Terminal for the Constitution, maybe. The individuals with the condition seem like they’re doing just fine.

The article I criticized wasn’t about Democratic Senators’ rhetorical strategy—if it had been, I’d agree with you—it was about why many people outside of government are mad at Chuck Schumer, and the reason they’re mad is not that they believe the minority should get to control the policy agenda.

Yeah, sorry. That's an understandable confusion upon first seeing it. The first three screenshots are from Barro's NYT piece today. The fourth is from my article that came out yesterday. The character limit meant I couldn't spell it out.

But yes: how can he not understand this? (By not wanting to.)

Here's me, writing over a month ago: "Unfortunately, making things better for the American people coming out of this shutdown is probably not an option. Either Trump makes things worse with Democratic affirmation, or Trump makes things worse despite Democratic opposition."

If someone wants to criticize Senate Dems for settling on that as their rhetorical pitch, I wouldn’t have said anything.
If someone makes sweeping claims about what Dems think as a whole, and about Chuck Schumer’s leadership specifically, it should have something to do with what they actually think.

I probably shouldn’t bother with smugly gloating concern trolling.

Yes, Constitutional democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers lost again, this time with a more desperate move due to limited options.

But Dems are upset about it, and that’s what matters. Glad you’re enjoying it, Josh.

I guess I need to add that pundits have to get out of a normal democracy mindset too.

It’s been a decade of democratic backsliding, and nearly a year of rapid descent. Writing as if it’s 2013 or 1995 is out of touch. Either ”I have my head in the sand” or “I like this but won’t say so directly.”

If any of them are too scared to do their job, that’s understandable—many get death threats—but then they should step aside and let one of the other 260 million American adults have the job, someone who is willing to actually do it.

Nah. That just means there’s no leverage in things that impact other people, and any leverage comes from showing “this is bad for you personally, but there’s a better path for you personally.”

Thanks, I appreciate that.

And it turns out that I'm writing this with my dog on my lap who I'm pretty sure just ripped one. So, um, synergy.

The laws of war permit a lot of things that most people would find horrifying. Deliberately, openly violating them is a telling choice.

Sounds like a plan!

Not passed yet, but the biggest procedural hurdle has been cleared, and I can't recall a bill where that happened with a bill but it didn't continue along the process. That said, I certainly won't discourage people from calling their Senators if they want, about this or anything else.

I think so.