I have often observed a 'bias' or 'double standard' in politics, in general.

IT seems like party plays such a large role, that the 'contest' of us vs them precedes the honest consideration of ideas and policies being put forth.

that is to say, one President can make statements specific to a group and be considered 'divisive' by some of the same people who can hear another President make statements specific to certain groups and praise him for not being 'business as usual'


when we are filtering information through a personal allegiance to a 'political party' or 'political candidate' , it is hard to have allegiance to 'the country' or the people in it, who hold a wide array of political interests and priorities.


for example










do you think we could survive anonymous policies..lol?

policies put forth without anyones name attached so people can only consider the policy and decide if its good or not?

can we even CONSIDER ideas without putting a face to them to credit or blame for the idea?

Which bias or double standard?
The say one thing, do another?
The dazzle them with BS?
The oversell, underperform, and blame it on the other guy?
The use of fake or misleading "facts" and "statistics" to push an agenda?
The demanding accountability for opponents but not for allies?


Oooooh, that bias or double standard.


For example you're using information from The Huffington Post, which is about as biased and using of double standards as you can get.
Along with doing things like oversampling for their opinion polls.


Anonymous policies wouldn't matter.


It would just create a different divide of "us vs. them" mentality.
All bills have positive and negative consequences. Cost vs. benefit.
Overreach vs. necessity.


No.
People will simply look to put a face to it.
"Obamacare" (the ACA) didn't really start with Obama.
His face was put on it as he helped push it, especially after the secret closed door private meetings with members of the house and senate to drum up votes.

Other than that, people won't consider dating site profiles without a picture. Why would they take a law seriously if they don't know the people pushing it?

It's complicated.

It's not just a matter of double standards, though there are tons of exactly those going on, especially in these days of fake news, and bought news, and policy-by-sound bite.

The political manipulation of both proposing and reporting policy ideas, makes a very bad idea to try to solve our difficulties by eliminating the party labels for the source of the idea. The problem is, that politicians often PURPOSELY choose the exact same language to express what is actually a completely different policy, precisely to confuse some people, and to cater to their avowed "base" at the same time.

One classic example, was back during the Bush 2 administration, when the Republicans decided to put forward an environmental policy, that they decided to name "Clear Skies." The policy itself contained nothing but eliminations of limits on pollution, and the "Clear Skies" label was entirely a false front. It was very important to know that the policy DID come from the GOP, because everyone knew that the GOP opposed any and all attempts to limit pollution.

In addition, even when the language makes it clear that both party's favor something (or oppose it), the details of how they are going to go about addressing the issue, will be critical. Classic example there, is that both the Democrats and the Republicans have been opposed to illegal immigration since forever, on paper. But each party had a different idea of what to do to deal with it, and both parties repeatedly played games with the details of how they intended to deal with it, so that nothing was done. Democrats would say they were opposed, and then would block some efforts to enforce the law. Similarly, the Republicans would say they were opposed, but would refuse to support any funding or laws to make it possible to enforce existing laws.

What we need more than anything else, is a resource for reporting, that can gain the respect of most Americans. Without that, we are stuck with an ever increasing partisan situation, as we have in forums like these, where one side cites their favorite sources, the other side cites theirs, and/or each side points out the bias on everyone's sources.

I'm not sure what to suggest, since one party (the Republicans, right now) has made attacking the news directly, a central part of their approach to governing. When someone pretends that there is such a thing as "Alternate Facts," and their own people refuse to admit how insane and dishonest that is, I can't see any way to bring truth back.