any bill around internet monitoring and censorship : saving the precious children from horrible paedophiles act of 20xx
any bill for actually taking care of the physical and intellectual well being of children : bill 50906-3
"Wow, you want to FEED kids to keep them in good health? I'd rather spy on everyone in the hopes of catching someone under 18 accessing 18+ material. That's where REAL good health comes from."
They care about their SPIRITUAL health. Physical health doesn't matter compared to an eternity of hellfire, you heathen.
The suffering means we are doing it right!
Oh God, I'm having flashbacks to growing up in an evangelical community
The sooner the kid dies the less likely they are to sin.
You're saying that once we figure out how to baptize unborn babies, abortion is back on the menu?
OK that was a joke but I'm curious how the more radical Christian groups would react to that. Like you can basically guarantee a soul an instant ticket to heaven, why wouldn't you? Though I guess you'd have to find whichever group actually genuinely believes the spiritual war stuff instead of using it as a cover for a demographic war.
Ban abortion, also makes it illegal to find food to kids or homeless
Anytime I see something like the Safe Children and Everyone Who Wants One Gets a Puppy Act I know my life is about to get worse
"The Sunshine Protection Act", oh is this some bill against pollution or something. "This bill makes daylight savings permanent."
Oh fuck off, that's too grandiose of a name for that. I mean I want that, but you aren't protecting sunshine ...
I don't have a problem with that act having a grandiose name because axing daylight savings time is something I can totally get behind no matter where I am.
Yes. I will finally only drive into the sun half the year instead of the whole year.
I always thought it was weird, that the one argument for Day Light Savings is that we get more sun. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong. I'm pretty sure the amount of daylight isn't magical dictated by clocks and time created by humans.
Abolish day light savings time. Stick to standard time like the rest of the world does.
They also have to have a cute acronym, so it fits neatly into a headline:
SODA (Scorn Owners of Dogs Act)
Hmm licorice
I'm gonna vote in favor of ANAL.
Aren't we all?
How else would the brown licorice industry survive?
It's wild this is even allowed in your country. You'd think a bill should relate to a single topic or area so you can actually vote on it, and people can easily see how reps voted on certain topics.
Right?
But if they did that, how else would they be able to get money for some random project in their district. Or tack on something everyone is against because the optics of going against the stop Stop Child Rape bill are so bad.
If there is no answer for "how does this help a politician?" then it's probably not going to happen.
The funny part is public initiatives are bound to this rule, depending where you live
??? How am I supposed to get pork-barrel projects for my district? That would never work! People should be forced to vote for things they don't agree with to get things they do agree with. That's the American way.
Also this bill bans soda
One of America's dumbest legislative mechanics.
Something something Patriot Act
Ah, yes. Citizens United.
Oh silly you. This bill is called free soda for all because it's trying to free this dog that happens to be named soda.
And by "free," they mean "free from its mortal coil."
It's because Congress doesn't have a single subject rule.
43 states have it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule
E: There are some good reasons why Congress doesn't have it. First, Congress does soooooo much stuff that it might be utterly impossible to do it one subject at a time. That's why we have omnibus bills for things such as spending, which includes the budgets of all or most federal departments. Along with reconciliation and appropriations bills, it's how a lot of business gets done and how compromises are made. A single subject rule would clear up a lot of the pork, but night just grind things to a hault just by the shear number of bills that would have to be written, debated, and voted.
Another reason is that it opens a whole new category of litigation as to whether or not the title of the bill matches the subject of the bill; the standard is one of whether the title alone would give fair notice as to the range of subject matter in the bill.
Yeah, I wish we had this for a long time in Congress.
any irl examples of this?
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Abortion? Lmfao they called it that? x⸑x
If it wasn't America I would guess it was to protect future generations of kids in war zones.
It has a specific exception for abortion but was largely a ploy to elevate fetuses legal status to a party capable of being wronged under federal law and so lay the groundwork for future challenges to abortion. The pretense was that violent crimes against pregnant women should get punished more harshly because there’s two victims.
Turns out they didn’t need it, they could just pack the courts and get what they wanted without all the trouble.
Indiana SB52.
It's claimed to promote the local economy.
It actually just bans bus rapid transit in Indianapolis.
It's claimed to have the support of the businesses and the people living in the area.
It actually has no support outside of Andy Mohr Auto Group.
I don’t think I can think of something stupider than banning busses in a city (if I’m reading this right)
https://fox59.com/news/bill-trying-to-stop-blue-line-headed-for-third-reading-in-senate/
Bus rapid transit uses dedicated lanes for the busses, which is what they're banning. State senator Aaron Freeman is the one behind it and he's a complete moron.
They're also not banning it statewide. The law applies to all cities with a consolidated city-county government... Which is decided by state law... Which has been changed over the years so it only applies to Indianapolis.
Oh, they also announced a "compromise" with the city a few weeks ago! In exchange for changing nothing, they also agreed to prevent the city from banning rights on red downtown!
Sure, the pedestrian fatality rate is through the roof and prohibiting rights on red would do a lot to bring it down, but can you imagine how horrible it is to make a driver wait an extra three seconds at a stoplight?!
This has been a friendly message from the same party that also decided back in 1985 that the city would no longer build any new sidewalks or street lights.
And the same party that signed into law RFRA.
And the same party that's trying to both ban gay marriage and refuse transgender recognition.
Wow... thank you for listing out such an all-star set of goals. I mean, I have heard more lately about laws against no right turns on reds, but the rest are fabulous!
Patriot Act
I've said it before and I'll say it again Democracy simply doesn't work
for those who are downvoting, this is a simpsons reference about almost this exact same thing.
if you’re downvoting because it’s a simpsons reference, ouch!
First past the post representative "democracy" sure as hell doesn't.
I'm not certain it's a valid inference to throw all possible forms of truly democratic government through the drain along with it.
antenna man
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
