I didn’t read the bill, and I knew it was in there. So, in addition to not reading the bill, she also does not read any news. What is she reading? Can she read?
Oh, she knew it was there. This is theater. This way she can support and not support the bill at the same time to please both parts of her base (billionaires and Q-Anon).
The people who vote for her and consume her content fall for this kind of speech - they’re primed to not think critically. She only cares about her reputation with her base and her donors.
She's so concerned about states rights and federal overreach.
Section 70302 of the bill states that judges wouldn’t be able to issue contempt orders against defendants who defy the courts.
Not concerned about that part Marge?
Definitely don't buy it. This is fairly non-standard for Conservatives, but not unheard of where they vote something in, let it pass then 'suddenly' find the bits of the bill they snuck in to screw people over that have made the news and claim they never saw it in the bill.
My answer to them would be, "ah well someone appears to have changed the bill then, since you all read it and this was no in there. We need to now repeal the entire thing and start again" but they would never agree to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment