As I said, there is a political dimension to the question, and indisputably, opposing the changes is good politics. But in their analysis of the bill, the Bulwark is also arriving at judgements about the soundness of the policy. And on that front, they have been pushing misinformaton to support their view that the changes are also terrib…
As I said, there is a political dimension to the question, and indisputably, opposing the changes is good politics.
But in their analysis of the bill, the Bulwark is also arriving at judgements about the soundness of the policy. And on that front, they have been pushing misinformaton to support their view that the changes are also terrible policy.
Is it too much to ask the intelligent contributors to the Bulwark to inform themselves on the substantive elements of the changes, and provide analysis that is based on a properly informed view of the issue?
As I said, there is a political dimension to the question, and indisputably, opposing the changes is good politics.
But in their analysis of the bill, the Bulwark is also arriving at judgements about the soundness of the policy. And on that front, they have been pushing misinformaton to support their view that the changes are also terrible policy.
Is it too much to ask the intelligent contributors to the Bulwark to inform themselves on the substantive elements of the changes, and provide analysis that is based on a properly informed view of the issue?