Note that in this case they are allegedly "former KKK". But, whether they are KKK or not, it is not the criteria to evaluate how good any of their proposed policies are (or the quality of art, music, mathematics, books, etc); they should be evaluated by themself instead.
They say, "My bill only says that in cases when you hire or promote someone, you have to do so on the basis of their ability." It seems good to me, but there are other considerations that must be made, including all of the extra details that the bill might say. Sometimes they try to hide things, but even non-hidden things must be considered properly. For example, how do they intend to enforce it? Even, should it be enforced, anyways? (Maybe, or maybe not.) Some methods of trying to enforce it are not going to be good, regardless of what your intention is, I think. But, enforcement is not only issue, there are other things, too. The statement seems to be simple, but such things are rarely that simple. Note that they mention promotion as well as hiring. If you promote someone they should be competent for the job they are being promoted to, rather than for their current job.
If we're using association with the KKK, then note that your favored organization the ACLU also has backed the Nazis and KKK on many occasions [0]. It's almost as if association with the KKK is not enough to impugn a policy.
It is 404 error. However, I added a few letters on the end of the URL and then it works.
They defend their right of freedom of speech, and I agree that they should have the right of freedom of speech, regardless of if I or whoever else agrees or disagrees with the some or all of statements that they will say.
Like they say, you must defend free speech of everyone (whether you agree with them or not), instead of risking the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.
(It is like the quotation misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.")
Note that in this case they are allegedly "former KKK". But, whether they are KKK or not, it is not the criteria to evaluate how good any of their proposed policies are (or the quality of art, music, mathematics, books, etc); they should be evaluated by themself instead.
They say, "My bill only says that in cases when you hire or promote someone, you have to do so on the basis of their ability." It seems good to me, but there are other considerations that must be made, including all of the extra details that the bill might say. Sometimes they try to hide things, but even non-hidden things must be considered properly. For example, how do they intend to enforce it? Even, should it be enforced, anyways? (Maybe, or maybe not.) Some methods of trying to enforce it are not going to be good, regardless of what your intention is, I think. But, enforcement is not only issue, there are other things, too. The statement seems to be simple, but such things are rarely that simple. Note that they mention promotion as well as hiring. If you promote someone they should be competent for the job they are being promoted to, rather than for their current job.