Maybe try sending her a voting rights bill that isn't almost 800 pages?
The Glass-Steagall act of the Great Depression was 35 pages long and managed to keep banks in check until the Clinton admin overturned it in order to allow banks to "invest" at the risk of the US taxpayers. Not a good idea, was it? A much weaker version of Glass-Steagall was hurriedly put into its place. Written by two of the worst offenders in that 2008 debacle, the replacement, the Dodd-Frank bill, is/was 8843 pages long and does little. C'mon.
What I'm getting at is that so many of these wonderful Democrat Party *ideas* are written into thousands of pages. Why? it takes months of non-stop reading even get through that many pages! These bills mean well, of course, but they are loaded with many other totally unnecessary and unrelated political "wishlist" items that get a free ride on the elegant intent of the basic thrust of the idea. These yummy items are hidden inside these hundreds and thousands of pages. Not fair! This practice also makes the GOP look bad in the headline-based news media we all inhabit (and which Dem Party likes.) "GOP appears to be rejecting the Dems grand idea!"when in fact many are objecting to the masses of little unrelated stuff within the huge bill. Stuff that ultimately costs all of us a lot of money, stuff that is complicated and specific to so many other unrelated issues and is also hard to manage. Inflation comes naturally when we need to print out more money than we have. It's all debt anyway so heavily tax, ultimately cost us more in interest.
I'm desperately afraid of the new GOP Taliban forming around so-called "ProLife" yet am worried sick that the Dems will do it again with Roe.
In this climactic moment they SHOULD be quickly passing a lot of short tight bills, 15 pages that even a few GOP's can branch over to. Start with something simple like "protect the rights of people to buy contraceptive medicine". Then add another short sweet bill like abortion illegal unless "death of the mother" (one tiny bill) or how going on the offensive with an idea to include men in the various punishments. Seek shared responsibility for the creation of an embryo, register all the DNA of people whose sperm fertilizes the act (privacy laws now mean nothing! Use it against them.)
But no. I am already seeing the 100% reliance on female outcry, petitions, protests, and donation requests (that donate to what exactly?)
Back to length of DP bills: Complicated bills are hard to monitor and afford. The most recent example was the Covid relief bill where something $163billion went unaccounted? That's what the Washington Post reported a month ago. No one is spending 3 months reading these vast treatises except people looking for loopholes and new ways to make a sneaky buck. What do you expect?
100%, Gunny. These bloated omnibus bills are horrendous. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Democrats do not push any number of small, simple, single issue bills that have widespread support. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices, make the age of 21 the minimum to buy a rifle, require universal background checks for gun purchases, allow abortion up to 15 weeks with an exception for the life of the mother past that, raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year, etc, etc. They might be able to peel off enough Republican votes to actually get something done and, if not, have popular issues to run on against them in the next election.
Does she? Or does she refuse to vote for the voting omnibus bill the House Democrats are pushing? IтАЩm fine with a maximal voting rights bill but a conservative position that itтАЩs too big is fair.
Without getting into the specifics of any particular bill about any particular topic, voting against a bill does not necessarily mean opposing the topic of the bill.
Still missing the point, huh? I am only responding to your false implication that a specific vote is equivalent to the legislator's position on the topic.
I made no such claim. For example, in some states, citizens can write legislation and with enough signatures, get it put on the ballot. Almost without exception these propositions are so poorly written that they should be voted down even by, and maybe especially by people who avidly support the goal of the proposition. The unintended consequences of a poorly written law may be worse than no law at all. I am not talking about Cheney or VRA at all.
How is she a patriot when she refuses to vote for voting rights protections?
Maybe try sending her a voting rights bill that isn't almost 800 pages?
The Glass-Steagall act of the Great Depression was 35 pages long and managed to keep banks in check until the Clinton admin overturned it in order to allow banks to "invest" at the risk of the US taxpayers. Not a good idea, was it? A much weaker version of Glass-Steagall was hurriedly put into its place. Written by two of the worst offenders in that 2008 debacle, the replacement, the Dodd-Frank bill, is/was 8843 pages long and does little. C'mon.
So, the length of the legislation was the problem? That means she authored a shorter version and put that on the floor?
Why did she vote to confirm Judtices who were openly hostile to the Votibg Rights Act? It's almost like she only wants some people voting
What I'm getting at is that so many of these wonderful Democrat Party *ideas* are written into thousands of pages. Why? it takes months of non-stop reading even get through that many pages! These bills mean well, of course, but they are loaded with many other totally unnecessary and unrelated political "wishlist" items that get a free ride on the elegant intent of the basic thrust of the idea. These yummy items are hidden inside these hundreds and thousands of pages. Not fair! This practice also makes the GOP look bad in the headline-based news media we all inhabit (and which Dem Party likes.) "GOP appears to be rejecting the Dems grand idea!"when in fact many are objecting to the masses of little unrelated stuff within the huge bill. Stuff that ultimately costs all of us a lot of money, stuff that is complicated and specific to so many other unrelated issues and is also hard to manage. Inflation comes naturally when we need to print out more money than we have. It's all debt anyway so heavily tax, ultimately cost us more in interest.
I'm desperately afraid of the new GOP Taliban forming around so-called "ProLife" yet am worried sick that the Dems will do it again with Roe.
In this climactic moment they SHOULD be quickly passing a lot of short tight bills, 15 pages that even a few GOP's can branch over to. Start with something simple like "protect the rights of people to buy contraceptive medicine". Then add another short sweet bill like abortion illegal unless "death of the mother" (one tiny bill) or how going on the offensive with an idea to include men in the various punishments. Seek shared responsibility for the creation of an embryo, register all the DNA of people whose sperm fertilizes the act (privacy laws now mean nothing! Use it against them.)
But no. I am already seeing the 100% reliance on female outcry, petitions, protests, and donation requests (that donate to what exactly?)
Back to length of DP bills: Complicated bills are hard to monitor and afford. The most recent example was the Covid relief bill where something $163billion went unaccounted? That's what the Washington Post reported a month ago. No one is spending 3 months reading these vast treatises except people looking for loopholes and new ways to make a sneaky buck. What do you expect?
100%, Gunny. These bloated omnibus bills are horrendous. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Democrats do not push any number of small, simple, single issue bills that have widespread support. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices, make the age of 21 the minimum to buy a rifle, require universal background checks for gun purchases, allow abortion up to 15 weeks with an exception for the life of the mother past that, raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year, etc, etc. They might be able to peel off enough Republican votes to actually get something done and, if not, have popular issues to run on against them in the next election.
So, she opposed massive spending bills and tax cuts by Trump?
Cheney is in the House. The House does not vote to confirm Justices.
Does she? Or does she refuse to vote for the voting omnibus bill the House Democrats are pushing? IтАЩm fine with a maximal voting rights bill but a conservative position that itтАЩs too big is fair.
So, she's proposed a counter that guarantees voting rights fully as the Voting Rights Act did?
How is it "fair" to oppose guaranteed voting rights for call Americans?
Without getting into the specifics of any particular bill about any particular topic, voting against a bill does not necessarily mean opposing the topic of the bill.
So, she authored or co-sponsored which Bill to re-instate the 1965 VRA?
Still missing the point, huh? I am only responding to your false implication that a specific vote is equivalent to the legislator's position on the topic.
Provide proof Cheney supports a new version of the VRA. She voted against a new version, which you claim doesn't mean anything
I made no such claim. For example, in some states, citizens can write legislation and with enough signatures, get it put on the ballot. Almost without exception these propositions are so poorly written that they should be voted down even by, and maybe especially by people who avidly support the goal of the proposition. The unintended consequences of a poorly written law may be worse than no law at all. I am not talking about Cheney or VRA at all.
Yep
YouтАЩre proving my original point, Paul.
It's not a fair position to oppose the Voting Rights Act. It's a racist position