Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

As the article says, the bill, as is, is too radical to pass. But I'd wager that's intentional. Knowing that negotiation will have to happen in order to get the bill passed, he proposed something extreme, so it would still be close to what he actually wanted when all was said and done.

Or maybe I'm reading into it too much.



sort by: page size:

He appeared to be pushing hard on it, but even as someone who voted for him I don't trust the perception of what he's doing.

He may have been actively trying to get this bill passed, but it seems at least as likely to me that he merely intended to be seen as doing so.


Thank you for the link.

Is it possible this is a negotiation ploy? Introduce something outrageous, so people will focus on that, then 'give in' on that proposal just before the vote, it will be seen as a victory when the main bill - without the proposal - is passed, despite the bill itself being heavily flawed in its own right.


I don't think the bill will pass in its current form. Can't see it happening.

This is negotiation. It's an adversarial system. The proponents of this bill know they are not going to get everything they ask for. The point is to stake out a position very far toward what they want so as to force opponents of this bill to just whittle it down.

If they proposed something saner and lost, they'd lose completely. But propose something insane and lose and you still might win something.


So can someone please help explain to me how this is permissible?

Taking this to extremes, why would politicians not sneak every crazy wild idea that they have onto this bill if it's a must-pass bill?


"The bill is currently being debated in California's Congress as part of the upcoming annual budget" - it's called the Legislature.

I mean, yes, I knew what he meant, but it doesn't give me confidence that he understands how to influence the political system.


He's actively trying to pass such a law, in case this isn't obvious.

There is absolutely no chance that this bill will pass.

Crazy bills championed by people that either don't understand them, or are just posturing are semi-common. Just because it has been proposed, doesn't mean anything.


No, I'm saying that the proposed legislation in its current form is dangerous. This isn't just some temporary mandate, they're looking to make this law.

This is inevitable whether this bill passes or not. There's simply too many political points to score here and little downsides as far as the government is actually concerned.

I don't think so. He says "this would just allow." Maybe he didn't qualify it with "the unintended consequence of this bill" or similar but its pretty clear what he means.

It’s just a proposed bill at this point. To say it’s definitely coming is a bit too strong.

It doesn't make sense, it's word salad like the rest of the bill. It's specifically intended to get a rise out of his constituents.

Probably one of the numerous compromises made just to get the bill to pass at all.

That's an odd take. It's quite possible that the bill will eventually get through the House.

I'd like to know more about the details of the bill, but as presented in this article I think it's a very bad idea indeed.

I also suspect that the timing works against this bill. It takes brashness (and not much sense) to propose this bill at this time.

Yes, in the middle of a major international scandal, let's imitate the bad guys. That's a great idea....


It's grandstanding. He knows it doesn't have a chance in hell in passing, but chose to write this bill with the sole purpose of currying favor. It'll die in committee and that'll be the end of it.

Yeah. The part about the bill also extending to block political opposition gave it clearly away for me. Possibly hidden motives aren't typically announced in campaigns.
next

Legal | privacy