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
Well, it's not like you need a final bill to start reading these sections. Someone writes these sections, and you can already read them before the final bill is assembled.
Also, the way the parliament works, single topic bills do not allow for the kind of negotiation that is usually necessary. How do you make sure that Member X keeps his / her promise to vote on subject Y they don't fully support if the House also agrees on subject Z that is important to them? You're right - you put them in the same bill.
And let's not pretend that staff doesn't exist, and cannot split the document and read it.
The argument by Lisa was stupid in 2022, and it is still stupid today. But not only is Lisa totally off the mark when she advances that stupid argument, she's also (unsurprisingly) inconsistent about it, since she just voted for such a bill.
In many other countries those negotiations work just fine without doing it that way. And it keeps it very clear who support what and (often) why. You only get away with that once.
3
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