Submitted by themollusk t3_10jnxd4 in Pennsylvania
Comments
susinpgh t1_j5lvo7h wrote
This article is a bit disingenuous, right? It seems like the Republicans are attaching several amendments to the bill that would further their political agenda. One of these amendments is about passing a Voter ID amendment. More detail here:
themollusk OP t1_j5m6y4r wrote
It's extremely disingenuous.
The Rs want to do this now for two reasons:
-
because they want to deprive the residents of 3 districts of a say in this matter
-
they put all three amendments into a single package that will be voted on in one go. One vote. They're hoping that the sexual abuse amendment can be used as a poison pill to force Ds to vote for the whole thing.
Fuck em. I hope this dies.
TMax01 t1_j5ooxj3 wrote
>disingenuous
You misspelled "Republicon".
ArcOfADream t1_j5lwx3t wrote
That's how it reads to me too - (R)s wants their two bills (on voting rights and regulatory reform) as part of a package deal with the bill that suspends the statute of limitations on abuse lawsuits rather than passing each as a separate vote on their own "merits". It certainly seems about as slimy and underhanded as it gets.
susinpgh t1_j5lxnmz wrote
Modus operandi for the Republican party.
NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j5lzhie wrote
>It seems like the Republicans are attaching several amendments to the bill that would further their political agenda.
Is your position really meant to imply Democrats have never packed blubber into their bills? Just want to make sure I understand your position before I attack how asinine that is.
susinpgh t1_j5m0jkt wrote
The Republicans are doing it right now. And no, I don't think Democrats are completely innocent of some of these things.
The Republicans in PA have practiced this and other ham-handed policies for quite awhile, though.
If you want to read implications into that, have at it.
NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j5m0v0r wrote
>And no, I don't think Democrats are completely innocent of some of these things.
...
>The Republicans in PA have practiced this and other ham-handed policies for quite awhile, though.
You either accept both parties have done it since the dawn of this nation, or you're basically a hypocrite. There's really no way around that. If you want to point fingers, the further back you go in history, the harder it is to prove who did "wrong" first.
susinpgh t1_j5m24ex wrote
Oh, gee! Let's play the both parties game! Man, I'm sure you can find someone to argue this point with. I'm not interested, though. So, enjoy your evening.
NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j5m2h0z wrote
That's the thing though... it is both parties and pretending one is more guilty than the other is naive at best. I can go online right now and find dozens of examples of overloaded Dem bills. Come on, man. You're pretending.
laughingmeeses t1_j5oai7g wrote
Both parties didn't exist at "the dawn of the nation". You've some ignorance showing.
NEBook_Worm t1_j5on6kf wrote
Neither current party did. But both current parties are guilty of packing pork onto bills.
laughingmeeses t1_j5onlwa wrote
Made no claims regarding pork barrel legislation. Simply pointing out that it's a flatly ignorant statement.
NEBook_Worm t1_j5oy4pl wrote
Except it's a completely relevant, factual statement
laughingmeeses t1_j5oyg9g wrote
Which is perfectly fine. Don't be dense. My only assertion was that the two parties didn't exist upon the founding of the US. Either you're intentionally being obtuse or your reading comprehension regarding my comments is absolute shit.
its_laps t1_j5m1g3m wrote
Does that make it right? The constitutional amendment is about childhood sexual abuse victims not some bill about how to regulate electricity or something.
Is your position meant to imply that you are defending those who sexually abuse children?
NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j5m3piu wrote
At least my question made logical sense following what had been said. Not a single thing I said leads to me defending those who abuse children. If you really feel that question was appropriate, have a nice day, don't bother replying!
its_laps t1_j5m437r wrote
No, to you it made logical sense.
Now you know how the rest of us felt when we read your garbage comment.
Edit: they have now blocked me. Funny after all that complaining about wanting to discuss things.
NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j5m4eyb wrote
My dude up there said, quote, "It seems like the Republicans are attaching several amendments to the bill that would further their political agenda." I merely asked if he believed that Democrats have never done that? If you can't connect the logical dots from a person saying 1 party does something to me asking if they believe the other party doesn't do that same something, then we're not going to get anywhere.
its_laps t1_j5mdhde wrote
The premise of your question is asinine and the point of your comment was to disgustingly defend the actions of Republican politicizing child sexual abuse victims.
You have made an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering criticism with criticism — but never actually presented a counterargument to the original disputed claim.
NEBook_Worm t1_j5onalh wrote
Ahh personal attacks. The last refuge of those with no logical counter arguments.
Spankywanky225 t1_j5opn5d wrote
Haven’t you learned you can’t argue with hypocrites on this sub?
NEBook_Worm t1_j5oy1hm wrote
Oh I know. Occasionally though, I get a kick out of exposing their hypocrisy. I find the current classified documents debacle delightful.
Spankywanky225 t1_j5pqb9b wrote
It’s great to see. Keep up the good work, I like it 👍🏻
No-Professional-1884 t1_j5o4pqy wrote
Nice whataboutism.
Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? If not put your tongue back up Trump’s ass.
NEBook_Worm t1_j5onfuy wrote
So you can't actually offer a logical counter argument to the perfectly valid assertion that both parties are equally corrupt...and instead, of course, resort to personal attacks.
Shocking.
No-Professional-1884 t1_j5qv472 wrote
Your assertion is on par with the guy stating that you always need an umbrella when it rains on Day 3 of Katrina. It’s marginally relevant, at best, but he’s so happy to be part of a conversation.
What you are asserting as logic is little more than generalization. It’s mediocrity at it’s finest.
[deleted] t1_j5q1j6p wrote
[deleted]
MetaphysicalMayhem t1_j5m9brl wrote
Right. The amendment bill is a shit sandwich. There’s still infectious shit there, in between the white Wonderbread slices. Or maybe it’s an open-faced sandwich with one layer of bread and two slices of shit.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5n69rx wrote
Wonder if the "single subject" rule will be considered.
TMax01 t1_j5oosba wrote
The amendments to the bill putting additional proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot aren't related to the "single subject rule", which only governs how the proposals appear on the ballot, not the legislation putting them there.
nttnypride t1_j5otyra wrote
That’s what the Republicans say, but I think that question is before the PA courts now to decide.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5phf9x wrote
From PennCapital-Star: "[Legislators] said that the amendment package would violate Pennsylvania's single-subject rule for legislation, which stops lawmakers from grouping multiple unrelated subjects into one bill. A constitutional amendment proposing a bill of rights for crime victims, which voters approved in 2019, was ruled unconstitutional by SCOPA in 2021." [See Marsy's Law kerfuffle.]
TMax01 t1_j5pxxvi wrote
Unfortunately, this additional information does not actually clarify the matter. Apparently there are two distinct "single subject rules", one pertaining to legislation, another to ballot initiatives. To add to the confusion, the legislative rule is part of the state constitution, and the rule that proposed amendments to that constitution, properly identified as the separate vote requirement, is often referred to as a "single subject rule".
Regardless of all that, since the legislation being voted on relates to the 'single subject' of proposed constitutional amendments, I can't see it being an issue. As long as the ballot allows each proposed amendment to be voted on separately, it doesn't matter if the legislation contains multiple proposals any more than it does if several amendment proposals appear on the same ballot, as long as they are not bound together so that they must all be affirmed or rejected as a group.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5n5ovx wrote
Tell 'em to suck it, Speaker Rozzi.
drunkmonkey176 t1_j5p8aoj wrote
Trash can only be trash.
GraffitiTavern t1_j5m6wn7 wrote
Trying to poison pill the child abuse amendment with a bunch of other restrictive amendments is such manipulative horseshit.