politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah public comment is good. Opening up every single public meeting for an unlimited period of question and answer which is what this bill I was talking about proposed, is intentional sabotage of government. There is limited time for public comment at public meetings, The amount of time allowed should absolutely not be increased fivefold and allowed to go on until there is no one left that wants to speak. It would ruin the government's ability to function.
The article you linked says right on it that those 288 people had to sign up in advance to speak. The bill I am talking about would allow anyone to show up and be able to speak at any hearing, not just hearings held for the purpose of public testimony, but any hearing on which the subject matter is discussed.
I understand that basically allowing the public to collectively filibuster would theoretically be bad, but -- as someone who is very much paying more attention to local politics than most -- the likelihood of that happening is incredibly insignificant compared to the danger of government bodies abusing it by censoring public input to shield themselves from legitimate criticism.
How small is your town? Where I live every single committee with grind to a halt and the phone to members would resign before they sit there in meetings until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning every night listening to internet trolls who have been sent out to waste everyone's time.
It's Atlanta, so... not small?
Maybe the far right does not have this sort of local organizing presence in Atlanta? I was expecting you to say some super small town that nobody's ever heard of. I'm in a blue state but in a rural community and I promise these brainwashed morons show up to every meeting spouting conspiracy theories and bitching about government this and government that. That they are as bad as sovereign citizens except that are way more of them, and sometimes the people in charge actually take them seriously. And if they can't conjure up any bullshit, they will simply read forwarded emails into the record for three minutes before they get cut off.
I laughed so hard that my daughter literally just walked into the room to ask me what was so funny after I read this. You do realize what state and region Atlanta is in, right?
I will give you some credit, though: it is true that the City of Atlanta itself (not the metro area with population 6.3M, but the incorporated central city with population 500K) is, for the most part, very Democratic. We definitely have different factions within the city (e.g. socially-conservative black democrats vs. white progressives), but the Republicans in the city are more of the rich businessperson type than the sovcit dipshit type.
As such, things like Atlanta City Council meetings (which is what I was thinking of when I wrote that) and other public meetings within the City really don't tend to have those sorts of problems to any great extent. Instead, Atlanta's problem (both "City of" and the metro as a whole) is that the region is very Balkanized and when fuckery happens, it often tends to come in the form of one jurisdiction trying to impose bullshit on another (e.g. the state government fucking with the city, Fulton County fucking with the city, the city fucking with the school system, Cobb County fucking with the Atlanta Regional Commission, the state government fucking with MARTA, etc.). In other words, the far right are represented in other places where they don't need to disrupt the meetings to get their way.
I guess it's also possible that other parts of the metro could have enough intra-jurisdictional ideological diversity that they have boards where the "public filibuster" problem outweighs the "censoring public input" problem, but I don't go to public meetings out in the suburbs (or at the state government level, for that matter) so I wouldn't know.