The Texas Democrats Didn't FLEE! They are protesting.

[MerryHolidays]

All over the news media are statements like the "Democrats are fleeing Texas".

THEY ARE NOT FLEEING ANYTHING...they are PROTESTING.

Please don't let this pejorative become the fake/Orwellian reality.

[FBaggins]

1. I think you're making too much of very little

Would you prefer “avoiding arrest”?

They weren’t safe where they were so they rushed to somewhere that’s safe for them…

… that’s the dictionary definition of “flee”.

It doesn’t have to imply cowardice if they’re doing it intentionally and by design.

[MerryHolidays]

5. It does clearly imply fear or avoiding something

And almost all the headlines in Google news this morning are using "flee" or "fled". And Abbott is mentioning they fled in private jets.

Another poster mentioned the Oregon legislature and Idaho. When I google for news articles on that, some news articles use "flee", but other major ones are using "protest" or "walkout" or "disappear." By contrast, most of the major news sources I saw on Google news except CNN were using "flee".

Feel to respond if you want, but what I am referring to is a subtlety/nuance of language. I doubt we'll change each other's minds on semantics, but that's fine as you're not wrong to someone who understands what all this is about. I am more concerned about those who don't or, at most, read the headlines without understanding the reality of voter suppression.

I can already see how the Republicans will spin this: a bunch of liberals running away from their jobs on private planes. And using words like "flee" add to that spin that somehow it is the Dems that are doing something wrong.

[FBaggins]

6. I don't know about "fear", but they are in fact "avoiding something"

Almost all of the Oregon articles that came up for me had Flee/Fled in the headline.

without understanding the reality of voter suppression.

They are indeed fighting for something noble... but at the same time making other Democrats look like hypocrites. If it isn't a battle that they can win (and it sure looks like it isn't), then they're harming the party's image without offsetting benefit.

The complaints are that the US Senate's filibuster allows for 40% (+1) of Senators to block legislation supported by the majority and that's "undemocratic"... yet in Texas we're celebrating an even smaller 33% (+1) in either the state House or Senate blocking legislation by the clear majority?

"Rules for me and not for thee" rarely sells well. The wording of some article title is tiny in comparison.

[quakerboy]

2. When the Oregon Legislative republicans headed to Idaho

to prevent quorum and block all sorts of legislation in the past few years.. Were they also protesting?

[forthemiddle]

3. Would filibuster be a better word?

For what it’s worth, I have been in favor of keeping the filibuster in the Senate, and I’m in favor of this move.
I realize they are two different rules (or maneuver in this case), so I’m not playing whataboutism, I’m just pointing out that rules set up to protect the minority are usually a good thing, even if it hurts us at times.
I just like to remind others that without the filibuster in the Senate we would have “The Born Alive Bill”, we would have a border wall, and going way back, we would have have private accounts for Social Security!

[FBaggins]

4. It is indeed a filibuster

Which adds extra irony since they’re reportedly trying to convince other Dems to kill a different form of filibuster - and one that is more legitimate and more democratic than they one they’re using.