4 ms·

I'm surprised by your interpretation. As a deliberately polarizing analogy, the first Trump administration pushed for a policy that boiled down to the same prin

I'm surprised by your interpretation. As a deliberately polarizing analogy, the first Trump administration pushed for a policy that boiled down to the same principle: pause immigration from certain places "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". I don't think anyone here would describe that example as a good-faith policy. I feel the same goes for the NY bill. It's not a sincere attempt to consider the pros and cons, it's just an effort to shut down unpopular projects to appease the electorate. Maybe that's right, but no need to pretend it's anything more.

CodingJeebus 4mo ago
> it's just an attempt to shut unpopular projects down to appease the electorate. It's weird to see "the government is doing its job by responding to its voters" being framed as some nefarious and underhanded move.
- recursivegirth 4mo ago
  It's not a comment crafted in good faith. It's telling you what to think and why, using an unrelated analogy to attempt to build credibility.
- akramachamarei 4mo ago
  It shouldn't seem that weird. One can like democracy while also disliking its outcomes sometimes.