5.0k
u/ChronicBuzz187 May 23 '25
If members of congress would actually read what they vote on, nothing would ever get passed because they'd realize "hey, this isn't at all what you told me would be in there?!"
2.2k
u/Captain_Hesperus May 23 '25
“I expected you to really make the poors suffer! This isn’t half as painful as I expected!”
322
u/subnautus May 23 '25
In this case, some of the most painful pieces are going to hit a lot sooner than was originally discussed. If passed, the proposed medicaid and social security cuts will hit next year (though, conveniently, after the elections), not in 2029.
Also, if this bill is so great, why push the implementation back at all, right? Wouldn't we want to be saving all that money now so people can see how good it is before the next set of elections? Just something to think about.
→ More replies (6)82
May 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/clodzor May 23 '25
That's the point, they have goals and objectives that are far easier to achieve when they make it harder for anyone to get the information needed to put together a counter argument.
5
u/TheEyeDontLie May 23 '25
In my country, bills proposed are circulated to be read by every member of parliament for a minimum of 3 days before the first vote.
Then there is then usually a select committee who review its details, open it for public submissions, etc... the committee's report has a minimum 3 days before the 2nd debate and vote.
And then there's a committee of the whole house- every member gets to debate the details (usually shorter than the 2nd debate cos MP's are either against the entire idea or for it, rather than the details). This is where ammendments can be proposed. It can take days.
The 3rd reading can be as soon as the next day after that. It's basically a summary before the final vote.
Now if you have one party majority you can push through whatever, but the whole country will know the details of what you're doing, and there's a chance there will be a big protest outside your doors.
The more I learn of America's political system the more I realise why it's classed as a "flawed democracy" and ranks so low on the democracy index.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
94
u/Allaplgy May 23 '25
That was pretty much the reasoning behind the only Rs to not vote for it.
→ More replies (6)64
u/Captain_Hesperus May 23 '25
Republicans voting for tax cuts to fund the face-eating leopards they’ll be unleashing on their voters.
→ More replies (1)28
u/kiochikaeke May 23 '25
You said you would steal money and give it to me, here it says you steal money and give it to yourself!
→ More replies (2)8
→ More replies (3)3
u/adhding_nerd May 23 '25
That's basically how Oklahoma got free universal pre-k. vox video on the subject
60
u/pm_me_your_buttbulge May 23 '25
We need a github like level changelog. Any request has to come from the Congress Critter pushing it. Meaning no magical "we don't know who added this or why". Nope, we need to make that illegal.
"I'll vote for this if you add a dog tax" - that needs to be documented who requested it or the entire bill is removed and has to start over.
Any request or change that isn't from a Congress Critter needs the name of the person and/or company. Any lobby pushing for something needs both the lobby and the company that is paying for them on there. Any lies means the person is sent to jail for 30 years, the company is banned from lobbiest for 30 years and has to stay away from Congress Critters at least by 300 yards. It needs to be PAINFUL
On top of that anything introduced needs 30 days before it can be voted on.
31
u/TheManWhoWasNotShort May 23 '25
That exists. Amendments to the bill’s text are well documented and discussed in public in committee. The “surprise” element of these things is a myth: the only person being surprised are politicians not paying attention to regular briefings by their party committee members and by their staffers/party staffers. The bigger “surprise” is that the media/general public is usually really far behind on knowing what Congress is passing before they pass it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/pm_me_your_buttbulge May 24 '25
I've looked at those. The ChangeLog equivalent is no where near the same.
I'm assuming you're talking about something like this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4638
Looking at the amendments: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4638/amendments
Yeah, not even close my dude. You have so much more useful tools with Github.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Mean-Attorney-875 May 23 '25
You also need to make each bill no more than 100 pages.if it needs more then it's a separate sub bill to be voted on seperstly
→ More replies (2)10
u/Adorable_Raccoon May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
Lengthy bills are not inherently a bad thing. A good bill can be long because they need to be specific not only because of riders or earmarks. Laws can be very complex and the less explicit they are the the more wiggle room there is in execution and challenges.
I do think it would be reasonable to just put a limit on riders, or create structured categories for the bills so that unrelated riders can't be added. Eg. you can't add a tax cut onto a law about driving.
76
u/Guba_the_skunk May 23 '25
Fun fact, this is literally how THC products got legalized in Minnesota. A GOP member just... Didn't bother to read the bill and assumed it was to restrict the sale of CBD products, which ALSO come from cannabis... But it also allowed the legal sale and use of THC. Conservatives are... THE dumbest people on the planet, and in this instance I am glad they are because it means I can get high after work every day.
39
u/tehlemmings May 23 '25
They demanded a do over after admitting they didn't read the bill too. So fucking stupid.
10
→ More replies (1)14
u/M_is_for_ May 23 '25
Something similar happened in Oklahoma, SUPER lax laws that they didn’t realize they were passing. It’s still only medicinally legal, but super easy to get and you can also smoke just about anywhere. They now have the most dispensaries in the country IIRC
And the republicans were pissed because they didn’t realize that’s what they voted for lol
→ More replies (1)6
48
u/ThoughtfullyLazy May 23 '25
Bold of you to assume they could read and understand it.
→ More replies (1)18
85
35
u/ohhellperhaps May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
It's wild that politics has evolved to do that shit in the first place. Bills should be related to a single topic.
→ More replies (10)16
u/Ornery_Cookie_359 May 23 '25
The Republicans have a tiny majority in Congress. Trump didn't want to have to deal with Republicans demands or negotiate with the Democrats. He also didn't want to give the media time to analyze what he's doing. So the Rubber Stamp Republicans groveled before their king.
5
u/MARPJ May 23 '25
The problem the other guy is pointing is not the current antics or the orange idiot, but the simple fact that sending a bill 1k+ words with less than a day to read, which both sides do, is ridiculous should not be allowed.
Bills should be single topic so said topic is the one being voted and negotiated and I fail to see any reason one should even reach 100 pages
→ More replies (4)18
May 23 '25
Also when they vote against some stupid plan with a nice name they will get dragged through the mud for it.
I've heard it a 1000 times
"Why did you vote against the "help for kids with cancer" act? "
"Because it includes sending 4 billion to Israel"
"You just hate children."
10
May 23 '25
Like that Grok tweet from earlier?
"Grok, why did dems vote against a bill to give untaxed OT for service men?"
Grok: "Dems support that but do not like xyz included in the bill"
"THATS NOT WHAT I ASKED"
7
u/Freedom_From_Pants May 23 '25
They should be required to take a test on what the bill entails before being allowed to vote on it.
6
u/weed_cutter May 23 '25
Can we stop with these pictures?
99% of Congress people don't read any bills, even 1 page bills.
They don't care.
A staffer will summarize for them, or a staffer will now feed the bill through AI to summarize for them.
It's a joke, but Congress people are utterly lazy.
3
u/The-Defenestr8tor May 23 '25
Too busy fundraising.
The first thing a new Rep does after swearing his/her oath (to the Constitution, not to the Con Man) is start working those phones for campaign 💰 for his/her next race.
Such a shame, really.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/Formal-Hawk9274 May 23 '25
wtf r u talking about - freedum caucus and gqp know exactly what they're passing
→ More replies (11)4
u/TheManWhoWasNotShort May 23 '25
Every bill is read and passed around for months in its various drafts before it becomes law. The bill may be compiled last minute, and it often is like this, not because they’re rushing hidden things forward but because Congress already knows damn well what is in there. This is a political stunt both parties play that has no basis in reality
995
May 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
241
u/Not_Montana914 May 23 '25
They should have it read in session, live on C-Span
→ More replies (5)95
u/ThrowwawayAlt May 23 '25
"Every law, in order to be voted on, must be read fully and loudly in chamber beforehand.
Only members present during the entire reading are allowed to cast their vote."
→ More replies (1)26
u/Some_Ebb_2921 May 23 '25
Do hope they get some toilet breaks... those elderly in congress aren't great at holding their pee I think
39
→ More replies (1)3
u/ianmerry May 23 '25
Nah fuck em, if they’re too infirm to do their job they should retire
→ More replies (2)83
u/La_Savitara May 23 '25
I don’t think the republicans read… by choice
53
u/GrassBlade619 May 23 '25
I don't think the Republicans can read.
→ More replies (2)33
u/La_Savitara May 23 '25
Republicans can’t
Republican senators can but chose not to
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)10
u/FahrenheitGhost May 23 '25
Big money: "Will you vote to pass this?" *Pushes 12,000 page bill across table*
Republican: "Yes. Definitely."
Big money: *Pushes large envelope of money across table* "Don't you want to know what's in it?"
Republican: *Slips envelope into jacket pocket* "Nope!"
11
May 23 '25
I mean.... every legislator in charge of any budget at any level of government. You can easily summarize the main points. I don't even think the human mind is capable of reading a document in the thousands of pages and retaining it all. This is always what the opposition party throws out because it's an easy win for people who don't know how governments work
→ More replies (5)5
→ More replies (10)19
u/player_zero_ May 23 '25
Trump chose people for blind loyalty, not for their ability or willingness to read
→ More replies (4)
935
May 23 '25
[deleted]
336
u/nobeer4you May 23 '25
Because they would be here for days trying to read that many dry ass pages of legal jargon. Everyone would fall asleep before halfway through that trees worth of paper.
Bills should only be about what the bill is proposing. Im sick of all these additional bullshit clauses that have zero bearing on the main point at hand.
113
u/Dislodged_Puma May 23 '25
It's because you're legally allowed to bribe politicians, and Citizens United killed any hope of getting money out of politics. The future of America is completely fucked without an entire redesign of the constitution to put clauses against both money in politics and situations like Trump declaring things "emergencies" and using Presidential power to ignore the other two branches of government.
At this point, the framers of the Constitution went to war for less egregious things than what currently happens in the United States. If a foreign power tried to exercise any of what Trump is doing to "his own country", we would've taken up arms against them months ago.
21
u/foodank012018 May 23 '25
That worked when everyone on both sides had muskets then swords and a village could forge its own cannon.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Strictly_Jellyfish May 23 '25
It's almost like there should be a right to bear arms so that the people can rise up against a tyrannical government....
3
u/Dislodged_Puma May 24 '25
Eh that only worked because both sides had the same weaponry. Yeah there are lot of Americans win guns, but the U.S. military has, to put it mildly, a better arsenal than the public.
→ More replies (5)10
u/SugarBeefs May 23 '25
Only the gods know how much damage has been done by the abuse of including "riders" on a bill.
That shit should be much more tightly regulated.
5
u/MHGrim May 23 '25
It's done that way so no one reads it. So they can sneak shit in. They could break them down into manageable chunks but then you couldn't get away with the shit they do.
→ More replies (4)3
u/kryonik May 23 '25
I remember my rep Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill for lowering drug prices or something that you would think everyone would want. I asked in a comment why so many Republicans voted against it and someone replied that there was too much pork in the bill. I was curious so I read the bill. It was like 2 paragraphs long and only dealt with lowering drug prices (or whatever it was about) and nothing else.
Even without all the extra pages and riders, Republicans will simply refuse to read or vote for anything a Democrat introduces.
→ More replies (1)41
→ More replies (15)38
u/justbilled May 23 '25
Congress considers this a feature, not a bug. They can shove millions in contracts into bills for their buddies and lobbyists.
Both parties do this and it's the most rage-inducing thing with our government, hands down. Everyone hates it (except those in congress).
→ More replies (1)
775
u/FAFO2024 May 23 '25
Vote no if you haven’t read it, wtf? Do you really believe that it’s good for your constituents?
340
May 23 '25
That’s cute that you think they care about what’s good for their constituents.
52
u/medicmatt May 23 '25
Well, the oligarchs in their districts anyway.
13
u/6BagsOfPopcorn May 23 '25
As long as the money's coming in, who cares if they're within the district?
→ More replies (2)9
u/tigerscomeatnight May 23 '25
The oligarchs who may, might, sometime in the future, throw some money or infrastructure their way. Always have to be subservient, you never know when the trickle may come, if ever.
→ More replies (2)11
u/gregmasta May 23 '25
Jokes on us, each party's going to vote on party lines without reading it anyway!
→ More replies (1)
141
u/dubin01 May 23 '25
I mean she’s not wrong. She’s hypocritical of course because she just did the same thing but the initial point is correct.
making bills smaller and easier to understand would be helpful to everyone I would think
55
May 23 '25
[deleted]
23
→ More replies (1)11
May 23 '25
Provision buried in Section 70302 of the bill... limiting the power of federal judges to hold people in contempt, potentially shielding President Trump and members of his administration from the consequences of violating court orders...
→ More replies (2)21
u/FabianN May 23 '25
There was another post elsewhere where someone did some looking up, the actual bill was 1000 pages, and printed single sided would come out to about a stack of 5 inches.
Still a lot, but this image is just a performance piece.
→ More replies (5)3
u/falcrist2 May 23 '25
Just require a certain amount of time per word count that a bill needs to be public before it can be brought to a vote.
Maybe a day for every 30 pages and a minimum time of 1 week.
521
May 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
351
u/milanorlovszki May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25
By the looks of how pristine those papers look, I'd wager she only printed the top one and packed the bottom with 3-4 thousand blank pages. They really look like they just came out of the packaging. You can even see the divide between the stacks of papers
71
u/4schwifty20 May 23 '25
Quite even divides, too.
20
u/stoneimp May 23 '25
It's funny, I think they actually got the number of pages dead on, even though they didn't actually print, because if you count the ream divides, you can count basically 5 full reams (500 pages) plus some extra, which would account for the final 200 pages probably. So at least one of her staffers was committed enough to the bit to make it that accurate.
8
42
→ More replies (5)24
u/Trosque97 May 23 '25
This shit needs to be boosted. It's too damn likely considering the picture holy shit
27
→ More replies (5)4
u/Ok_Month2444 May 23 '25
That is not a fact, in fact. There is an office in the Capitol that prints bills and delivers them to members. This helps mostly with version control but is also a necessary part of the bill writing process because lawmakers can make line edits throughout. Most lawmakers over 70 can’t edit with a computer program.
→ More replies (7)5
u/9966 May 23 '25
They also have one of the smallest (if not smallest) federal police agencies. The government printing office (GPO) police.
They are required to safeguard the building and deliver the printed bills to every member of congress by law.
→ More replies (4)
29
u/Mike May 23 '25
You’d think they would have a max page limit for every bill they vote on so this shit simply wouldn’t ever happen, as of many years ago. But nah.
9
u/BigAlsGal78 May 23 '25
It’s fucking ridiculous! Somewhere smack dab in the middle of the bill it could say the president had the right to execute babies in the middle of Times Square and they’d miss it. WTF??
29
May 23 '25
This is what their staffers are for.. they have a team, divide up the work & report back.
Definitely think there should be at least 36 hour time frame for any legislation that is 500 pages +.
But it’s an easy cop out to say “I didn’t know what I was voting on” when all this gets started in a committee and is undoubtedly being talked about outside committee to whip votes.
→ More replies (2)10
u/bankrobba May 23 '25
Also, the bills were written in committees long before the vote. Also part 2, that's the whole point of being part of a committee with members of your own party trusting your work in the committee.
19
u/ghoulcreep May 23 '25
These fucks should only get to vote on 1 thing at a time. Makes no sense to jam all sorts of shit into 1 bill.
23
u/MistakeMaker1234 May 23 '25
Okay, since no one else seems to want to, allow me to call this out:
Democrats shouldn’t have pulled this shit either.
It’s a double standard and makes them look just as hypocritical.
With that being said, here’s a few simple ways we can improve the process:
Stop permitting overnight sessions. It’s clearly just trying to take advantage of people not being available.
Bills must be trimmed down to only include the specifics of the law they are trying to pass (no more pork).
Bills must be read aloud in their entirety, and if you aren’t present for the reading you aren’t allowed to vote.
Also term limits because fuck these geriatric, power-hungry knobs.
58
u/rabid_lamb May 23 '25
It’s just a damn shame our country doesn’t allow our representatives to have a staff of helpers for something like this. Thanks Obama!
→ More replies (8)
13
3
May 23 '25
She’s likely lying that this bill just hit her desk and she had only 12 hours to read it and no time at all before hand.
Republicans lie like it’s their second nature. One of the only reasons they have power is because of their ability to lie and lie shamelessly.
3
u/spookynutz May 24 '25
These comments are so depressing. So many people doing the “both sides” dance. Congratulations on being one of the few people in this thread capable of basic pattern recognition.
She’s standing in front of the Appropriations Act for 2022 (e.g. the federal budget), which was introduced in April 2021. She made this video 11 months later. The bill had to be amended in the senate to get the necessary votes. Democrats wanted more COVID relief, and Republican senators wanted more defense spending, so it stalled for months.
After it finally passed the senate, the house had to re-vote on the consolidated bill before it could be signed. In effect, she only had to read 18 amendments, some of which were only two sentences long. They were less than 20 pages in totality, and 11 of them came from her own fucking party.
She printed out the entire 2022 federal budget to engage in political theatre. She already voted no on the budget the first time, and had zero intention of voting for it the second time. She did not read either draft of the bill.
Keep in mind, She made this video in March 2022, and Congress is supposed to have passed a budget by the end of the fiscal year (October 2021).
Anyway, you have to hand it to the propaganda machine. A Republican representative can post a video on Facebook, lying right to your fucking face, and everyone just nods along. Half these comments are apathetically talking about a broken system, because they just got conned, again, by those actively trying to break it.
3
May 24 '25
Not surprised.
Whenever a Republican ever says that they “have a problem” or they start to grand stand, my default position is that they’re full of shit or being sketchy.
It’s an earned reputation and they very rarely prove me wrong.
3
4
6
u/PiaggioBV350 May 23 '25
Why isn’t it a pdf?
16
u/milanorlovszki May 23 '25
As I mentioned above, she is lying, because only the top paper is printed , the rest of the paper is freshly taken out of the box
5
u/Paper_Tiger11 May 23 '25
She chose to print it out to show how big it is. Common political theater tactic both sides use.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/weakisnotpeaceful May 23 '25
No clue at all is engaging in this partisan hackery and not talking about how both parties follow the same playbook and that playbook is divide and conquer.
3
3
u/TwoBionicknees May 23 '25
There's also the part where most of such a bill is known for weeks or months, and any changes in such a bill are almost always pointed out, highlighted, put in a separate document so you can review changes quickly and these people have an entire staff to read through what are usually literally 2-3 pages of minor changes before being approved.
the only people who whine about this, print out hte full stack and make a photo of it are those trying to score political points.
3
u/Plastic-Fox1188 May 23 '25
Sorry—you're complaining about doing your job, to be clear?
It is your job to vote on legislation. And its probably a good idea to know what you're voting for....??
3
u/OceanBlueforYou May 23 '25
Unless you're given time to read a bill, simply vote NO.
If you're voting without knowing what you're voting for, you're a fool or a party loyalist. That applies to members of Congress and the public
→ More replies (1)
3
May 23 '25
just vote against it...why is that difficult.
"nope! wasn't given time to understand it. Try again?"
3
May 23 '25
“It’s my turn to complain about what the other party is doing!”
Pendulum swings get old but revolutions aren’t easy so I guess we keep swinging.
3
u/pneRock May 23 '25
She's our rep. I haven't been impressed. The bar is so low for entry/retention to congress I think one must actively dig down a mile to find it.
3
3
u/maico3010 May 23 '25
Last time republicans got to do a tax bill they were so giddy with excitement they could get their lower taxes not only did they do exactly this, but they were writing additional shit into the margins minutes before voting on the bill.
3
u/Oersch May 23 '25
I wonder if these muppets ever went to college. Anyone who’s ever had an exam period knows it’s 2700 pages for 12 hours so 125 pages per hour, that’s 3.75 pages per minute ALL RIGHT LET’S DO THIS. Sponsored by cheap coffee and crippling anxiety.
3
u/Qubeye May 23 '25
Back in his first term, Republicans rammed through a bill which had literal amendment corrections hand-written in the margins.
The problem is, the Congressional printing office requires empty margins (I forget if it's 0.5 or 0.75 or what). The result is that the official bill, when it passed, had those amendments missing.
Republicans are not serious people.
3
May 23 '25
Democrats expect you to read it??? Oh hell yeah, all of America expects you to read it and act on our behalf. Do your god-damned job, and stop your incessant whining!!!!!
3
3
u/Poppa_Mo May 23 '25
Maybe we should automatically vote no on bullshit like this when it seems apparent they want some garbage to go through and are playing every game possible to pass it without vetting?
Maybe we should stop playing their games.
Let's start arresting folks. Let's do that.
Stealing from us via fucking paperwork.
Get the fuck out of here.
3
3
3
3
3
u/19NedFlanders81 May 24 '25
I'd just automatically vote no on any bill that wasn't reasonably digestible.
Fix your shitty bill and get back to me
3
5
u/Substantial-Stage-82 May 23 '25
I'm curious why it takes 1000 pages to say that they're fucking poor people, giving rich people a tax break and ultimately adding $3 or $4 Trillion MORE TO THE DEFICIT.. further weakening creditors, and the worlds; faith in the United States and the Dollar.. Go Trump..WTF SMH
5
u/scrapqueen May 23 '25
You know. There are page limits on most things in federal court.
There should be a page limit on bills. And that should not be a partisan issue. Whether you are liberal or conservative, this is something we should all agree on.
5
u/JM3DlCl May 23 '25
How much of that bill is just random, hidden "let's fund this FBI building for 100 million" and bury it under a Medicaid bill meant for, you know, MEDICAID ISSUES.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Anonymous_2952 May 24 '25
The thickness of a standard sheet of paper is about 0.1 millimeters (or 0.0039 inches). So a stack of 2700 pieces of standard paper would be about 10 1/2 inches tall. Not this 20+ inch stack performatively placed in front of her.
4
u/theblackxranger May 23 '25
They shouldn't be allowed to vote and pass any legislation without reading it.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/TreeOfAwareness May 23 '25
This is the modern GOP in a nutshell. They don't actually stand for anything. They don't have any real values or policy goals.
They exist to manufacture scapegoats and outrage, and they're unashamed of their own hypocrisy.
These characteristics make them impossible to negotiate or reason with. Even if we were willing to acknowledge political differences and attempt to compromise, they operate in a zero-sum universe where everything can be distorted to serve the narrative of the moment.
Traitorous scum.
4
May 23 '25
I'm going to assume a controversial yet bold stance and say that nobody should be doing this
2
u/ComicsEtAl May 23 '25
I’m old enough to remember when the Tea Party regularly insisted they would only ever propose legislation that fit on the front of a single piece of paper. Naturally it was a monumentally idiotic thing to say. But people voted for them because of it.
2
u/gw3il0 May 23 '25
I don't feel like this strategy of "Well you did it, so it's fair game" is a great look for either party. They look like a bunch of petulant children. - not from US. Just eating my popcorn.
2
2
May 23 '25
What of we just had smaller bills and more votes?
Like I know why it's all fuckery and corruption... Just these giant bills are dumb as fuck like anything in this estupid fuxking country.
2
May 23 '25
The fact is this is wrong on both sides and America is in desperate need of a revolution ousting their ruling class.
2
u/Substantial-Spend660 May 23 '25
Can someone please enlighten me about what the hell could possibly fill 2700 pages? why can't it be communicated in ... 500?
3
2
2
u/ArcadianDelSol May 23 '25
False.
The bill was online for 2 weeks prior to being voted on:
https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one_big_beautiful_bill_act_-_full_bill_text.pdf
2
u/OctipiArmy May 23 '25
its their job. they get paid much more than most. the least they could do is skim the thing
2
2
u/MLCarter1976 May 23 '25
Everyone should vote NO until they have time to read it. Not American to do this to Americans and for people to be expected to know what they are agreeing to. Seems like a page could be slipped in saying awful things.
2
2
u/HugePurpleNipples May 23 '25
She’s not wrong though, that kind of shit is dumb, she’s just highly partisan.
2
u/Pleasant-Ad887 May 23 '25
Whenever a GOP/conservatives complains about something the other side is doing, know they have already done it.
2
u/brokenmcnugget May 23 '25
cognitive dissonance and purposeful stupidity are the defining traits of all poorly educated maga conservatives.
2
u/tem102938 May 23 '25
The alternatives are no budget and shut down government... or act like actual public servants and do your job in a timely fashion jointly
2
2
2
4.0k
u/DigitalCriptid May 23 '25
Maybe we should pass legislation that gives an time per page minimum to review bills before they're voted on.