>so I don't think you can claim that no one is worried.

No that isn't what I claimed, I claimed no one was worried. Using an article written almost two years after fact as proof against my claim doesn't make a whole a lot of sense.

Now obviously my no one claim is hyperbole but the fact the bill's passing was near-unanimous is my point. Using one of the very few no votes in congress as proof against my claim would make a lot more sense.

> Now obviously my no one claim is hyperbole

Code for 'nonsense but I said it anyway and now someone's calling it out so I'll claim it was a prank all along'.

Your reading comprehension needs some serious improvement.

yeah, an article in a publication where the authors are anonymous because the views published in it are painfully true enough to make you real life enemies

all of the economist articles are anonymous

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...

that's my point

> the views published in it are painfully true enough to make you real life enemies

That is not why the Economist's articles are anonymous. Please read the article I posted which explains why.