632
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

How much would prohibiting caste discrimination or decriminalizing psilocybin increase the deficit?

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That's the wrong question.

"How can this law be exploited." Or "does it make sense to put another law on the books if this is already addressed with existing laws"

If you take the specified reason, then it's explicitly cited as reason #2. But the backlash is manufactured by progressives and exploited by conservatives to incubate in-fighting. Don't fall for it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"You are forbidden from asking questions we don't like. Those are wrong questions. Being anything shy of worshipful every time your party fails you is working with conservatives because we say so. Now excuse us while we capitulate to conservatives and order you to shut up and be happy about it again."

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You're missing the fire for the smoke, and it's sad how easily progressives fall for it every time

Ensign_Crab, we have a fundraising deadline at midnight tonight, and we’re short $2178! Will you pledge $31 to help bring us over the line?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That sounds like a Wrong Question to me.

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it's already covered by existing laws, so they don't need a new one. No clue about the psilocybin. I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one

"We don't need laws prohibiting discrimination against [minority]! They're just whining about nothing because our existing laws cover them!"

I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

A lot of unconvincing excuses to keep straight, huh?

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I mean, yeah, if it's already prohibited under an existing law, you generally don't need another one. That's how laws work, and people do a fair amount of work to remove outdated and duplicate laws because it makes everyone's job harder when you have to weed through that.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
632 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2555 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS