Today, I continued my commitment to vote against any bill sponsored by members of Congress who watched what happened on January 6 and then voted with the seditionists to overturn the will of the people. If you want to know why, read this: washingtonpost.com/politics/inter…
I have no more or less right to my opinion than any of my colleagues, and even on areas of strong disagreement I would never hold their opinions against them. Such is the nature of a democracy, which it is my honor to serve in and my oath to protect.
But January 6 was different. On that day, 138 House Republicans voted to overturn an election. Voted against the very principle we all took an oath to defend. Voted against democracy.
That is a bridge too far. If we accept that - if we normalize that - then our Constitution is no more than a piece of paper, to be discarded the moment a majority of seditionists takes power.
What's more, the members who voted against democracy on January 6th did so with direct, tangible evidence of the consequences in front of their eyes. The mobs chanting to kill the Speaker and hang the Vice President.
That is what is unleashed when you tell a bunch of aggrieved Americans that the will of the majority and the rule of law are subservient to an autocratic-inflamed mob.
Did they agree that our Constitution isn't worth defending, or were they simply too cowardly to defend it? In either case, their vote proved that they cannot be trusted with the power that comes with being a member of Congress.
All of us in this line of work are, at the end of the day, nothing more than temporary custodians of our democracy. We will be judged by whether we left it in as good or better shape than we found it. To vote for mob rule is to fail that judgement.
And so myself (and a few righteous allies - you know who you are) voted no on bills today that were legislatively fine. And they passed in spite of our votes. But to send a message that on more contentious votes, you'll need to find a sponsor who stands up when it matters.
Because ultimately - and I wish this wasn't partisan - democracy is worth defending. /fin
Postscript: Read the article. Because this is the point. And it includes you, @GOPLeader.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sean Casten

Sean Casten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SeanCasten

24 Oct
More damning information about Facebook, this time in India. But it's important to understand that this is a VERY fixable problem. The algorithm cannot be simultaneously optimized for FB revenue AND not encouraging extremism. Brief thread: washingtonpost.com/technology/202…
1/ Remember not that long ago in the pre-algorithmic era of social media when your feed was family members and whoever else was in your friend circle / feed, posting content as it happened.
2/ You can still do that on Twitter. Click this little icon and enable "See Latest Tweets". Presto, algo gone. FB doesn't let you do that. You see what their algo wants you to see. Image
Read 15 tweets
23 Oct
As is this: Political leaders can move public opinion. Some politicians use that for good. Some use it for evil. And some say "well, I would love to do X, but my polling says I can't." That third group is unfit to lead. But the 2nd group is culpable.
That said, a politician yelling hatred into the void is one thing. A politician yelling hatred into an FB algorithm that sees someone who engages with it and says "I see you like Mo Brooks. Might I introduce you to the Proud Boys?" is something else entirely.
Read 7 tweets
20 Oct
And now, I bring you a public service announcement to pre-but the arguments that seem to be gaining traction suggesting (falsely) that current gas price volatility is caused by renewables. Buckle up... Thread:
1/ First, the case being made by the fossil shills: Intermittent renewables (read: wind and solar) need balancing capacity on the grid. Only quick ramping, inefficient gas plants can provide that so as Rs are deployed, gas demand goes up and increases price.
2/ That is a real thing and not without it's merits. If that were driving demand, it would be pretty easy to spot in the data, because we'd see rising gas demand. Trouble is, we don't. eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n…
Read 21 tweets
17 Oct
Appalachian politicos never really cared about the miners. The proof? Name one who ever complained about the investments in mining productivity. Longwall mining, mountaintop removal all slashed labor requirements/mined ton.
To be clear, rising labor productivity is good to the extent it allows us to create more wealth per labor hour (and subject to making sure that wealth is shared). But you can't celebrate rising productivity in the coal sector and lament it in the larger energy sector.
Coal is a uniquely labor-intensive fuel. The industry has worked hard to cut their labor needs, first through automation, then through bankrupting miner's pensions. But all pushes to lower cost, less labor-intensive energy eventually squeeze out coal as a fuel.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
If you care about the planet. If you care about US leadership. If you care about our children. If you care about affordable energy. If you care about our democracy. Then it's time to mobilize. So, so much is at stake. Thread: nytimes.com/2021/10/15/cli…
1/ The CEPP is the most impactful part of the Build Back Better Act from a climate perspective. It puts our electric sector on a path to zero emissions. To take it out is to decide that climate change isn't a problem.
2/ It's also MASSIVE for job creation. Meeting those goals require the construction of ~1000 GW of new power generation in the next decade. That is as much as we already have. Millions of good jobs and economic growth. To take out the CEPP is to give labor the middle finger.
Read 21 tweets
13 Oct
Very thoughtful analysis here on one of the drivers of current natural gas volatility (namely, the increasingly global nature of nat gas markets). A few comments for those who don't want to read the full article.. naturalgasintel.com/lng-growth-sai…
1/ For those who know nothing about natural gas markets other than your monthly bill imagine that you're a cucumber farmer. You can sell cukes for $2/lb at the farmers market in Wheaton or $3/lb at the farmers market in Glen Ellyn. Where do you go?
2/ Not a trick question. Obviously Glen Ellyn. Now imagine that you're a natural gas producer and gas sells for $3/MMBtu at the Henry Hub in Louisiana or $8 at a hub in France. Where would you sell?
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(