“Some people are prone to exaggeration, in my opinion.”
I think one of the reasons they weren’t being forward in the attack on the bill prior to it being signed and placed is that their defense against the bill was that it wasn’t happening so why make a law concerning identifying and stopping it. But when it went into effect, it became a reality that the thing they were saying didn’t happen was going to be stopped whether it happened or not. Then it became an issue because they couldn’t get the people (voters) to be pushed off task. And they are now saying it is wrong to stop it even after they said there was nothing to stop. They looking very stupid or dishonest...take your pick. They want to stop the stop, not the act that didn’t happen even though it did.
wy69
Yes, I think you are on to something. They want to say this bill was unneeded, because it restricts something that isn’t happening. But it does seem as if they want to indulge in the actions which are to be restricted.