Pelosi leads Democrats to give Trump unchecked spying authority.

[Soontir C'boath]

The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers

LEADING CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS have spent the last year relentlessly accusing Donald Trump of being controlled by or treasonously loyal to a hostile foreign power. Over the last several months, they have added to those disloyalty charges a new set of alleged crimes: abusing the powers of the executive branch — including the Justice Department and FBI — to vindictively punish political opponents while corruptly protecting the serious crimes of his allies, including his own family members and possibly himself.

The inescapable conclusion from all of this, they have relentlessly insisted, is that Trump is a lawless authoritarian of the type the U.S. has not seen in the Oval Office for decades, if ever: a leader who has no regard for constitutional values or legal limits and thus, poses a grave, unique, and existential threat to the institutions of American democracy. Reflecting the severity of these fears, the anti-Trump opposition movement that has coalesced within Democratic Party politics has appropriated a slogan — expressed in the hashtag form of contemporary online activism — that was historically used by those who unite, at all costs, to defeat domestic tyranny: #Resistance.

One would hope, and expect, that those who genuinely view Trump as a menace of this magnitude and view themselves as #Resistance fighters would do everything within their ability to impose as many limits and safeguards as possible on the powers he is able to wield. If “resistance” means anything, at a minimum it should entail a refusal to trust a dangerous authoritarian to wield vast power with little checks or oversight.

Yesterday in Washington, congressional Democrats were presented with a critical opportunity to do exactly that. A proposed new amendment was scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives that would have imposed meaningful limits and new safeguards on Trump’s ability to exercise one of the most dangerous, invasive, and historically abused presidential powers: spying on the communications of American citizens without warrants. Yesterday’s amendment was designed to limit the powers first enacted during the Bush years to legalize the Bush/Cheney domestic warrantless eavesdropping program. The Intercept’s Alex Emmons on Wednesday detailed the history and substance of the various bills pending in the House.

Although the Trump White House and a majority of House Republicans (including House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes) favored extension (and even an expansion) of the current law’s spying powers and opposed any real reforms, a substantial minority of GOP lawmakers have long opposed warrantless surveillance of Americans and thus, announced their intention to support new safeguards. Indeed, the primary sponsor and advocate of the amendment to provide new domestic spying safeguards was the conservative Republican from Michigan, Justin Amash, who, in the wake of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, worked in close partnership with liberal Democratic Rep. John Conyers to try to rein in some of these domestic spying powers.

Despite opposition from GOP House leadership and the Trump White House, Amash was able to secure the commitment of dozens of House Republicans to support his amendments to limit the ability of Trump’s FBI to spy on Americans without warrants. The key provision of his amendment would have required that the FBI first obtain a warrant before being permitted to search and read through the communications of Americans collected by the National Security Agency.

To secure enactment of these safeguards, Amash needed support from a majority of House Democrats. That meant that House Democrats held the power in their hands to decide whether Trump — the president they have been vocally vilifying as a lawless tyrant threatening American democracy — would be subjected to serious limits and safeguards on how his FBI could spy on the conversations of American citizens.

Debate on the bill and the amendments began on the House floor yesterday afternoon, and it became quickly apparent that leading Democrats intended to side with Trump and against those within their own party who favored imposing safeguards on the Trump administration’s ability to engage in domestic surveillance. The most bizarre aspect of this spectacle was that the Democrats who most aggressively defended Trump’s version of the surveillance bill — the Democrats most eager to preserve Trump’s spying powers as virtually limitless — were the very same Democratic House members who have become media stars this year by flamboyantly denouncing Trump as a treasonous, lawless despot in front of every television camera they could find.

LEADING THE CHARGE against reforms of the FBI’s domestic spying powers was Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who, in countless TV appearances, has strongly insinuated, if not outright stated, that Trump is controlled by and loyal to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, just this weekend, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Schiff accused Trump of corruptly abusing the powers of the DOJ and FBI in order to vindictively punish Hilary Clinton and other political enemies. Referring to Trump’s various corrupt acts, Schiff pronounced: “We ought to be thinking in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, beyond these three years what damage may be done to the institutions of our democracy. ”

Yet just two days later, there was the very same Adam Schiff, on the House floor, dismissing the need for real safeguards on the ability of Trump’s FBI to spy on Americans. In demanding rejection of the warrant requirement safeguard, Schiff channeled Dick Cheney — and the Trump White House — in warning that any warrant requirements would constitute “a crippling requirement in national security and terrorism cases.”

Standing with Schiff in opposing these safeguards was his fellow California Democrat Eric Swalwell, who has devoted his entire congressional term almost exclusively to accusing Trump of being a puppet of the Kremlin, in the process becoming a media darling among the MSNBC set and online #Resistance movement. Yet after spending a full year warning that Trump’s real loyalty was to Moscow rather than America, Swalwell echoed Schiff in demanding that no warrant safeguards were needed on the spying power of Trump’s FBI.

If one were to invoke the standard mentality and tactics of Schiff and Swalwell — namely, impugning the patriotism and loyalty of anyone questioning their Trump/Russia accusations — one could seriously question their own patriotism in handing these vast, virtually unlimited spying powers to a president whom they say they believe is a corrupt agent of a foreign power.

Joining the pro-surveillance coalition led by Trump, Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Schiff, and Swalwell was the House’s liberal icon and senior Democrat, Nancy Pelosi. The San Francisco Democrat also stood on the House floor and offered a vigorous defense of the Trump-endorsed bill that would extend to Trump’s FBI the power to spy on Americans without warrants, in the process denouncing the minimal warrant safeguards favored by many in her own party. Pelosi’s speech earned praise from GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan: “I want to thank [Pelosi] for coming up and speaking against the Amash amendment, and in favor of the underlying bipartisan [bill].”

In one sense, Pelosi’s pro-surveillance stance is not surprising. Back in the summer of 2013, as the Snowden revelations of mass domestic surveillance sparked a global debate about privacy and abuse of spying powers, an extraordinary bipartisan alliance formed in Congress to impose serious limits on the NSA’s power to spy on Americans without warrants. Back then, a bill that would have imposed real limits and safeguards on the NSA, one jointly sponsored by Conyers and Amash, unexpectedly picked up large numbers of supporters from both parties — despite opposition from both parties’ congressional leadership — to the point where it looked like it was unstoppably headed for passage.

Official Washington and its national security community began to panic over what looked to be the first rollback of government national security power since the 9/11 attack. Fortunately for the NSA, CIA, and FBI, they found a crucial ally to kill the bill: Nancy Pelosi. Behind the scenes, she had pressured and coerced enough House Democrats to oppose the reform bill, ensuring its narrow defeat. The Conyers/Amash bill — which would have severely limited domestic mass surveillance — was defeated by the razor-thin margin of 217-205. Foreign Policy magazine correctly identified the key author of its defeat, the person who singlehandedly saved NSA mass surveillance in the U.S.:





For anyone who believes in the basic value of individual privacy and the dangers of mass surveillance, Pelosi deserved all the criticism she received back then for singlehandedly saving the NSA’s mass surveillance powers from reform. But at least then, her partisan defenders had a justification they could invoke: At the time, the NSA was under the command of Barack Obama, a president they believed could be trusted to administer these powers responsibly and lawfully.

Now, four years later, Pelosi has reprised her role as key protecter of domestic warrantless eavesdropping — but this time with the benevolent, magnanimous, noble Democratic president long gone, and with those agencies instead under the leadership of a president who Pelosi and her supporters have long been maligning as an enemy of democracy, a criminal, a despot, and a racist cretin. For anyone (including Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell) who genuinely believes anything they’ve been saying about Trump over the last year, what conceivable justification can be offered now for Pelosi and her key allies blocking reasonable safeguards and limits on Trump’s warrantless domestic spying powers?

THAT LEADING HOUSE DEMOCRATS (their minority leader and top Intelligence Committee member) united with Trump to support this bill and oppose reform amendments, was sufficient to cause enough Democrats to side with Trump and ensure passage of the bill. The Trump-favored bill ended up passing by a vote of 256-164.

As the American Civil Liberties Union put it bluntly about the bill supported by Pelosi and Schiff: “The House just passed a bill to give the Trump administration greater authority to spy on Americans, immigrants, journalists, dissidents, and everyone else.” The privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation echoed that sentiment: “The House just approved the disastrous NSA surveillance extension bill that will allow for continued, unconstitutional surveillance that hurts the American people and violates our Fourth Amendment rights.”

While Trump, as president, is the head of the executive branch, the official with the greatest control over the FBI they just empowered is his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. In other words, Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies just voted to vest great, unchecked power in an official the Democrats have (with good reason) long denounced as corrupt and deeply racist. As Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (who has vowed with Rand Paul to filibuster the bill when it reaches the Senate) put it yesterday: “This Section 702 bill would give AG Jeff Sessions unchecked power to use this information against Americans. This bill prevents his decisions from EVER being challenged in court.”

But more significantly, the Amash amendment containing the proposed reforms (including a warrant requirement) was defeated by a much smaller margin: 233-183. While 125 Democratic House members were joined by 58 GOP members in voting for these reforms, 55 Democrats — led by Pelosi and Schiff — joined with the GOP majority to reject them, ensuring defeat of Amash’s amendment by a mere 26 votes.

This means that Trump’s bill to ensure his FBI’s ongoing power to spy on the communications of Americans without warrants was saved by Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell abandoning the large majority of their own Democratic caucus, and instead joining with Ryan and the GOP majority to ensure defeat of all meaningful reforms. Here are the 55 Democrats who not only voted in favor of the Trump-endorsed spying bill, but who also voted against the reform amendment to require a warrant. Beyond Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell, it includes the second most-senior Democrat Steny Hoyer and former Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz



One can, of course, reasonably debate the proper balance between privacy, civil liberties, and national security. Questions of how much power to vest law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the name of terrorism are not always simple ones. But if there is any principle that ought to command support across party and ideological lines, it’s the one long embedded in the Constitution: We do not want our government spying on us unless it can first obtain a warrant to do so — the principle that was trampled on yesterday by the unholy alliance of Trump, the GOP congressional leadership, Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff.

Indeed, several of Pelosi’s own caucus members made all of these points with usually explicit rhetoric. Here, for instance, was Rep. Ted Lieu of California who — like Schiff and Swalwell — has become a media and #Resistance star this year for his unflinching denunciations of Trump as a corrupt Kremlin tool but who, unlike his California colleagues, cast the only vote rationally reconcilable with his yearlong crusade to impose limits on Trump’s spying powers.

The increasingly impressive Democratic freshman member of Congress from California, Ro Khanna, was even more scathing about his fellow Democrats who joined with Trump to pass this bill.

But the most important point here is what this says about how Democrats really view Donald Trump. How can anyone rational possibly take seriously all the righteous denunciations from people like Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell about how Trump is a lawless, authoritarian tyrant existentially threatening American democracy when those very same people just yesterday voted in favor of vesting him the virtually limitless power to spy on Americans with no warrants or safeguards? If someone really believed those accusations about Trump — as opposed to just pretending to believe them for cynical political manipulation of their followers — how could they possibly have done what they did yesterday?

Cliches are boring to hear, yet often contain truth. That actions speak louder than words is one of those. The next time you see Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, or Eric Swalwell waxing indignantly on cable TV about how Trump is a grave menace to the rule of law and American democracy, focus less on their scripted talking points and more on their actions, beginning with their vote yesterday to vest in him these awesome powers while blocking safeguards and checks. That will tell you all you need to know about who they really are and what they really believe.

[Thanas]

What is the fourth amendment, precious?

But I am not surprised, given that they were very much in favour of Obama killing citizens without trial.

[Gandalf]

I would have thought this an easy "no" vote for the Democrats. I guess it's just easier to fuck people over and later claim "at least we're not as bad as Bush McCain Romney Trump."

But I am not surprised, given that they were very much in favour of Obama killing citizens without trial.

In a world of hypocrisy, it's good to see consistent politicians.

[K. A. Pital]

ITT we learn, centrism sucks and principled opposition matters.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, it does, but it still pisses me off to see the predictable stream of "The Democrats are just as bad" bullshit, which will be used to depress/split the anti-Trump vote, keep the Congress Red, and ensure Trump a third term. Because some people think "principle" means "Never compromise ever, even if the world burns."

I'd also note that the OP article seems to be specifically trying to use this vote as a way of discrediting the credibility of leading proponents of the Russia investigation, and, ultimately, the credibility of said investigation.

The Democrats have their problems, certainly, but... its no competition. Not unless you carefully cherry-pick specific Democrats and specific Republicans on specific issues. And I would note that 35 Democratic votes is a fairly small percentage of the number of Democrats in the House. There are 193 Democrats in the House at present, which means that the number who did not vote to give Trump these powers outnumbers the ones who did by more than four to one. But that won't be the narrative. The narrative will be "Democrats voted to give Trump vast spy powers. Both parties are just as bad! The Russia investigation is fake news!"

Who do you think benefits from that narrative?

That said, I'd consider the 35 yes votes priority targets for progressive primary challenges.

Edit: 55 votes, sorry. Still heavily out-numbered by the "no" Democrats.

[The Romulan Republic]

All that said, though... yeah, fuck those 55.

I don't demand Perfect Progressive Purity from Democrats, but this rises to borderline Quisling behavior, given who they're handing this power to. Presuming that the OP's source isn't just pulling this story out of its ass.

Plus, fuck them for giving the third-party vote-splitters and Whataboutism bullshit such a prize piece of ammunition going into 2018.

[K. A. Pital]

If they cave in so much, they would support basically any kind of shit Trump can pull in the next few years.

Don’t worry about the elections still to come, worry about the damage yet to be done in a very immediate future.

[The Romulan Republic]

If they cave in so much, they would support basically any kind of shit Trump can pull in the next few years.

Don’t worry about the elections still to come, worry about the damage yet to be done in a very immediate future.

I worry about both.

The 2018 elections are imminent, and will potentially go a long way toward determining weather Trumpism is the future of America, as well as weather progressives continue to gain a stronger voice in the Democratic party. They are also a potential trigger for political violence, especially since both parties have been primed (albeit the Democrats have far more justification) to believe that if they don't win, its due to fraud.

But we also need to check the damage Trump is doing as much as possible right now. And the two things are somewhat interconnected, since the Democrats' actions over the next nine and half months will effect election results.

So yeah, bad move by those 55 Democrats, both on principle and pragmatically. I would probably still take them over a Republican, but I would also much rather see them primaried out so someone with a bit more principle/backbone can run in their place. Not much I can do on that score, though, since it looks like none of the turncoats was my Congressman.

[Soontir C'boath]

So yeah, bad move by those 55 Democrats, both on principle and pragmatically. I would probably still take them over a Republican, but I would also much rather see them primaried out so someone with a bit more principle/backbone can run in their place. Not much I can do on that score, though, since it looks like none of the turncoats was my Congressman.

Plenty of candidates you can donate to help their primary challenges.

There are 193 Democrats in the House at present, which means that the number who did not vote to give Trump these powers outnumbers the ones who did by more than four to one. But that won't be the narrative. The narrative will be "Democrats voted to give Trump vast spy powers. Both parties are just as bad! The Russia investigation is fake news!"

It was enough votes garnered by the senior Democratic leader in the House, which is Pelosi, to get the amendment knocked out and pass the bill. So yes, in essence that is what happened. Or are party leadership not responsible for the party anymore?

[The Romulan Republic]

Plenty of candidates you can donate to help their primary challenges.

I'll try and do so.

It was enough votes garnered by the senior Democratic leader in the House, which is Pelosi, to get the amendment knocked out and pass the bill. So yes, in essence that is what happened. Or are party leadership not responsible for the party anymore?

So the 193 Democrats who did not support this don't count, while the 55 who did define the entire party?

You know as well as I that the Democrats, like any large party, have factions and divisions, on almost every issue. Pelosi, I suppose, can be considered a representative of the party, but not exclusively so- Chuck Schumer, the DNC chair/vice chair, and former Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter) could all be considered comparable leadership figures in the party.

[Soontir C'boath]

So the 193 Democrats who did not support this don't count, while the 55 who did define the entire party?

You know as well as I that the Democrats, like any large party, have factions and divisions, on almost every issue. Pelosi, I suppose, can be considered a representative of the party, but not exclusively so- Chuck Schumer, the DNC chair/vice chair, and former Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter) could all be considered comparable leadership figures in the party.

I define those who side with party leadership enough to make the amendment fail as representative of the party yes because at the end of the day, the consequences is what matters. The 193 don't matter because no one will care or remember who they are since the action of the party as a WHOLE includes the 55 others who decided to act otherwise and make it into law.

And with that, Pelosi has no reason to waste anymore political capital to try and garner more votes than necessary.

[The Romulan Republic]

So the 193 Democrats who did not support this don't count, while the 55 who did define the entire party?

You know as well as I that the Democrats, like any large party, have factions and divisions, on almost every issue. Pelosi, I suppose, can be considered a representative of the party, but not exclusively so- Chuck Schumer, the DNC chair/vice chair, and former Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter) could all be considered comparable leadership figures in the party.

I define those who side with party leadership enough to make the amendment fail as representative of the party yes because at the end of the day, the consequences is what matters.

Question: If enough people say "fuck the Democrats" based on this sort of reasoning to split the vote and hand the Republicans another win, and if the consequence of that is two (or six) more years of unchecked Trumpism, will you still say that its the consequences that matter?

The 193 don't matter because no one will care or remember who they are since the action of the party as a WHOLE includes the 55 others who decided to act otherwise and make it into law.

So by that standard, you will always define the Democratic Party by what its worst member does. And if an awful bill passed by the vote of a single Democrat, that one Democrat would outweigh the principles of all the others.

That is not a reasonable standard.

Yeah yeah, purity first, even if the world burns.

And with that, Pelosi has no reason to waste anymore political capital to try and garner more votes than necessary.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Soontir C'boath]

So the 193 Democrats who did not support this don't count, while the 55 who did define the entire party?

You know as well as I that the Democrats, like any large party, have factions and divisions, on almost every issue. Pelosi, I suppose, can be considered a representative of the party, but not exclusively so- Chuck Schumer, the DNC chair/vice chair, and former Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter) could all be considered comparable leadership figures in the party.

I define those who side with party leadership enough to make the amendment fail as representative of the party yes because at the end of the day, the consequences is what matters.

Question: If enough people say "fuck the Democrats" based on this sort of reasoning to split the vote and hand the Republicans another win, and if the consequence of that is two (or six) more years of unchecked Trumpism, will you still say that its the consequences that matter?

Ok, let's make this clear. Hillary lost for many reasons, but not examples such as the "Bernie Bros" thingamajig in which the vast majority of Bernie voters did go to the polls, held their nose, and voted for Hillary at the end of the day. So clearly, the "fuck the Democrats" line you keep throwing around didn't really happen. Plus as Democrats like yourself like to keep touting, a couple million more voted for Hillary than Trump.

So stop whining about this shit. People can criticize the party, want better out of it, and hold their noses and vote. Hillary to put it simply was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

God knows how many Democrats in NY bitch about Schumer and Gillebrand, and Cuomo, but hey here they are trucking on with their shit.

So by that standard, you will always define the Democratic Party by what its worst member does. And if an awful bill passed by the vote of a single Democrat, that one Democrat would outweigh the principles of all the others.

If at the urging of party leadership, sure.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Then you are very, very naive.

The point is, Pelosi as leader of the party who's job is to garner votes, did just enough to make sure the amendment to fail and the bill to pass. There is no point trying to haggle more people in the party to vote and as a bonus make people like you still feel good about the party.

[Simon_Jester]

Notably, the failed amendment is one that would change existing law to limit wiretapping and surveillance. This doesn't look like an attempt to give Trump any power he didn't already legally possess, which makes the thread title seem pretty misleading to me.

Sounds to me more like "Pelosi led 28% of the House Democrats to let Trump keep unchecked spying authority, while the other 72% abstained or voted to remove that authority."

But it sounds so much less dramatic that way.

If they cave in so much, they would support basically any kind of shit Trump can pull in the next few years.

Actually, no, they wouldn't; there are numerous kinds of shit Trump has pulled or tried to pull that they would oppose.

The problem is that warrantless surveillance and wiretapping have, for demented reasons, become "bipartisan" issues in the US, in that the political master-class of both parties seems to favor it, possibly for fear of seeming weak on terrorism or something. Thus, significant numbers of Democrats were willing to vote to let the executive branch keep a power the executive branch already had under Obama, rather than to deprive the executive branch of that power now that Trump is in the White House.

So by that standard, you will always define the Democratic Party by what its worst member does. And if an awful bill passed by the vote of a single Democrat, that one Democrat would outweigh the principles of all the others.

If at the urging of party leadership, sure.

So if the party leader urges some of her party to vote Bad, and 28% of them obey, the other 72% are by extension Bad for not voting Bad but being in a group whose leader urged the 28% to vote Bad?

Ok, let's make this clear. Hillary lost for many reasons, but not examples such as the "Bernie Bros" thingamajig in which the vast majority of Bernie voters did go to the polls, held their nose, and voted for Hillary at the end of the day. So clearly, the "fuck the Democrats" line you keep throwing around didn't really happen. Plus as Democrats like yourself like to keep touting, a couple million more voted for Hillary than Trump.

So stop whining about this shit. People can criticize the party, want better out of it, and hold their noses and vote. Hillary to put it simply was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

Uh... I don't think TRR mentioned Hillary at all, actually. This isn't about Hillary.

This is about, well, denigrating the opposition party depresses voter turnout for the opposition. It's a generalized phenomenon. This is not relitigating 2016, this is looking forward to 2018 and 2020.

If you want to say "Pelosi sounds like one corrupt jerk for doing this," go right ahead. If you want to say "Democrats suck because just over a quarter of them voted for the extension of an existing set of FBI surveillance powers at Pelosi's behest," then maybe you should restrain yourself unless you have a replacement left-wing party all ready to go that can stand in their place in the 2018 elections and win all the same electoral seats without making similar compromises.

Hack at the individuals personally involved all you want, but hacking at the organization, when the majority of it didn't even do the thing you're upset about, seems unwise.

[Soontir C'boath]

Notably, the failed amendment is one that would change existing law to limit wiretapping and surveillance. This doesn't look like an attempt to give Trump any power he didn't already legally possess, which makes the thread title seem pretty misleading to me.

Sounds to me more like "Pelosi led 28% of the House Democrats to let Trump keep unchecked spying authority, while the other 72% abstained or voted to remove that authority."

But it sounds so much less dramatic that way.

The conclusion is the same, Pelosi led enough Democrats to let him keep it. That's rather the important part of this situation that people will care about in the end.

So if the party leader urges some of her party to vote Bad, and 28% of them obey, the other 72% are by extension Bad for not voting Bad but being in a group whose leader urged the 28% to vote Bad?

I've already explained why this simplification doesn't matter which you happened to not include in your response.

Uh... I don't think TRR mentioned Hillary at all, actually. This isn't about Hillary.

No, he didn't. I'm glad you are very observant.

This is about, well, denigrating the opposition party depresses voter turnout for the opposition. It's a generalized phenomenon. This is not relitigating 2016, this is looking forward to 2018 and 2020.

If you want to say "Pelosi sounds like one corrupt jerk for doing this," go right ahead. If you want to say "Democrats suck because just over a quarter of them voted for the extension of an existing set of FBI surveillance powers at Pelosi's behest," then maybe you should restrain yourself unless you have a replacement left-wing party all ready to go that can stand in their place in the 2018 elections and win all the same electoral seats without making similar compromises.

Hack at the individuals personally involved all you want, but hacking at the organization, when the majority of it didn't even do the thing you're upset about, seems unwise.

Oh, stop being apologists and realize these actions don't help the party as a whole by themselves. Whether you like it or not, it reflects that way for many. They don't need me to do it for them. Unless, you're Trumpian and want to silence the news about the bad shit like he wants the media to do for him.

[Simon_Jester]

I am as yet unconvinced by your arguments that it's desirable, useful, or even truthful to fire off broad indiscriminate shotgun blasts in the direction of "the Democrats" or even "centrist Democrats" over specific political acts.

And I am still unconvinced that your thread title is anything other than histrionics. If you don't recognize the political difference between voting to give someone something, and failing to vote to amend the law to take the thing away, I don't know how to help you.

[Soontir C'boath]

I am as yet unconvinced by your arguments that it's desirable, useful, or even truthful to fire off broad indiscriminate shotgun blasts in the direction of "the Democrats" or even "centrist Democrats" over specific political acts.

And I am still unconvinced that your thread title is anything other than histrionics. If you don't recognize the political difference between voting to give someone something, and failing to vote to amend the law to take the thing away, I don't know how to help you.

Ah well thankfully, I don't need your nod, my lord.

[Simon_Jester]

Soontir: This is, in fact, true. You do not need my approval, in order to go on misrepresenting things and being histrionic to the detriment of your own side.

I would have thought this an easy "no" vote for the Democrats. I guess it's just easier to fuck people over and later claim "at least we're not as bad as Bush McCain Romney Trump."

What's frustrating about it is that, empirically, they are STILL not as bad as the Republicans. It would be easy if an honest man could look at the situation, say "identical monsters," and walk away. But it really, really is not that easy, not when you don't have the luxury of living in a different country than the parties one is sneering at.

Which creates job openings at the top for cynical powermongering bastards: "I'm a fucker, but I'm not a malignant narcissistic fucker!"

I am very much hoping for, and when I have a bit more resources under my belt will likely try to contribute to, pushing the kind of Democratic Party that would stop doing this all the damn time.

[Soontir C'boath]

Soontir: This is, in fact, true. You do not need my approval, in order to go on misrepresenting things and being histrionic to the detriment of your own side.

Amend the title if you like, the result is the same whether you like it or not. We had a clear chance with the amendment sponsored by a Republican no less to restrict the powers the Presidency should have, and Pelosi and fellow dems decided to keep them.

The fact that the title and my "histrionics" is more important to you speak volumes about you instead.

What's frustrating about it is that, empirically, they are STILL not as bad as the Republicans. It would be easy if an honest man could look at the situation, say "identical monsters," and walk away. But it really, really is not that easy, not when you don't have the luxury of living in a different country than the parties one is sneering at.

This is true, they are not as bad as Republicans who didn't sponsor the amendment.

I am very much hoping for, and when I have a bit more resources under my belt will likely try to contribute to, pushing the kind of Democratic Party that would stop doing this all the damn time.

And this shows you're absolutely clueless on what's happening in the political sphere right now which I suppose I shouldn't find surprising given the rhetoric you and TRR have had so far.

[TheFeniX]

What's frustrating about it is that, empirically, they are STILL not as bad as the Republicans. It would be easy if an honest man could look at the situation, say "identical monsters," and walk away. But it really, really is not that easy, not when you don't have the luxury of living in a different country than the parties one is sneering at.

True, but their approval as of a few months ago was topping 35% vs the GOPs 22%. They poll worse than Trump and the low approval ratings for the party have been consistent for more than a few years. Voters have been asked for years to continually vote for garbage. Sure, one sack of that garbage is objectively worse than the other. But it's still garbage.

But then you get into the issue that many voters just don't care about what they are worse at. If you emphasize money in your bank, the "objective" argument tends to break down. Democrats do poorly among rural voters and whites making over $100k, so they're lucky in that Trump's new tax bill is going to shift votes, at least in the House, for all those upper-middle class in the targeted states that are now pissed they got the shaft.

As for this, it's just another example about how Congress is willing to work together if it involves fucking over the Bill of Rights. This could easily be a gimmie in the "see, we work with the GOP. Even though it's only when we want to shit on the paper we swore to uphold as a prerequisite for holding office." There's nothing special about this when it comes to Democrats, or at least enough of them willing to break party lines. They gave Obama a blank check when it came to this crap as well.

And I agree, this is an issue with Democrats that needs to be handled in primaries. Do everything you can to primary out the centrists. Whereas I myself am a moderate, a lot of centrist U.S. stances aren't really all that fucking moderate anymore.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I would actually say that this thread title is misleading, as implies both that the Democrats collectively supported this vote (objectively false), and that the Democrats were the party primarily responsible for "giving" these powers to Trump (also objectively false).