• TJD
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lmao tell me you’re just posting outrage without reading the article without telling me.

    If you had been bothered to read before making a retarded quip, you’d notice that the rejection by judge was because the ballot measure was not specific enough, and was just meant to tack a bunch of stuff on such that it could get passed simply by being attached to a different issue.

    If you don’t see why that’s not how things should run, I only assume you’re the one person on earth who isn’t a corrupt politician that just absolutely salivates over every god awful omnibus bill with hundreds of riders for random garbage

      • TJD
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. It’s quite telling that you refuse to address the actual reason, and are just trying to pin it off on anything else. Perhaps there’s a reason you’re so incredibly pissy that these issues can’t just all be slammed into one omnibus package, but rather have to be individually voted on?

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s pretty dishonest to call it an omnibus package. It all comes down to whether or not you think the government should have the power to regulate a person’s fertility and childbearing. That is hardly the limited type of government conservatives say they support.

          • TJD
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It covers a whole lot of things. If you could be bothered to read, which i know is a struggle for you, you’d see it covers a lot of stuff and isn’t one concise policy.