When Pelosi wouldn't accept a GOP deal, she was called a ghoul. Now, if she accepts a deal, she is also a ghoul. I see very few explicit arguments that acknowledge we have to negotiate w/ the GOP & what we should deem as non-negotiable vs. what is up for compromise.

Would you accept a temporary liability shield for employers in order to ensure people get UI or can pay their rent? I might. It's a difficult pill to swallow & I hate it. But, again, we are negotiating w/ the GOP. We can't pass anything w/out their help.

I'm tired of seeing just a self-righteous scream instead of an actual ethical argument here. We have to negotiate with the GOP. I don't want to. But we have to. There's no other way. So: make an argument about what we should sacrifice & what we should hold sacred.

People keep responding to this by, again, just making one half of an ethical argument. Liability shields *are* bad. We all agree on that. What are you willing to sacrifice to ensure they are not enacted? B/c, so far, I just hear people saying it's bad. Everyone agrees on that.

The question is, again, not about what you think is bad or not. It is what you are willing to give up and why when you have to negotiate with people who do not share your principles.

Are you immoveable on liability? Okay. I agree that liability protections are unconscionable.

So what are you willing to give to the GOP to ensure that employers aren't given this protection?

And now people say, "We should not negotiate w/ republicans." That is not a full argument. Your actual argument should be, "We should not negotiate w/ republicans even if it entails people lose UI and are unable to pay their rent." B/c that's what we're dealing with here.

It's all well & good to make blanket statements about negotiating w/ bad people. I agree w/ these statements in an abstract sense. But, in a concrete sense, no negotiation has human cost. As do negotiations themselves. Quantify what human cost you are willing to swallow.