4 ms·
What are the odds that the sponsors know this bill is garbage, and only proposed it for the sake of having the opposition on record "voting for sexual exploitat
by 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
What are the odds that the sponsors know this bill is garbage, and only proposed it for the sake of having the opposition on record "voting for sexual exploitation of children"? I know this kind of rhetoric (distorting votes against a bill to be votes for the opposite, most commonly: all votes against any bill including a tax cut => "Senator Johnson voted for higher taxes 4194304 times") is used regularly, but I don't know how much of a stretch it is that someone would propose a bill primarily to fuel it.
- woodruffw 10y agoThat's probably not what's happening in this case (this is just good, old-fashioned puritanism), but what you're referring to is exactly what a certain party did in congress for a few decades with flag-burning bills and amendments.
- noxToken 10y agoI don't think it's that only reason. However, it serves as a great talking point when campaigning against an opponent. Imagine having to defend against, "Candidate X voted against the Human Trafficking Prevention Act!" when you and other privy voters know it's stop the turd hidden underneath the polished gold.