| ▲ | bigstrat2003 7 days ago | |
> Turns out it's actually an R bill, with exclusively R sponsors, and now I'm wondering what awful shit is hiding in it. It seems to me like if you thought something was good and then switched to thinking it was bad based just on who proposed it, you need to stop being prejudiced. Evaluate ideas (or bills) for their merits, not based on who originated them. | ||
| ▲ | delecti 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
Being a member of a political party is cosigning their platform, and based on a consistent 60+ years pattern of behavior they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. It's not prejudice if it's based on observation. It's entirely reasonable to wonder what ghoulish motives they might have for an idea I initially thought sounded good. | ||
| ▲ | zbentley 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Evaluate ideas (or bills) for their merits, not based on who originated them. Ideas? Sure. Bills? No. So much of how a piece of legislation affects society has to do with the agendas of the people behind it (no matter what it says in text) and the means by which the executive implements it (often hand-in-glove with the agendas of the legislation’s originators). https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/understanding-the-cascade-of-... | ||