Jump to content

US Politics - It's a new dawn. It's a new day. It's a new life for US


Which Tyler
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

That's still not the point. I'm not talking about what is practical, I'm not talking about what appears to be realistic, this is what they need to do. There is only so much that they can do in the reconciliation bills, and like I said, those will be a big deal but in order to achieve the things that Biden has said he would do, much less the things that actually need to be done that shit needs to go, otherwise, it's going to be 2010 2.0 and anything that we might have done in the second half of Biden's term is DOA.

Okay, that's all cool and everything and we totally agree.

But we don't have the votes to get rid of the filibuster, at least not globally. What is your actual point? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't want to take about practicability (they don't have the votes to do it), but about what's realistic (the should do it anyway). If you are confused by that, don't worry... I am too.

I mean, I appreciate you channeling your inner Che: let's be realistic and do the impossible.

But there's still some logical disconnect there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Biden is currently signing his EOs which are focused of his COVID response. It appears Trump gave him one additional fuck you before he left:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html

Trump will still take credit for whatever happens next. Fox news will go along and amplify it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tywin et al. ...also, 400K dead, ~200K/ day infected as of Jan. 20, no plan, etc. needs to be shouted from the rooftops everytime some wing nut so-and-so tries to rehabilitate Trumps reputation. Fox news has already started.

https://www.rawstory.com/nomiki-konst-fox-news/

Someone needs to generate a meme from that screen cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

He doesn't want to take about practicability (they don't have the votes to do it), but about what's realistic (the should do it anyway). If you are confused by that, don't worry... I am too.

I mean, I appreciate you channeling your inner Che: let's be realistic and do the impossible.

But there's still some logical disconnect there.

Nah, he emphasises that it's not realistic either. What he's really saying is that all is hopeless and everyone should get drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Honestly not trying to be a dick, this sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.

There is a difference between what is at this moment possible, and what we need to do to advance Joe Biden's agenda. If we want to maintain power, we have to find a way to do these things, and and just shrugging your shoulders in defeat is not going to cut it.

We have to be working on Manchin, working on Simema, and any other Democrat who opposes these things, and not just externally, we need those within the party, especially those in leadership who have more influence, to be doing so as well. I'm sure those meetings are probably happening behind the scenes, or at least I hope they are given the fact that people like Harry Reid has come out for it, so if we're going to do it, it is not helpful to just sit there and ho-hum about how it isn't possible.

5 minutes ago, FalagarV2 said:

Nah, he emphasises that it's not realistic either. What he's really saying is that all is hopeless and everyone should get drunk.

It's actually quite the opposite, namely that just declaring it hopeless and getting drunk is counter productive and that we need to be pushing to make it reality.

15 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

He doesn't want to take about practicability (they don't have the votes to do it), but about what's realistic (the should do it anyway). If you are confused by that, don't worry... I am too.

I mean, I appreciate you channeling your inner Che: let's be realistic and do the impossible.

But there's still some logical disconnect there.

Everything was impossible until it wasn't, and just saying it isn't possible is the surest way to ensure it remains impossible.

Also It looks like Democratic socialism has come to Flavortown.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

We have to be working on Manchin

By all means, they should try all the carrots and sticks they can - privately.  It's still going to be futile - and obviously we're not going to know whether they did so or not.  If they did pressure him publicly, that's when you're getting into Josh Lymaning territory and pressuring him right out of the party, which means you just lost the majority and fucked yourself out of getting anything done even via reconciliation. 

So, I don't think it's as simple as you're presenting - especially considering Manchin's clearly intractable position combined with the fact he doesn't have much to lose by switching parties (he'll still get reelected, almost certainly more easily).  On abolishment, that is.  As I've said many times before, they should explore ways to convince him to go along with reform that could very well make some of Biden/the Dems' agenda more plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the understanding of who has the most power here is kind of off balance.

Right now, Manchin holds virtually all of the power to effect any of Biden's agenda. There are some things that Biden will likely get through without major issue - like his cabinet. There are others that he can do with EO only. But most of the stuff - including judicial appointments, reconciliation, budget, relief, any other platform work - will require Manchin to be on board, and there is little Manchin can be pushed on. He has an easy re-election campaign for the other party or his own, he is well-liked in WV, and primarying him  would be suicide for the Dems hopes of having that seat. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

If we want to maintain power, we have to find a way to do these things, and and just shrugging your shoulders in defeat is not going to cut it.

Also, this premise is supremely flawed.  Acting like it's going to be 2010 2.0 unless the Dems pass a bolder and broader liberal agenda is contradictory to what actually happened in 2010.  Many members voted for the ACA even though they knew the vote was going to cost them their seat, and that's exactly what happened.  So acting like what will be portrayed as Democratic overreach - quite convincingly after abolishing the filibuster - is going to curb the electoral backlash habitually seen in midterms is incredibly dubious.  Is it possible you're right?  Sure.  But I have no idea why you're so sure about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

By all means, they should try all the carrots and sticks they can - privately.  It's still going to be futile - and obviously we're not going to know whether they did so or not.  If they did pressure him publicly, that's when you're getting into Josh Lymaning territory and pressuring him right out of the party, which means you just lost the majority and fucked yourself out of getting anything done even via reconciliation. 

So, I don't think it's as simple as you're presenting - especially considering Manchin's clearly intractable position combined with the fact he doesn't have much to lose by switching parties (he'll still get reelected, almost certainly more easily).  On abolishment, that is.  As I've said many times before, they should explore ways to convince him to go along with reform that could very well make some of Biden/the Dems' agenda more plausible.

But once again we run into the same problem, having Manchin on board with reform is pointless because the 60 vote threshold on legislation still exists. There has to be something that would get him onboard. I really don't care what that price is, so long as it is not in direct contention with the Democratic party's stated goals (specifically in terms of environmental shit which is my biggest concern right now), He can have literally whatever he wants.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

Yeah, I think the understanding of who has the most power here is kind of off balance.

Right now, Manchin holds virtually all of the power to effect any of Biden's agenda. There are some things that Biden will likely get through without major issue - like his cabinet. There are others that he can do with EO only. But most of the stuff - including judicial appointments, reconciliation, budget, relief, any other platform work - will require Manchin to be on board, and there is little Manchin can be pushed on. He has an easy re-election campaign for the other party or his own, he is well-liked in WV, and primarying him  would be suicide for the Dems hopes of having that seat. 

 

I understand exactly where power lies, but it is not like Manchin has significantly less power at the moment if we have to hit a 50 vote threshold vs a 60 vote threshold. Not like many Republicans are about to cross the aisle, so all roads still go through Joe Manchin.

For the record, I think that West Virginia might be a place that we can actually make a big difference in people's lives, and I think that if we can do things like build union power, and actually fund economic and social programs, it might give the Democrats a fighting chance in WV. I think that it is something Manchin (assuming his concerns are the well being of his constituents) could get on board with. Right now, the Republican's primary connection to their people in those sorts of setting is cultural war shit, and those sorts of issues flourish in conditions like those that the people of WV currently live in, so who knows what might happen with we change those conditions.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Also, this premise is supremely flawed.  Acting like it's going to be 2010 2.0 unless the Dems pass a bolder and broader liberal agenda is contradictory to what actually happened in 2010.  Many members voted for the ACA even though they knew the vote was going to cost them their seat, and that's exactly what happened.  So acting like what will be portrayed as Democratic overreach - quite convincingly after abolishing the filibuster - is going to curb the electoral backlash habitually seen in midterms is incredibly dubious.  Is it possible you're right?  Sure.  But I have no idea why you're so sure about it.

I'm not even saying that we need some great progressive agenda, because what I want to see happen is not going to be what happens, I'm saying that we have to be able to go to the voters in 2022 and show them that voting for the Democrats means that their lives get better, and if things just go back to normal, or even worse if things stagnate or get worse due to a failure to adequately respond to the crisis we find ourselves in right now we're doubly fucked. We're going to be dealing with a psychotic right wing press and Republican party one way or another, and if we can achieve material improvements to peoples lives, that blunts the efficacy of such attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

But once again we run into the same problem, having Manchin on board with reform is pointless because the 60 vote threshold on legislation still exists.

Well, one obvious reform would be to lower the threshold.  There may well be 55 votes for HR1, or at least parts of it.  Same thing with infrastructure, certain climate change policy, minimum wage, even the immigration bill he just proposed.  I don't know any of that for sure, but it makes it a lot more plausible - just as getting Manchin to agree to such a change is a lot more plausible than abolishment.

As for "there has to be something to get him onboard," only if wishing made it so.  What?  I personally can't come up with anything I'd think do it but I'm certainly all ears.

11 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I'm saying that we have to be able to go to the voters in 2022 and show them that voting for the Democrats means that their lives get better, and if things just go back to normal, or even worse if things stagnate or get worse due to a failure to adequately respond to the crisis we find ourselves in right now we're doubly fucked. We're going to be dealing with a psychotic right wing press and Republican party one way or another, and if we can achieve material improvements to peoples lives, that blunts the efficacy of such attacks.

I mean, obviously yeah.  But without specifics acting like this can only be done through abolishing the filibuster and not through two reconciliation bills seems like an entirely pointless argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s pretty simple what @GrimTuesday is saying: Democrats need to use their power, and wasting time trying to get Republicans on board, or not getting anything actually passed except 2 reconciliation bills means Democrats will lose their Congressional majorities in 2 years.

Both Josh Marshall and Ezra Klein made the exact same arguments today (paywalls on both), so I don’t get why everyone is acting like @GrimTuesday is making an incoherent argument. If Manchin refuses to abolish the filibuster even after seeing what Republican obstructionism will be like, then Democrats obviously won’t have learned the lessons of Obama’s presidency, which would be fucking idiotic and which Democrats would deserve to lose when they’re up for election next. 

Quote

Donald Trump was this kind of populist. Democrats mocked his “I alone can fix it” message for its braggadocio and feared its authoritarianism, but they did not take seriously the deep soil in which it was rooted: The American system of governance is leaving too many Americans to despair and misery, too many problems unsolved, too many people disillusioned. It is captured by corporations and paralyzed by archaic rules. It is failing, and too many Democrats treat its failures as regrettable inevitabilities rather than a true crisis.

 

Edited by The Great Unwashed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If Manchin refuses to abolish the filibuster even after seeing what Republican obstructionism will be like

This is the incoherent part of the argument - the nigh impossibility of getting Manchin on board.  Which is fairly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is the incoherent part of the argument - the nigh impossibility of getting Manchin on board.  Which is fairly obvious.

It’s not incoherent to point out that if Manchin doesn’t change his mind, it’s going to tank Democrats’ chances to hold on to Congress in two years.

Everyone can keep ignoring that elephant in the room if they want, but that’s the plain truth.

Edited by The Great Unwashed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It’s not incoherent to point out that if Manchin doesn’t change his mind, it’s going to tank Democrats’ chances to hold on to Congress in two years.

It's not incoherent, no.  But it's a supremely flawed argument to say the Democrats' chances are necessarily "tanked" if they don't abolish to filibuster, as I mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It’s not incoherent to point out that if Manchin doesn’t change his mind, it’s going to tank Democrats’ chances to hold on to Congress in two years.

Again It should be noted manchin isn’t even the only Democrat not on board with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see that Marjorie Taylor Greene has finally acknowledged Biden as president. What a silly little dog and pony show.

Oh no, she might have actual grounds for it. Maybe that is why Q was wrong and Biden wasn't arrested. (forgot the link for the second bit)

 

Edited by GrimTuesday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Nice to see that Marjorie Taylor Greene has finally acknowledged Biden as president. What a silly little dog and pony show.

Oh no, she might have actual grounds for it. Maybe that is why Q was wrong and Biden wasn't arrested.

She gives morons a bad name

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...