Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(93,719 posts)
39. no, what you're saying isn't the issue here
Thu Feb 5, 2026, 06:39 PM
19 hrs ago

...what you're proposing may well be good for a Democratic majority with the numbers that allow them to decide with their own votes what goes into legislation.

This effort to change the DHS bill isn't about closing the agency. That isn't something Democrats can achieve on their own votes and initiative, and there certainly isn't any legislative avenue in this Congress to close ICE or DHS, so it's just something people talk about while they brush past the legislators actually legislating.

This effort is about what may be achievable in getting a sufficient number of republicans to agree; and then on to the WH.

We can certainly set up the ideal, something that you'd definitely see in a Democratic majority, or just accept that achieving even these demands may save lives - reforms that no republican is independently proposing, and few are really inclined to accept.

When people talk about political leverage, they should realize that Democrats have no actual legislative vehicle to impose anything, and that it's the republicans who are key to ANY reforms in this bill, not just the majority of Democrats who are behind this proposal that Jeffries and Schumer have presented on behalf of the 'united' Democratic membership who have already agreed to stand behind these principles.

This 'line' you're talking about isn't governing, it's just opposition, no matter how correct or valid.

As Bayard Rustin, one of the organizers of the March on Washington said in his book 'Strategies for Freedom,' for any movement or opposition endeavor to succeed, it must have a legislative demand at the head of it's concerns.

Also, as he wrote, unity among those of us who agree is less consequential in that effort than in getting others to agree with us.

It's a pragmatic choice between agitation and action, which is what this period in between elections (contests in which our ideals compete) is supposed to be about as our elected leaders work to reconcile diverse and often disparate interests and concerns into action or law.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

You have details on that? MineralMan Yesterday #1
Gone from "no masks" to "no masks except when..." mr715 Yesterday #10
No mention of the rest of their positions, eh? MineralMan Yesterday #11
Posted it right there in the title. Did you miss it? mr715 Yesterday #12
Of Course, It's Not a "Full Retreat" Why So Negative on our Dems? Cha 20 hrs ago #35
House leadership Cirsium Yesterday #13
How is it caving if it wasn't on the table? leftstreet Yesterday #2
They originally said "No masks" now Cattledog Yesterday #3
Oh. I never saw that in their statements n/t leftstreet Yesterday #6
leadership's position now Cirsium Yesterday #14
Sen. Schumer said today bigtree 20 hrs ago #28
That isn't the issue Cirsium 19 hrs ago #36
no, what you're saying isn't the issue here bigtree 19 hrs ago #39
Thanks Cirsium 18 hrs ago #42
Yet another anti-Schumer & Jefferies thread MorbidButterflyTat Yesterday #4
Schumer and Jeffries are fine politicians leftstreet Yesterday #8
Capriciousness? Cirsium Yesterday #15
Anti-Schumer & Jeffries Knee-jerk Syndrome. betsuni Yesterday #16
We can't seem to win Just_Vote_Dem Yesterday #17
Again and again, Democrats do what people say they want. Then it's not what they want. betsuni Yesterday #20
Keep normalizing the indefensible mr715 Yesterday #18
Keep what, now? betsuni Yesterday #22
poster looks to be advocating 'defending the indefensible' bigtree 21 hrs ago #25
Quick question... EarlG 20 hrs ago #31
They should be required to identify themselves. mr715 20 hrs ago #32
From this, my understanding is EarlG 20 hrs ago #33
That I am not Schumer or Jeffries mr715 20 hrs ago #34
Got it EarlG 19 hrs ago #37
This is a perfect articulation of my thoughts on this. mr715 19 hrs ago #38
Thanks EarlG 18 hrs ago #43
I Appreciate your thoughts on Clarifying What Huff Past Cha 19 hrs ago #40
haven't they done this? bigtree 18 hrs ago #44
I think everything you say has value EarlG 17 hrs ago #46
betsuni Isn't "normalizing" Anything, nt Cha 14 hrs ago #47
The correct context is: Masks. Ice wearing masks. Duncan Grant Yesterday #21
... orangecrush Yesterday #5
LINK? justaprogressive Yesterday #7
Quick search, but from yesterday. Maybe something changed. mr715 Yesterday #9
really poor journalism in that Huffpo clickbait bigtree 20 hrs ago #26
They're insisting on changing how ICE dresses Bobstandard Yesterday #19
You do realize there are circumstances in which other groups wear masks? EdmondDantes_ 23 hrs ago #23
ICE conducts racist "hunts". They're not police. Duncan Grant 22 hrs ago #24
Post removed Post removed 20 hrs ago #27
How is anyone surprised? AltairIV 20 hrs ago #29
you're drafting all of that derision over sophistry bigtree 20 hrs ago #30
Cattledog, What are your thoughts on what Sen Chris Murphy has to say.? Cha 18 hrs ago #41
They have to absolutely be strong on this one. It's insane that they wear masks, among many other seriously big issues themaguffin 17 hrs ago #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Schumer & Jefferies alrea...»Reply #39