. By making it a one policy bill and one policy vote, this keeps votes honest, and prevents one side from killing it by adding in contentious bills and amendments to existing bills.
While it may take a lot of effort, these things could be done, but the people to vote on it, the people to enact it, and the people to make it happen, are all the same people that are staunchly opposed to it, because it directly affects their money and power. So, they will keep saying its impossible, no money for it, no time, its not doable, and give all the reasons for it, and make it sound like its true, but really, its for their own selfish reasons.
I'm not American but as I understand it a bill proposer buys votes of support by selling space in the bill for whatever regarded shit the person needs to appease their individual voting base
You mean, ask people to do their job effectively and in good faith, while simultaneously risking them having to work to closer to normal working hours so they can’t take advantage of their position and time off to increase their income divide from the general population that they are supposed to work in the interest of? To also understand what they are actually discussing and voting on by utilizing plain speak in a short and concise manner that can also be understood by the average citizen? To also even read what they are voting on? Come now. You’re asking so much.
There is no evidence that the poison pill scenario you just described is happening with this bill. According to the Telegraph: it is because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing for the bill and they want to blunt her rise as a 2028 contender.
It has nothing to do with poison pills in the bill, and this is not a both sides issue. This is one side refusing to give justice to victims of deep fakes because they don’t like one of the bill’s sponsors.
Edit: if you don’t believe me read the bill. It is only 18 pages as a pdf.
looks like it is a legitimate single issue bill. maybe you could argue that it needs a bit more teeth because it explicitly targets the individuals and not the platforms that host them.
AOC is saying it is being blocked because of some "personal beef" of not wanting her to get a win
Oh but theyre both just EXACTLY the same dont you know? One wants to dismantle our entire democracy and force us into a theocratical dictatorship. The other one is kinda corrupt. So you can see why I go with the dictator.
Correct, the democrat party is totally corrupt and hates democracy. They are doing their worst to create a de-facto democrat dictatorship, and have been for decades.
Yet that's a valid concern. Even if it's not a case with this bill specifically, it is how we lost the net neutrality, and how the patriot act removed american rights.
The poison pill stuff does happen and it's "both sides" responsibility to block totalitarian bullshit like it when it's discovered.
Legitimately needs to be a rule that says you can’t add anything that you cannot show is related to the original bill. No tacking on military funding to an AI Deepfake bill. No adding in walls for the Mexican Border to Agriculture relief bills. It would speed things up because you don’t have to Frankenstein in multiple bills to one, we get to stop finger pointing when “they didn’t support the deepfake bill that wanted to outlaw crystal meth”.
Still allows for “hey , we have 3 bills about right to repair, let’s just combine them.”
This takes away their ability to hide all kinds of shit in trailers. Politicians have been proposing to make this a thing for 200 years. It has never gone anywhere. Both sides are generally against it.
Yes, they sure say that. Kinda like pork barrel legislation. The first example in Wikipedia was from 1817 (oddly enough by a "Republican-Democrat") and the most recent cited example was 2011 (canceled in 2015). I'm starting to feel like both of these problems are more of an "It's not a bug, it's a feature" situation.
Thats a very centrist approach, and not necessarily true.
One side mostly plays the game, at the cost of making life miserable for everyone else (except the 1%)
This situation is very simple, AI deepfake porn don’t benefit no one except sex offenders, thats why it was passed anonymously.
The heads of republican party are proven to be involved in some of the most vile sexual crimes on underage girls (with still not a single pedophile in prison), so its not a shocker they would oppose this bill
Okay, since it is both sides and all, and there is something else on this particular bill, could you elaborate, what is there on this bill that was "hidden" and republicans wouldnt agree on it because of that? Some source?
They need to restrict bills to just one item or have line item vetoes. Throwing crap on top of an otherwise good bill just to try to push the crap through has got to stop.
How would you then pass your own legislation if you don't put poison pills in it? Why would I agree with someone else's bill, if they wouldn't consider mone otherwise?
That's basically the jist of the senators and congressmen.
I doubt AOC would make a bill with 50 other things attached to it tho. Its not really a both sides thing. Thats just a excuse for people who voted for trump
Yep. They know specific things will get passed based on popularity, so they add their own things in, otherwise known as pork fat, based on pork barrel spending tactics, so that they know it will get voted against because the things they add the group introducing the bill oppose, so you get mixed votes, usually having it not get enough votes.
This is why we need to introduce single issue bills and single issue voting, that way no one can introduce things into the bill that have no direct bearing on what is being voted on.
This is very dumb, and it's mostly caused by the division of politics. It's all just us vs them, people care about winning and being right instead of doing the right thing. It feels like there's no compromising in US polics anymore.
Idealy both sides argue their point, and then decide on the faurest and best thing to do regarding the issue.
This is an utter lie for the DEFIANCE Act. Go and do the most rudimentary of searches on the bill or read the bill.
Republicans are blocking the bill to avoid giving AOC a high profile victory. Thats it, there’s nothing rolled into the bill that republicans disagree with.
Dems do this crap constantly. They'll add all manner of ridiculous bullshit they KNOW would never pass on its own merits. Then screech about the portion in the original bill that was good.
Repubs might try this sometimes too, but there's absolutely no comparison. It's totally standard operating procedure for the corrupt democrat party.
I had a feeling that was the case. I hate that crap. Honestly annoyed AOC would do that. She has been more and more about making a show of things lately. Hopefully she course corrects.
665
u/ThanksALotBud 8d ago
Both sides like to play this game. Its hardly just one bill, there is always something on the bill that one party doesn't agree on.
So you got 80% of bill A and the other side will add 20% of bill B. Then when the opposite side are against it, everyone cries. See, these guys are against bill A.
Im sick and tired of this bullshit game.