comment
stringlengths 1
8.79k
| context
listlengths 0
817
|
|---|---|
>
When I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment.
That was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard??
This makes me sad.
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males."
] |
>
Not unlike our arteries
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad."
] |
>
Sounds like my arteries
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad.",
">\n\nNot unlike our arteries"
] |
>
The canal was finally opened up by inserting a stent.
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad.",
">\n\nNot unlike our arteries",
">\n\nSounds like my arteries"
] |
>
Dag nabbit!
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad.",
">\n\nNot unlike our arteries",
">\n\nSounds like my arteries",
">\n\nThe canal was finally opened up by inserting a stent."
] |
>
No, soon to be rancid melted butter
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad.",
">\n\nNot unlike our arteries",
">\n\nSounds like my arteries",
">\n\nThe canal was finally opened up by inserting a stent.",
">\n\nDag nabbit!"
] |
>
Did they really have nothing to contain a mass failure? I imagine flooding the environment with butter isn’t good. Did the construction of the factory not include a dike or special channels? That’s poor planing and engineering.
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad.",
">\n\nNot unlike our arteries",
">\n\nSounds like my arteries",
">\n\nThe canal was finally opened up by inserting a stent.",
">\n\nDag nabbit!",
">\n\nNo, soon to be rancid melted butter"
] |
>
|
[
"This is one of the most Wisconsin sounding titles I've ever seen",
">\n\nNeeds an \"ope\" in there somewhere.",
">\n\nWe live outside of Chicago and my son and I realized yesterday that we say Ope all the time after watching a Charlie Berenice video.",
">\n\nI used to be adamant most Minnesotans don't have an accent you can really hear until I realized when I talk shit it sounds like I'm playing beer league hockey in Saskatchewan.",
">\n\nSomehow, I read this in a Minnesotan accent, despite only hearing it once or twice in my life.",
">\n\nI'm convinced It's the easiest accent to pick up. I visit my family in Northern Wisconsin for like one weekend and I've got a thick accent for the next three weeks when I get home. Same with my mom but she grew up there so that makes more sense. I never lived there so I have no idea why it rubs off so easily.",
">\n\nFortunately another fire in Maine caused a lobster holding tank to boil.",
">\n\nIt’s like the story of Reese’s peanut butter cups, but tastier.",
">\n\nAt first, I thought it would be a funny piece of history. I just felt sad and upset over the victims and the negligence leading up to the events.",
">\n\nOh boy wait until you find out about the Bhopal disaster.\nIt's both amazing and infuriating what companies will try to get away with in the name of cutting costs unless they're forced and handheld by the government every step of the way.",
">\n\nBut toxic gas killing thousands is less funny than a flood of molasses",
">\n\nAnd the phrase molassacre writes itself. Literally the first word that ever popped in my head upon reading it.",
">\n\nYes! I was going to say, they are fortunate it only melted and didn't ignite. Butter and similar fatty spreads are a very potent fuel source for flame. The Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, which killed 39, was caused by a truck of margarine.",
">\n\nSee, that's the problem, they didn't use real butter. /s",
">\n\nJust keep pouring near boiling water down the pipes. That's what I did when an idiot roommate clogged a drain with bacon grease.",
">\n\nAdd a little dawn in there.",
">\n\nSeconded, it needs to saponify. \nEdit: I didn't know what saponify meant read below comments.",
">\n\nYou would add lye for that.",
">\n\nLye -- the crucial ingredient. Ancient peoples found their clothes got cleaner if they washed them at a certain spot in the river. WHY? Because, human sacrifices were once made on the hills above this river. Year after year, bodies burnt. Rain fell. Water seeped through the wood ashes to become lye. The lye combined with the melted fat of the bodies, till a thick white soapy discharge crept into the river. The first soap was made from the ashes of heroes. Like the first monkeys shot into space.",
">\n\n\nThe first soap was made from the ashes of heroes.\n\nPoetry",
">\n\nSure is. Fight Club has an excellent screenplay.",
">\n\n\nwhich ultimately clogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\ni can’t believe it…..",
">\n\nBreaking news it appears to not be butter",
">\n\nI can't believe it's hot buttah.",
">\n\nI’m dead. I’m alive again. Seriously has ANYONE told Lubalin?? \nP.S. Lubalin’s music is awesome.",
">\n\nIs this available?",
">\n\nYes it is",
">\n\nPlease leave me alone, we are sleeping",
">\n\n??",
">\n\nRather than continue to recreate this, I’ll just say that it cracks me up every time. Glad to see another Lubalin fan here.",
">\n\nMy next reply was going to be “REMIX! Blue cheese has mold in it.”",
">\n\nPaula Deen would love this recipe.",
">\n\n\"Just a touch of butter\" ... /clogs city drains",
">\n\nbutter",
">\n\nBring in the dancing lobsters!",
">\n\nwww.amandaplease.com",
">\n\nFor a moment you had me thinking that the website was still up - I spent way too much time there as a kid",
">\n\nthat website was actually up for years and years, I remember looking at it in like 2016, although all the links on the Wayback Machine are broken",
">\n\nAnd me without my dump truck full of popcorn.",
">\n\nThis reads like a Plague Inc. headline",
">\n\nor a cookie clicker one.",
">\n\nWhen we have fires like this in Kentucky, bourbon flows into the rivers and at least has the decency to get the fish drunk before they die.",
">\n\ncontain the spread\ni giggled at that one.",
">\n\n\n...the Portage Fire Department, emphasizing that \"the butter runoff and heavy smoke slowed access to the structure.\"\n\nI just can't imagine the unexpected joy at being the person to get to use the phrase \"butter run off\" in a serious news article.",
">\n\nIt's not the first time that phrase has been used in our state.\nAn even better one from the Madison butter fire:\n\n“I had butter in places a guy shouldn’t have butter by the end of that night.\"",
">\n\nMost WI headline ever.",
">\n\nThat's just a load of rich creamery butter.",
">\n\nWill bring a bucket and ladle.",
">\n\nYeah, came here to say this has happened before. It's that big white building by culver's on cottage Grove. Or was, before they rebuilt.",
">\n\nWe called it Cottage Cheese road for quite a while. Also, everything that melted and pooled up went rancid and the area smelled terrible.",
">\n\nMmmm gutter butter...",
">\n\nRead this in Homerese. Excellent.",
">\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.",
">\n\n\nMy dads from here he said he used to work here too! The name Portage refers to Lewis and Clark having to traverse the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. It was considered for state capital at one point.\n\nIt was Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet in 1673, but the rest of that is accurate. They were exploring the Mississippi/ western Great Lakes. It is said that the just under 2 mile Portage between the two rivers was the only time they had to cross land the entire trip.",
">\n\n\"We need 50,000 lobsters, stat!\"",
">\n\nI know we’re not supposed to cry over spilled milk, but what’s the protocol for butter?",
">\n\nIs there another sub for headlines that are just really American?",
">\n\nIf there is, I need to know",
">\n\nOpe, it died of clogged arteries.",
">\n\nUff da",
">\n\nLike human arteries.",
">\n\nNah, modern nutritional science doesn't really support that. People used to think fats, grease, & oils clog your arteries because they clog drains. But it doesn't work like that. Your arteries aren't sewage drains, and you body doesn't pump that stuff directly into your bloodstream, it gets broken down & digested & refined for nutrients first.\nVery similar to the conventional wisdom that \"fat makes you fat,\" when more modern diets are discovering that no, actually it's carbs that make you fat. \nOur digestive system isn't just some funnel that just passes everything through that we give it. Our digestive system is an advanced chemical factory, producing specialized chemicals to break down other chemicals into nutrients, over many phases. And that's also why it's so hard to figure out: yesterday's conventional wisdom is today's bad science.",
">\n\nExcess calories make your gain weight. On avg, Fat is 9cal/g while carb is 4. If you eat the same amount of fat and carb, fat still make you \"fatter\". I think the notion of carb makes you fat is maybe because people can overeat carb more easily than fat.",
">\n\nSure, but that's part of a diet too. Carbs are easier for the body to process into energy, so they get processed first, and any leftover energy gets stored as fat. Your body has the DNA to know how to create enzymes that process carbs, fat, & protein, but because of \"genetic expression\" your body will train itself to your diet: if you eat a lot of carbs, your digestive system will optimize itself for processing carbs, not fat.\nSo low carb diets intend to actually shift your whole metabolism from being a carb-burner, to a fat-burner. And here comes the important difference: carbs are easier to convert to energy, but it's not long lasting. They create a temporary spike in your blood sugar that falls off quickly. Fat on the other hand, while harder for your body process, burns slowly. Not spiking your blood sugar but giving a long, slow release of energy. When you hear people say, \"I'm starving!\" or \"man I pushed lunch off for too long, I gotta go eat right now or I'm going to pass out,\" it's likely because their body is tuned to be a carb-burner, their blood sugar is dropping, and their stomach wants more carbs.\nSo a side effect of a high-fat, low-carb diet is actually being less hungry throughout the day, and having more stable energy. But the \"low-carb\" part of it is essential, that's probably why earlier high-fat diets like Atkins failed.\nAnd finally, about calories: yes calories are important. And yes, counting calories can help you lose weight. But it's not the only way. The low-carb diets I described aren't based on counting calories at all, you eat as much as the approved foods as you want when you're hungry. And people lose weight doing it. There's an old story about a guy who so wanted to prove that \"calories are all that matters,\" so he made himself a challenge to eat nothing but Twinkies for about a month. And he did in fact lose weight once it was all over. But I don't know a single person who would call that \"healthy\". There's a difference between a healthy diet and \"losing weight\". There's many things you can do to lose weight that aren't exactly healthy: freezing your fat cells to destroy them so they don't grow anymore, surgeries, etc. To me losing weight should be all about getting more healthy. Some people think of diets as a temporary thing to lose weight and then abandon forever. But to me it should be about lifestyle change, that keeps you healthy for the rest of your life.",
">\n\nI feel like you’re either obese or absurdly jacked with no possibility of in between lol",
">\n\nLol, I'm right in between. I've got a bit of a belly, and some love handles that are becoming noticeable. But, idk pretty average besides that. I wear somewhere between a L and XL t-shirt size.",
">\n\nIf those are North American shirt sizes with your body description that most likely places you in the overweight-obese zone.",
">\n\nI'm a bit overweight, yes. But not obese. I've got maybe, 20-30 lbs. to lose?",
">\n\nI’m not a huge fan of the BMI but for average people it works well enough and according to that you are in the upper limits of overweight trending on obese unless you are over 6ft tall.",
">\n\n6ft 1in\nEdit: Even if I had my perfect \"slim\" body, I'd likely still be a Large. I'm a fairly big dude. So actually I have to ask, how did you calculate my BMI without the 2 most important factors, height & weight? You still only have one of those.\nAnother question, why are we even talking about this? If I was a big fat dude, or a super fit dude, you wouldn't believe any of the nutritional science I brought up? Or if I'm neither of those?",
">\n\nThey need Drain-O by the rail tank car and fast!",
">\n\nI was so sure it was going to be cheese",
">\n\nNow all we need is a professors house, a big ball of popcorn, and a laser!",
">\n\nGod fucking damnit you guys, we all promised to cool it with the dairy shit this year.",
">\n\nButter, in fact, did not make it better",
">\n\nYa know, sometime you just know you've been on the internet took long. This is one of those times.\nWho the fuck am I gonna tell this to now sheesh. I need to tacobout it.",
">\n\nNow, we just need a fire at the popcorn warehouse.....😎",
">\n\nif only the corn crib next door had also caught fire then there would've been a hootenanny",
">\n\nthis isn't quite as fun as the beer factory that exploded in London",
">\n\nI briefly flirted with becoming a chef and I know that all you can do is keep whisking.",
">\n\nThey butter fix it",
">\n\nGod I love this state",
">\n\nSomewhere in Wisconsin, someone slapped their knees, said, \"Well, guess I best be getting going,\" chatted for 40 more minutes in the driveway, tried to leave the neighborhood but found the canal flooded with butter-water, parked in the driveway again, knocked on the door, and said, \"Ope! Well, I guess I better be coming back in, seeing as the canal is flooded with butter and I can't get out.\"\n...and they went back to chatting the rest of the night, drinking beer and eating cheese.",
">\n\nThere are so many interchangeable verbs and nouns in this headline that I genuinely thought \"Melted butter clogs\" were some weird footwear you can only find in Wisconsin",
">\n\nSame",
">\n\nI can’t believe this. I know the great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese, but Wisconsin butter get smart.",
">\n\nefforts to contain the spread...lol",
">\n\nThey'll just have to find a Whey around it",
">\n\nI was reading \"clogs\" as the Dutch footwear kind of \"clogs\" and was very confused. Didnt figure it out for way too long. Just a word salad",
">\n\nQuick.....get the popcorn",
">\n\nI read this as \"melted butter clogs anal....Wisconsin\" and clicked. Very disappointed.",
">\n\nGoing to need a lot of popcorn to go with that...",
">\n\nKnow what would solve this problem? Crab Legs. Wouldn’t even have a chance to harden.",
">\n\nHeh...\"contain the spread\".",
">\n\nOpe!",
">\n\nGreat, another reason for yet another butter price hike",
">\n\nNot again!",
">\n\nSounds like udder chaos.",
">\n\nButter coming out our kitchen taps here in Wisconsin is commonplace. What do the rest of you pour in your kids morning dairy glass?",
">\n\nA glass of cheese?",
">\n\nThey are butteryfucked.",
">\n\nNow doctors in Wisconsin have an adequate example to describe the condition of their patients' arteries.\n\"Remember that fire in the butter factory? Your carotid artery looks like the sewage canal afterwards.\"",
">\n\nFire at an egg laying facility meant $5~10/dz eggs. Is this going to spike butter too?",
">\n\nWhere were you during the Butter Floods of ‘23?",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s not butter",
">\n\nThey couldn't resist this gem:\n\nclogged the waterway despite crews' efforts to contain the spread",
">\n\nMelted Butter Clogs Main Arteries - news at 11",
">\n\n10/10 headline",
">\n\nAn apt metaphor for all of our arteries",
">\n\nHowever nutrition science now knows there's no direct causation between saturated fats and clogging arteries. The big problem lies in the fat oxidization and subsequent death of \"cleaning\" cells, which creates hardened deposits. A person who eats lots of butter but has burns its calories with good exercise routine and has a generally low oxidation level (not smoking or getting exposed to high levels of pollution, for instance) will be much less susceptible to this problem than someone who eats zero saturated fats but is the opposite in the other aspects.",
">\n\nI didn't think it just poured into our arteries and hardened there. It's just my Wisconsin joke.",
">\n\nI know lol, but bad 90s science (much of it sponsored by the sugar lobby) did a number on our collective understanding of how fat and coronary diseases work, and I like to remind people that we've gone past that. Risking sounding too annoying.",
">\n\nLol. I get it. I'm a PT by trade and I put PSAs all over reddit any time I see the opportunity.\nHere's my most common and I'll take the opportunity again: Always get up and down from the floor every day while you are young. Sit on the floor once in a while. You will keep the flexibility not only to get up from floor or chair (number one reason people lose independent living ability) but also the range of motion that reduces the risk of falls.",
">\n\nThat's surprisingly interesting. I'll hope to integrate it in my routine.",
">\n\nIf you do then think of me, a random redditor, when you are 85 years old and living independently : )",
">\n\nI will do some memory exercises too to ensure I'll remember.",
">\n\nI remember that! Smelled soooo bad for a long time. My cousin has a picture of it from a roof top near by. When it was burning, we could smell it from behind Cub Foods East off hwy 30. That area has changed so much since I was young.\nEdit:\nThis is new!?",
">\n\nI am completely unsurprised that this has happened before",
">\n\nI love this comment.",
">\n\nAmerica has historic canals?? Never knew that",
">\n\nHeard the name but didn't know much about it.",
">\n\nNot the first time excessive amounts of dairy clogged Wisconsinites arteries.",
">\n\nThat would smell delicious for an afternoon and absolutely rank for months.",
">\n\nI know a guy who is a corporate attorney. He told me a story about this exact thing happening years ago..\nI guess it isn't that rare.",
">\n\nAdd lye and create large chunks of soap!",
">\n\nThis is more oniony than Shrek's breath. Bravo.",
">\n\nTitle reads like a dirty mom joke",
">\n\nI didn’t know storm drains could be historic.",
">\n\nClogged up tighter than a Wisconsinite’s left anterior descending artery.",
">\n\nWe had this on the east side of Madison in the late 90s. Butter fire burned for 3 to 4 days.",
">\n\nKing Harlaus: horny grip",
">\n\nwhy don't these news articles have pictures of these things, it's so lazy. we all want to see that canal full of butter!",
">\n\nDump in a bunch of pancakes, syrup, and coffee upstream, then things should loosen up and flush out.",
">\n\nI saw no hole filled with butter and feel ripped off",
">\n\n\"Contain the spread\" lmao",
">\n\nNot even the first time for this in Wisconsin. I think in the 1970s a warehouse in Madison full of cheese butter and hot dogs caught fire and sent a river of cheesy butter weenies down the street.",
">\n\nLol. You shouldn't laugh but you do because of how absurd this is.\nWisconsin: Our Streets Are Paved With Butter",
">\n\nAh yes, the ol’ butter fire of ‘23",
">\n\nAnother facility that makes food goes up in flames",
">\n\nIf only the Lobster factory nextdoor had burnt down at the same time too. Would have been delicious 🦞 🧈",
">\n\nGreat way to stave off overland lobster attacks.",
">\n\nThat is going to fucking reek come summertime. Nothing like literal tons of spoiled dairy products to make your week.",
">\n\nNeeds a bread factory fire now",
">\n\nI had to read that three times.",
">\n\nDid the vegans set it on fire?",
">\n\nTo be pedantic about it... ;-) \n... I'm guessing it was the recondensed/recoalesced solid butter in the cold waters that caused a problem, not melted butter. Melted butter would just wash away.",
">\n\nDid I ever tell you about the Butter Flood of '22?\nsigh Mom, grampa forgot to take his meds again.",
">\n\nshame on CBS for using this headline without having a photo of the clogged canal.",
">\n\nThe article fails to mention why the canal is historic. Anyone know why?",
">\n\n\"Despite efforts to contain the spread...\" I see what you did there.",
">\n\nsmelled wonderful tho",
">\n\nCan some native English speaker explain why it's Melted and not Molten?",
">\n\nOh wow thanks!",
">\n\nOofta!!",
">\n\nWhat an unfortunate churn of events. There really is no margarine for error at the Butter factory.",
">\n\nSounds like it’s eloquently talking about someones colon . Lmao.",
">\n\nBimbo trucks arrived at the scene and began making the worlds largest roux…",
">\n\nA haunting metaphor for the arteries of Wisconsin citizens.",
">\n\nNow this reminds me of one of the most interesting stories a teacher told me in school: After a similar fire in Germany in a rural area, molten butter filled up the ditches around nearby fields, and it was mixed with firefighting water. Now a company producing ice cream bought all of that content, pumped it out of the trenches, filtered and reused the butter. \nThis story stuck in my head.",
">\n\nI'm here for not wasting food and I bet it added a nice earthy flavor",
">\n\nWhen the state has a heartache basically.",
">\n\nJust like our veins.",
">\n\ncardiovascular disease explained",
">\n\nAnd this is why we can’t have nice things",
">\n\nI really want this drone shot, it should be medical posters for clogged arteries!",
">\n\nLook at all that retirement grease!",
">\n\nHumans be like \"Your mother, my breast milk\" as they kill and eat babies to keep the breast milk flowing.\nIn other news 3c of warming predicted by 2100",
">\n\nWisconsins gluttony is finally catching up with them. Imagine being so in love with cheese, grease, and meat that it affects your infrastructure.",
">\n\nI can't imagine the smell...",
">\n\nMmm the smell of butter cooked though",
">\n\nLike butta!",
">\n\nGet some flour, sugar, chocolate chips and make some disgusting chocolate chip cookies",
">\n\nMmmm cookie canal",
">\n\nMmmmm",
">\n\nClogging arteries AND canals!",
">\n\nNot again?! A butter storage building in nearby Madison caught fire years ago and flooded the area with butter.",
">\n\nMy dnd goblin has been broadline evil for pages of the novel as dark powers overtake him.. His focus is a stick of butter that he keeps chilled in his ushanka",
">\n\nThe responders tried adding flour, but that just made a roux.",
">\n\nMelted butter entered the drains... Congealed butter clogged them*",
">\n\nThat’s a Jay Leno headline if I’ve ever hear one.",
">\n\nI bet it smelled good",
">\n\nI can't believe its not water.",
">\n\nDid it smell amazing??",
">\n\nUnfortunately you'd better stop with that popcorn mess of the butter, so that you could have it for a movie theater actually, so that you could drink a soda and then eat a candy and then-- burp Excuse me. Eat popcorn. So- grunt I was in a movie theater and I eat popcorn with a- seasoning cheese- and then, I drink a cherry sprite in the movie theater. And that was ago when I was actually well about that. Plus I would rather- eat chocolate, as well. So, that butter mess; clean it up please. So, I don't wanna cause any more troublemakers.",
">\n\nNow that is an Oniony headline.",
">\n\nAs an adult it’s nice to know there is still magic in the world",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that would happen in Pawnee, Indiana.",
">\n\nTryin to be like Boston eh",
">\n\nThis sounds like something straight out of Discworld.",
">\n\nMolten inatead of melted no?",
">\n\nAnd will definitely jack up your arteries.",
">\n\nThat's gonna be dairy difficult to clean out",
">\n\nI feel like I need to be eating cheese curds and pasties while reading through these comments.",
">\n\nI wish I was there to smell it..",
">\n\nHonest question: shouldn’t the phrase be: Molten butter clogs (…).",
">\n\nGood is just the butter and not the ammonia used as refrigerant.",
">\n\nI can believe it’s butter",
">\n\nNever fear, for I, Albread, is here! Hahahahaha...\n...sorry.",
">\n\nQuebec just sent 200 tons of cheese curds to help the population of Wisconsin in this dire time.",
">\n\nHillary's Buttery Males strike again?",
">\n\nDangerously Cheesy!",
">\n\nAnyone who has ever had to scrape and clean cold butter off a plate knows this is no joke. It's food glue.",
">\n\nClogged and clogged.... all I can find are pictures of thin layers of butter floating on the water, In my mind I was preparing for some Carl Barks-epic loads of butter covering the whole landscape. But that is going to smell for a few years. Someone got a link to a more epic picture?",
">\n\nI didn't even know this happened. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was an old story from when this happened in Madison .",
">\n\nbuttery males",
">\n\nYep the real news. Get the stuff off. I’ve seen enough of it.",
">\n\nThanks to this fire, I can smell Wisconsin’s dairy air from here.",
">\n\nClogs arteries even if they're a mile wide",
">\n\nPeak America",
">\n\nmore clogged arteries in Wisconsin. Water is wet. More at 11.",
">\n\nSome bacon grease should clear that right out",
">\n\nr/CastIron has entered the chat.\n“But did it slide off like an egg?”",
">\n\n/r/dontputyourdickinthat",
">\n\nNature got an artery clogged.",
">\n\nI can’t believe it’s butter.",
">\n\nwho's going to post this to /r/keto first?",
">\n\nWhoever gets stuck cleaning out the clogs: \"I can't believe it's butter!\"",
">\n\nThis is the saddest news so far this year. What a waste :(",
">\n\nI haven't see a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.",
">\n\nwhere's augustus gloop when you need him.",
">\n\nThis should put the saturated fat debate to rest",
">\n\nWhy are they making shoes from butter and why are they ending up in the sewer?",
">\n\nButter clog\nClog with the butter in it",
">\n\nImagine these are your arteries",
">\n\nSo what you’re saying is.. buttery males.",
">\n\nWhen I left the department we were starting to consider environmental impact factors when deciding to fight a fire or let it burn specifically regarding runoff. Insurance will replace buildings insurance can not replace the environment. \nThat was a while ago. Has this not evolved into a standard?? \nThis makes me sad.",
">\n\nNot unlike our arteries",
">\n\nSounds like my arteries",
">\n\nThe canal was finally opened up by inserting a stent.",
">\n\nDag nabbit!",
">\n\nNo, soon to be rancid melted butter",
">\n\nDid they really have nothing to contain a mass failure? I imagine flooding the environment with butter isn’t good. Did the construction of the factory not include a dike or special channels? That’s poor planing and engineering."
] |
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
KYIV, Ukraine - The head of the Russian Orthodox Church called Thursday for a 36-hour Christmas cease-fire in Ukraine at the end of this week, but his appeal looked unlikely to bring any breakthrough in halting the war that began last February with Russia's invasion.
Elsewhere, the head of NATO said he detected no change in Moscow's stance on Ukraine, insisting that the Kremlin "Wants a Europe where they can control a neighboring country."
Taking Bakhmut would not only offer Putin a major battlefield gain after months of setbacks, it would also rupture Ukraine's supply lines and open a route for Russian forces to press on toward key Ukrainian strongholds in Donetsk.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Russia^#3 Russian^#4 Kremlin^#5
|
[] |
>
"It's bringing love, don't let it get away!"
"Break its' legs!"
|
[
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nKYIV, Ukraine - The head of the Russian Orthodox Church called Thursday for a 36-hour Christmas cease-fire in Ukraine at the end of this week, but his appeal looked unlikely to bring any breakthrough in halting the war that began last February with Russia's invasion.\nElsewhere, the head of NATO said he detected no change in Moscow's stance on Ukraine, insisting that the Kremlin \"Wants a Europe where they can control a neighboring country.\"\nTaking Bakhmut would not only offer Putin a major battlefield gain after months of setbacks, it would also rupture Ukraine's supply lines and open a route for Russian forces to press on toward key Ukrainian strongholds in Donetsk.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Russia^#3 Russian^#4 Kremlin^#5"
] |
>
He's a russian troll
|
[
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nKYIV, Ukraine - The head of the Russian Orthodox Church called Thursday for a 36-hour Christmas cease-fire in Ukraine at the end of this week, but his appeal looked unlikely to bring any breakthrough in halting the war that began last February with Russia's invasion.\nElsewhere, the head of NATO said he detected no change in Moscow's stance on Ukraine, insisting that the Kremlin \"Wants a Europe where they can control a neighboring country.\"\nTaking Bakhmut would not only offer Putin a major battlefield gain after months of setbacks, it would also rupture Ukraine's supply lines and open a route for Russian forces to press on toward key Ukrainian strongholds in Donetsk.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Russia^#3 Russian^#4 Kremlin^#5",
">\n\n\"It's bringing love, don't let it get away!\"\n\"Break its' legs!\""
] |
>
|
[
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nKYIV, Ukraine - The head of the Russian Orthodox Church called Thursday for a 36-hour Christmas cease-fire in Ukraine at the end of this week, but his appeal looked unlikely to bring any breakthrough in halting the war that began last February with Russia's invasion.\nElsewhere, the head of NATO said he detected no change in Moscow's stance on Ukraine, insisting that the Kremlin \"Wants a Europe where they can control a neighboring country.\"\nTaking Bakhmut would not only offer Putin a major battlefield gain after months of setbacks, it would also rupture Ukraine's supply lines and open a route for Russian forces to press on toward key Ukrainian strongholds in Donetsk.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Russia^#3 Russian^#4 Kremlin^#5",
">\n\n\"It's bringing love, don't let it get away!\"\n\"Break its' legs!\"",
">\n\nHe's a russian troll"
] |
This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.
This is just another vaporware scamstarter
|
[] |
>
Yep. Just a way to burn up grant money.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter"
] |
>
This is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money."
] |
>
tldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)
let's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff."
] |
>
Yeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe"
] |
>
EPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.
A team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.
When exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.
The main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.
Modest yield
In its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.
The next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.
To produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary."
] |
>
I guess it is to late to buy shares?
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials."
] |
>
Please integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?"
] |
>
Yes sorry I forgot that part 😭
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!"
] |
>
I saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭"
] |
>
Am I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?
I feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!"
] |
>
Uhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure."
] |
>
Yes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?"
] |
>
If we took water from the air, water from the ocean would just evaporate and replace it. There's no way humans could ever take enough water from the air that the ocean wouldn't be able to replenish it. Especially since we'd be using the hydrogen to burn or run through a fuel cell which turns it right back into water.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?",
">\n\nYes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety."
] |
>
As I said, this has never been done before on a big scale. Humanity has a massive hunger for energy and this hunger is growing rapidly.
If the scale is big enough, this can cause an involuntary geo-engineering effect.
This technology means, we are transporting water from a to b. Hydrogen cars, hydrogen planes, hydrogen trains, hydrogen power plants, Industry fueled by hydrogen etc.
Hydrogen is transportable all over the world. We will not just use it at one place.
The extraction will probably take place in areas with high humidity, like Southeast Asia, and been used in areas with high energy demand, like Western Europe.
This can cause shifts in rainfall, humidity, etc.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?",
">\n\nYes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety.",
">\n\nIf we took water from the air, water from the ocean would just evaporate and replace it. There's no way humans could ever take enough water from the air that the ocean wouldn't be able to replenish it. Especially since we'd be using the hydrogen to burn or run through a fuel cell which turns it right back into water."
] |
>
A hurricane locks up so much water that it drops 2.4 trillion gallons of water per day. Even if every car had hydrogen fuel cells, we would be locking up about 60 billion gallons at a time. Notice the scale difference?
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?",
">\n\nYes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety.",
">\n\nIf we took water from the air, water from the ocean would just evaporate and replace it. There's no way humans could ever take enough water from the air that the ocean wouldn't be able to replenish it. Especially since we'd be using the hydrogen to burn or run through a fuel cell which turns it right back into water.",
">\n\nAs I said, this has never been done before on a big scale. Humanity has a massive hunger for energy and this hunger is growing rapidly.\nIf the scale is big enough, this can cause an involuntary geo-engineering effect.\nThis technology means, we are transporting water from a to b. Hydrogen cars, hydrogen planes, hydrogen trains, hydrogen power plants, Industry fueled by hydrogen etc.\nHydrogen is transportable all over the world. We will not just use it at one place.\nThe extraction will probably take place in areas with high humidity, like Southeast Asia, and been used in areas with high energy demand, like Western Europe.\nThis can cause shifts in rainfall, humidity, etc."
] |
>
A hurricane is not permanent.
A hurricane is already part of the ecosystem.
A hurricane mostly gets its water from evaporated ocean water and not out of the air.
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?",
">\n\nYes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety.",
">\n\nIf we took water from the air, water from the ocean would just evaporate and replace it. There's no way humans could ever take enough water from the air that the ocean wouldn't be able to replenish it. Especially since we'd be using the hydrogen to burn or run through a fuel cell which turns it right back into water.",
">\n\nAs I said, this has never been done before on a big scale. Humanity has a massive hunger for energy and this hunger is growing rapidly.\nIf the scale is big enough, this can cause an involuntary geo-engineering effect.\nThis technology means, we are transporting water from a to b. Hydrogen cars, hydrogen planes, hydrogen trains, hydrogen power plants, Industry fueled by hydrogen etc.\nHydrogen is transportable all over the world. We will not just use it at one place.\nThe extraction will probably take place in areas with high humidity, like Southeast Asia, and been used in areas with high energy demand, like Western Europe.\nThis can cause shifts in rainfall, humidity, etc.",
">\n\nA hurricane locks up so much water that it drops 2.4 trillion gallons of water per day. Even if every car had hydrogen fuel cells, we would be locking up about 60 billion gallons at a time. Notice the scale difference?"
] |
>
A hurricane is still a temporary removal of literally orders of magnitude more water than all the cars on Earth would be. It can take days or weeks for all that water to return from the hurricane to the rest of the water cycle. And those cars are continually putting water back in the atmosphere. Does
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?",
">\n\nYes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety.",
">\n\nIf we took water from the air, water from the ocean would just evaporate and replace it. There's no way humans could ever take enough water from the air that the ocean wouldn't be able to replenish it. Especially since we'd be using the hydrogen to burn or run through a fuel cell which turns it right back into water.",
">\n\nAs I said, this has never been done before on a big scale. Humanity has a massive hunger for energy and this hunger is growing rapidly.\nIf the scale is big enough, this can cause an involuntary geo-engineering effect.\nThis technology means, we are transporting water from a to b. Hydrogen cars, hydrogen planes, hydrogen trains, hydrogen power plants, Industry fueled by hydrogen etc.\nHydrogen is transportable all over the world. We will not just use it at one place.\nThe extraction will probably take place in areas with high humidity, like Southeast Asia, and been used in areas with high energy demand, like Western Europe.\nThis can cause shifts in rainfall, humidity, etc.",
">\n\nA hurricane locks up so much water that it drops 2.4 trillion gallons of water per day. Even if every car had hydrogen fuel cells, we would be locking up about 60 billion gallons at a time. Notice the scale difference?",
">\n\n\nA hurricane is not permanent.\nA hurricane is already part of the ecosystem.\nA hurricane mostly gets its water from evaporated ocean water and not out of the air."
] |
>
|
[
"This has been around for years and the process is very well understood. The problem is cost, and so far no one has cracked that nut.\nThis is just another vaporware scamstarter",
">\n\nYep. Just a way to burn up grant money.",
">\n\nThis is great... for youtube channels debunking this kind of stuff.",
">\n\ntldr: condensates water from the air by allowing it to.. condensate on a thin mesh, then it's converted through electrolysis which is not efficient (also stated in the article)\nlet's say you could probably run your espresso machine from it.. maybe",
">\n\nYeah, I hate to be the downer all the time, but this isn't as big of an invention as it's made out to be. The amount of hydrogen gained is low and the cost to build such a thing is high, and I mean production and matieral, not monetary.",
">\n\nEPFL scientists have developed a prototype of a solar-powered device capable of extracting water from the air and converting it into hydrogen.\nA team of engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) drew on plant leaves as inspiration for the device, which they say can be easily manufactured and used on a large scale.\nWhen exposed to sunlight, the device absorbs water from the air and produces hydrogen. The hydrogen produced in this way could be used as fuel or for the long-term storage of solar energy, the authors wrote in the scientific journal “Advanced Materials” on Wednesday.\nThe main innovation in the model are the novel electrodes, which have two key properties: they are porous, in order to maximise contact with water in the air, and they are transparent, in order to maximise solar radiation on the semiconductor coating.\nModest yield\nIn its current form, the prototype can already produce hydrogen when exposed to the sun’s rays. However, the scientists admit that efficiency is still “modest”.\nThe next step is to optimise the prototype, including through determining the ideal fibre and pore size as well as the most suitable materials.\nTo produce the electrodes, the researchers fused glass fibres together at high temperatures. The resulting platelets were coated with a thin layer of fluorine-reinforced tin oxide – a material known for its conductivity, robustness and ease of production. The plate was then given another coating: a thin film of light-absorbing semiconductor materials.",
">\n\nI guess it is to late to buy shares?",
">\n\nPlease integrate this eco-friendly development into all of our infrastructure. This will change the world!",
">\n\nYes sorry I forgot that part 😭",
">\n\nI saw a news report on somthing similar local to me about 15 years ago so assume it has been killed before!!",
">\n\nAm I the only one who thinks, there's an unknown danger of extracting water from our air, split it into hydrogen, burn it in cars and expect everything to still be in balance, as soon as we do it on a great scale?\nI feel like at this point, humanity prefers nuking the entire planet, with the hope of stopping climate change, to actually change our behavior, economy and infrastructure.",
">\n\nUhhh, you know that when hydrogen is combusted, it turns back into water, right?",
">\n\nYes, I am aware of that. Imagine the air as a river. We caused great damage, by building dams, rerouting rivers etc. Why? Because our ecosystem not only cares on the amount of water in it, but also where and in what amount the water is in the system. If we start extracting water from air on a great scale and putting it back, by burning it, nobody can say, what the actual effect is going to be, because our ecosystem is extremely complex and can't be simulated in it's entirety.",
">\n\nIf we took water from the air, water from the ocean would just evaporate and replace it. There's no way humans could ever take enough water from the air that the ocean wouldn't be able to replenish it. Especially since we'd be using the hydrogen to burn or run through a fuel cell which turns it right back into water.",
">\n\nAs I said, this has never been done before on a big scale. Humanity has a massive hunger for energy and this hunger is growing rapidly.\nIf the scale is big enough, this can cause an involuntary geo-engineering effect.\nThis technology means, we are transporting water from a to b. Hydrogen cars, hydrogen planes, hydrogen trains, hydrogen power plants, Industry fueled by hydrogen etc.\nHydrogen is transportable all over the world. We will not just use it at one place.\nThe extraction will probably take place in areas with high humidity, like Southeast Asia, and been used in areas with high energy demand, like Western Europe.\nThis can cause shifts in rainfall, humidity, etc.",
">\n\nA hurricane locks up so much water that it drops 2.4 trillion gallons of water per day. Even if every car had hydrogen fuel cells, we would be locking up about 60 billion gallons at a time. Notice the scale difference?",
">\n\n\nA hurricane is not permanent.\nA hurricane is already part of the ecosystem.\nA hurricane mostly gets its water from evaporated ocean water and not out of the air.",
">\n\nA hurricane is still a temporary removal of literally orders of magnitude more water than all the cars on Earth would be. It can take days or weeks for all that water to return from the hurricane to the rest of the water cycle. And those cars are continually putting water back in the atmosphere. Does"
] |
Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading "democracy" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere
Find out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair
|
[] |
>
I've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair"
] |
>
Usually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks."
] |
>
The United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.
At the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.
He said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: "Do not just show up at the border."
Was this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls"
] |
>
Asylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.
The only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country."
] |
>
I don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one."
] |
>
The Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.
Should also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution."
] |
>
I never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.
As for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd."
] |
>
Except that it hasn't had that affect yet (this "shift" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.",
">\n\nI never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.\nAs for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it."
] |
>
They have seen a decline, specifically from Venezuelans. And while it does leverage title 42, it also offers a path for asylum. Is it perfect? Certainly not, for some of the reasons you mentioned. Is it the end all, be all immigration solution? Again, certainly not. But the solution most likely isn’t going to be a light switch moment, and will require legislation.
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.",
">\n\nI never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.\nAs for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it.",
">\n\nExcept that it hasn't had that affect yet (this \"shift\" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from"
] |
>
That decline tracks developments in Venezuela more than any changes with this policy. The initial surge in Venezuelans happened while title 42 was in effect.
it also offers a path for asylum
If people can't turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while their asylum applications are considered it's just a new coat of paint on the same old Trumpian trash
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.",
">\n\nI never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.\nAs for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it.",
">\n\nExcept that it hasn't had that affect yet (this \"shift\" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from",
">\n\nThey have seen a decline, specifically from Venezuelans. And while it does leverage title 42, it also offers a path for asylum. Is it perfect? Certainly not, for some of the reasons you mentioned. Is it the end all, be all immigration solution? Again, certainly not. But the solution most likely isn’t going to be a light switch moment, and will require legislation."
] |
>
So what do you propose Biden do in absence of legislation?
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.",
">\n\nI never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.\nAs for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it.",
">\n\nExcept that it hasn't had that affect yet (this \"shift\" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from",
">\n\nThey have seen a decline, specifically from Venezuelans. And while it does leverage title 42, it also offers a path for asylum. Is it perfect? Certainly not, for some of the reasons you mentioned. Is it the end all, be all immigration solution? Again, certainly not. But the solution most likely isn’t going to be a light switch moment, and will require legislation.",
">\n\nThat decline tracks developments in Venezuela more than any changes with this policy. The initial surge in Venezuelans happened while title 42 was in effect.\n\nit also offers a path for asylum\n\nIf people can't turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while their asylum applications are considered it's just a new coat of paint on the same old Trumpian trash"
] |
>
Biden's migrant/asylum seeker policies are just more of the Trump era BS
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.",
">\n\nI never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.\nAs for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it.",
">\n\nExcept that it hasn't had that affect yet (this \"shift\" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from",
">\n\nThey have seen a decline, specifically from Venezuelans. And while it does leverage title 42, it also offers a path for asylum. Is it perfect? Certainly not, for some of the reasons you mentioned. Is it the end all, be all immigration solution? Again, certainly not. But the solution most likely isn’t going to be a light switch moment, and will require legislation.",
">\n\nThat decline tracks developments in Venezuela more than any changes with this policy. The initial surge in Venezuelans happened while title 42 was in effect.\n\nit also offers a path for asylum\n\nIf people can't turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while their asylum applications are considered it's just a new coat of paint on the same old Trumpian trash",
">\n\nSo what do you propose Biden do in absence of legislation?"
] |
>
|
[
"Fuck around: America spends +120 years spreading \"democracy\" via the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere\nFind out: The poor people of those countries come to America bc their own countries are in disrepair",
">\n\nI've found bashing my head against a wall is less painful than trying to explain this to folks.",
">\n\nUsually, it's not that they're incapable understanding, it's just that they're racist ghouls who are completely determined to keep poor brown people out of their country and will seize on any rationalization they can come up with why that's actually OK and they're not monstrous ghouls",
">\n\n\nThe United States will use pandemic-era restrictions to rapidly expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced on Thursday as he seeks to gain control of migration.\nAt the same time, Biden will allow up to 30,000 people from those three countries plus Venezuela to enter the country by air each month, Biden said.\nHe said his message to those would-be migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti without a U.S. sponsor is: \"Do not just show up at the border.\"\n\nWas this written by an AI?? Either way, it's a decent policy change. Uncontrolled border migration shouldn't happen. It's good they need to have sponsors and they can enter the country.",
">\n\nAsylum seekers should be allowed to turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while they're application for asylum is considered, whether or not they can afford a plane ticket. That's how it's supposed to work under international law and how it worked until the Trump administration.\nThe only difference between people turning themselves in at an airport after flying here or walking up to the border and doing the same is that poor people are going to have a harder time doing the first one.",
">\n\nI don’t disagree with your general idea, but this does discourage asylum seekers from passing through Mexico to get to our border. I’ll be honest, I’m not up to speed on Mexico’s own immigration issues and views, but I have to believe that they aren’t exactly thrilled about being used as a land bridge to the US. And if we’re truly going to address immigration, Mexico’s participation and cooperation is going to be part of the solution.",
">\n\nThe Mexican government has been agreeing to take all the asylum seekers we've been throwing at them under title 42. I don't know if they're happy to do this or getting some sort of aid from the US government in return for this, but it's not like our current policies are reducing the number of Haitian, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc. migrants in their country.\nShould also be noted that the Mexican military has been highly compromised by drug cartels (who also do a lot of kidnapping and a lot of making un-refusable offers to migrants for all sorts of things). Also, there was an attack on a prison that left over a dozen people dead a couple of days ago, so pretending Mexico is a safe place for people to wait for asylum hearings is kinda obviously absurd.",
">\n\nI never said it was a safe place to wait for asylum. What I’m saying is this shift may discourage and decrease the number attempting entry via the Mexican border in the first place, which means the number entering Mexico from those countries could decrease.\nAs for Mexico taking those asylum seekers, do you see that as a long term solution whether we’re compensating them or not? And does that really help Mexico in anyway? It certainly doesn’t seem like having more migrants helps them deal with cartels who monetize it.",
">\n\nExcept that it hasn't had that affect yet (this \"shift\" is basically just title 42 being continued), probably because as dangerous as Mexico can be these people still think it's safer/better to try to go through it than stay wherever they're coming from",
">\n\nThey have seen a decline, specifically from Venezuelans. And while it does leverage title 42, it also offers a path for asylum. Is it perfect? Certainly not, for some of the reasons you mentioned. Is it the end all, be all immigration solution? Again, certainly not. But the solution most likely isn’t going to be a light switch moment, and will require legislation.",
">\n\nThat decline tracks developments in Venezuela more than any changes with this policy. The initial surge in Venezuelans happened while title 42 was in effect.\n\nit also offers a path for asylum\n\nIf people can't turn themselves in at points of entry and remain in the United States while their asylum applications are considered it's just a new coat of paint on the same old Trumpian trash",
">\n\nSo what do you propose Biden do in absence of legislation?",
">\n\nBiden's migrant/asylum seeker policies are just more of the Trump era BS"
] |
"Limit bills to a single subject" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.
"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's "germane"?
"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.
"Eliminate proxy voting" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.
Something you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.
Take anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.
|
[] |
>
The freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it."
] |
>
You know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault"
] |
>
Yeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest."
] |
>
Ummm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history."
] |
>
Maybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level
Republicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that."
] |
>
Maybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level
Okay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.
Republicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.
Democrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit."
] |
>
Because when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well."
] |
>
"Limit bills to a single subject"
This would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?"
] |
>
You mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws."
] |
>
They already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023"
] |
>
The Patriot Act expired some time ago.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not."
] |
>
The Patriot Act expired some time ago.
That's funny. You're funny.
The patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.
Subpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago."
] |
>
The patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone.
We now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about."
] |
>
Limit bills to a single subject
While that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.
Eliminate proxy voting
Proxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed."
] |
>
So we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?
Please defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding."
] |
>
Having every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want"
] |
>
Nothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if "nothing" gets done.
But also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that "do nothing" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather."
] |
>
That's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim."
] |
>
Perhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.
But we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.
Bigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc."
] |
>
Yes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere."
] |
>
Single subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded."
] |
>
Why wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider."
] |
>
These rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.
It's just veiled obstruction.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?"
] |
>
I think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction."
] |
>
Yep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier."
] |
>
I'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already."
] |
>
Part of that not working is the turn away from regular order.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work."
] |
>
Do you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.
Most of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.
The reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.
These are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order."
] |
>
None sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives."
] |
>
You are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just "vote on all proposed bills".
Have you ever run a meeting under anything considered "regular order".
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty."
] |
>
The single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\"."
] |
>
How exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog."
] |
>
Isn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.
Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.
The "congresspeople don't read the bills" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore."
] |
>
Great points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session."
] |
>
Yes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.
This also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If "pass this Senate bill" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills"
] |
>
How is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate."
] |
>
Ask yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer."
] |
>
Each one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented.
It’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down.
Expanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit.
Proxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?"
] |
>
The crux of the "Freedom Caucus" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason."
] |
>
Given that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.
What, for example, does "a single subject" mean? Is "responding to a pandemic" a single subject? Is "the federal budget" a single subject? Would "a war" be? Who decides?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize."
] |
>
It means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?"
] |
>
...that's it, then.
I'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it."
] |
>
Here is what I think:
Much of the changes the "freedom caucus" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't."
] |
>
Here is what I think:
Much of the changes the "freedom caucus" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.
My take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things."
] |
>
Yep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to."
] |
>
Many good points. One thought.
Wouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.
Now you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things."
] |
>
Maybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise.
As it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar."
] |
>
So you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?
Is that a good or bad thing in your opinion?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want."
] |
>
Bad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?"
] |
>
I have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote."
] |
>
I’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?"
] |
>
extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes
They can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.
Congress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes"
] |
>
They absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly."
] |
>
Whatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.