California Democrats block bill to make child trafficking a felony crime

[marvin martian]

Of course.

If you didn't realize the left is ALL about hurting children, now you know.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Left is regressive.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Be interesting to see what dems think about this.....

 

[marvin martian]

Be interesting to see what dems think about this.....

They love it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Be interesting to see what dems think about this.....

.

Impossible.

Dems don't think.

.

 

[hjmick]

It would be interesting to see what else was in the bill...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It would be interesting to see what else was in the bill...

Thats always interesting to find out.
With dems it probably means there's something in the bill that is morally acceptable and they cant have that.

 

[Blaster]

If you didn't realize the left is ALL about hurting children, now you know.

I've known this for quite awhile.

 

[mamooth]

Be interesting to see what dems think about this.....

That your side is lying about something. They always are. I'm guessing that the Republican liars tacked that amendment on to some totally insane bill, just so they'd have an excuse to lie about Democrats.

It fools the fascist rubes, of course. I mean, look at this thread.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why are liberals preying on our children?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Why are liberals preying on our children?

.

Because they think they can.

And their entire lives revolve around torturing the vulnerable. They started with small animals.

.

 

[Moonglow]

Fox fails to tell readers why the Dems did not vote for nor did they report on the entire contents of the bill.

This could be because the existing law SB 14 being amended already has a section on human trafficking.

40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; (42) human trafficking

California SB14 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2023-09-25) Serious felonies: human trafficking. [Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 230, Statutes of 2023.]

legiscan.com

 

[22lcidw]

Fox fails to tell readers why the Dems did not vote for nor did they report on the entire contents of the bill.

This could be because the existing law SB 14 being amended already has a section on human trafficking.

40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; (42) human trafficking

California SB14 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2023-09-25) Serious felonies: human trafficking. [Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 230, Statutes of 2023.]

legiscan.com

Here in Florida the Prog agenda "Don't say Gay" legislation does not even say gay.

 

[Rogue AI]

Be interesting to see what dems think about this.....

Just more child victims for them. They won't cheer this victory too loudly.

 

[Moonglow]

Here in Florida the Prog agenda "Don't say Gay" legislation does not even say gay.

It can't speak so of course it doesn't.

 

[jotathought]

It would be interesting to see what else was in the bill...

Fair point .. a common tactic to respond when a provision is the primary focus of a bill ... and the remaining provisions are legitimate.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That your side is lying about something. They always are. I'm guessing that the Republican liars tacked that amendment on to some totally insane bill, just so they'd have an excuse to lie about Democrats.

It fools the fascist rubes, of course. I mean, look at this thread.

I already addressed that issue.
Perhaps if you'd read the thread you'd know thins.

 

[jotathought]

Here in Florida the Prog agenda "Don't say Gay" legislation does not even say gay.

It's all the use of language to inspire the low-information voters and appeal to emotion .. just like the Inflation Reduction Act which has nothing to do with lowering inflation -- and some on this board believe it does because of its name.

 

[mamooth]

I already addressed that issue.

Where?

Perhaps if you'd read the thread you'd know thins.

I get that you don't want to actually address the topic, but come on. You can at least put some effort into lying.

 

[hjmick]

Thats always interesting to find out.
With dems it probably means there's something in the bill that is morally acceptable and they cant have that.

It's not as if the entire state senate rejected the bill, it passed there with bipartisan support. For whatever reason it was a committee that took a shit on it. Six Democrats, two Republicans, only the Democrats voted to pass on it. It was given reconsideration, meaning it could be taken up again by the California Assembly next year, but I can find no reason given for why they rejected it this year.

I have perused to wording of the bill and saw nothing especially onerous in it, though I would suggest that we, the public, would be better served if legislators stepped away from the gobbledygook legalize and use simpler language...

Until someone on that committee publicly comments to the reasoning for the rejection, I suppose none of will know what's up.

Though I would suggest that, broadly speaking, no one rejected it because it would hinder their child trafficking side gig. To suggest it was would just be asinine.