Today's @GOP: Torn between those who advocate for intolerance and hatred and those who see is purely as a wedge issue to win an election. Almost none willing to simply acknowledge #loveislove and LGBT rights are human rights. politico.com/news/magazine/…
And this ain't just "Trumpworld". Only 8 Republicans voted for the Equality Act to ensure that the LGBTQ community has equal rights under the law. That should never have been controversial in a nation dedicated to equality. rollcall.com/2019/05/17/the…
When we passed that bill on the floor, the final @GOP amendment was to protect Title IX, on the bizarro-world theory that boys would otherwise change their gender to compete in women's sports. That's not serious policy. It's homophobic / transphobic dog-whistling.
The idea that a teenage kid is going to go through all the social stigma and mental stress that trans kids go through every day on the hope they could be a little more athletically competitive. You have to be utterly devoid of empathy to believe that.
(And, it should be noted, have never watched women's sports. After all, there isn't a single member of the House, male or female who could last a round in the ring against @RepDavids.)
But at a larger level, how do you pursue public office in a country dedicated to the proposition that that we are born with the inalienable right to pursue happiness and then see people who are struggling to be accepted for who they are and decide to punch down?
The answer is you have to yourself be a hateful person, or simply too venal to care. So single-mindedly focused on winning an election regardless of the consequences to burn down hope and love in your wake. It is mean. It is immoral. It is the opposite of leadership.
(Except, I suppose for that group of @GOP officials who are so filled with hate and intolerance that they are actively using their positions of leadership to bend public will towards their paleolithic, hateful views.)
We shouldn't accept this. Fighting for equal rights should not be partisan. Asking elected officials to call out our better angels rather than our lesser demons should be a bare minimum requirement of the job. And yet the @GOP does neither.
Anyway, with all the serious problems in the world, from pandemics to economic meltdowns to global warming it makes me angry that a once-great party wants to re-litigate the culture wars. They need to grow up before we let them eat at the big kids table again. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Re next week's vote on the SAVE Act, rewatch this scene from The Breakfast Club. It's funny because no one gets a fake ID so they can vote. And - no matter what some racist, demagogic Republican tells you - voting is not why immigrants come to America.
1. Here is the bill they are bringing to the floor next week. It requires that you must have proof of citizenship in order to vote. docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
2. This is the legislative equivalent of requiring that you prove you graduated from 4th grade before you can apply to graduate school - in the sense that it doesn't solve a real problem but would hurt folks who can't access those records.
The legal justification the WH gave us for attacking Venezuelan boats in int’l waters without Congressional approval was weak, and exposes the WH and military staff to domestic and international criminal prosecution. They have not even sought to justify strikes within Venezuela.
1. Their justification - dutifully repeated by every sycophantic member of the @HouseGOP was that some drugs kill Americans so any international actor who sells or traffics drugs is engaged in war against America. You can drive a bus through that logic, as I noted last month
@HouseGOP 2. Before we left Washington last month we were given a classified briefing by Hegseth and Rubio about Venezuela that contained no classified information other than details on the location of certain military assets that were irrelevant to the question at hand.
This Yglesias piece in the NYT is really bad. Almost every "fact" it cites is provably false. At best it is cocktail party banter from a pundit who knows nothing of energy. At worst, it was cut/paste from oil industry talking points. So, a rebuttal: nytimes.com/2025/12/18/opi…
1. First: the elephant in the room that he doesn't mention explicitly but haunts the whole piece: climate change is real, we've already overshot and the only way to turn the corner is to leave fossil fuel in the ground. To ignore that is to talk about rocketry and ignore gravity.
2. What he says about climate is patently false (more on that later) but to the extent he's saying "politicians shouldn't do the right thing unless it's popular", I'd note only that that is a toddlers view of leadership. If the popular kids are mean, should you be mean?
There are complicated, structural reasons for the recent surge in electric prices (maybe a future thread on that) and beware of simple narratives. But prioritizing the most expensive generation is, quite literally, the dumbest possible solution.
One of many tragedies here is that the states that are seeing the fastest rate increases are in the central part of the country where historic reliance on coal and a political fear of change have the potential to conspire and make this much worse.
Time for a nerd thread on monetary policy in light of the Feds rate cut yesterday. TL;DR: we are in unchartered waters here on account of Trump's tariff policies and general weakening of the US economy that @GOP policies will make worse. nytimes.com/live/2025/10/2…
1. First - if you're a macroeconomist, you can skip ahead as I want to start with some pretty basic stuff. Because statistically speaking, most people aren't macroeconomists.
2. In 1977, The Federal Reserve Act created the "dual mandate" that says that the Fed's obligation is to keep unemployment and inflation low. richmondfed.org/publications/r…
It's been a while since I've done a non-political nerd thread. And I wish I could do them more often! So let's do a palette cleanse to talk about this article from WaPo that is technically true, but deeply misinformative about US electric markets. washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro…
1. Read the whole article, but the big problem is this paragraph. It's true that electricity isn't like other markets, but not because it has high fixed costs. It's because it is a regulated market that isn't subject to those forces you learn in Economics 101.
2. Econ 101 doesn't say that falling demand forces lower costs. It says that happens IF you have competitive markets. When demand falls, you cut costs to try and hold onto market share - not because your changing cost structure compels you to pass savings onto your customers.