"Behind closed doors, the debate is no longer the, like, 2017 debateprogressive versus moderate Democrat, right? Are we going to go progressive, or are we going to go moderate? That's not the debate anymore. The debate now is: how do you answer the following question? Do you believe that Trump's second term is an existential threat to democracy? Or do you believe Trump's second term is bad, but like Trump's first term, survivable if we just wait it out and let bad things boomerang on the American people? That's the question."
"And how you answer that is the debate that's happening among my colleagues. So I'm in team one, okay? Trump two is different than Trump one. And therefore, if I see thatif I believe that he's an existential threat to democracythe tools that I want to bring to the fight are very different than some of my peers who are like, Elissa, we're in the Senate. Let's just wait him out. To me, it is true we are in the minority, so there's not a lot of great tools in the Senate."
Democratic leaders debate whether a second Trump term is an existential threat or simply bad but survivable. One view frames an existential threat demanding different, more aggressive tools; the other favors waiting for consequences within existing Senate constraints. Those who view a second term as existential argue for proactively using all available mechanisms beyond routine Senate procedures. The Senate minority status limits legislative options, raising questions about the broader responsibilities of elected senators in 2025 to defend democratic institutions and respond to potential threats.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]