US Politics: Biden vs. Ron DeCardassian in the Delta quadrant

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

In short, if this deal falls apart, you will automatically blame the progressives, regardless of who is really at fault, because they didn't bend over far enough for the moderates. 

No, and once again, I will blame both sides if talks fail. Who deserves the lion’s share is still TBD because we don’t know what the actual counteroffer is. I’m just more worried at this point in time that progressives will feel the need to walk prematurely because they feel like they’re in the right, which they are from both a policy and political perspective.

[Week]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You are right in that the prices of several categories of goods not tracked by the most common inflation indexes have been increasing longer (and in some cases quite sharply), but this year, the prices of pretty much everything -- including indexed goods -- are up by quite a bit. There's no hiding from the fact that inflation is here anymore; the debate is now over whether it is temporary and will go away by itself or something actually has to be done about it. If the latter, then injecting more money into the economy is rather like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Still mostly transitory -- much of the inflation has been due to wide swings in demand due to COVID. Used cars, airfare, hotels, wood, etc. all have seen huge increases after cratering last year. Wood, as an example, as already dropped back to normal prices.

[Mindwalker]

The US Chamber tweeted joyfully that thanks to the "moderate" Dems, the two bills have now successfully been "decoupled."

 

[Zorral]

"No, there weren’t thousands of covid deaths in New York that no one reported"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/25/no-there-werent-thousands-covid-deaths-new-york-that-no-one-reported/

The comments in response to this, at least at the top, as I didn't read through them, really slag NPR as a rethug apologist, racing to trumpet that NY covered up deaths.  People are pretty angry about this, at those at the top of the comments are.  The comments are posted as the most recent first.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This has nothing to do with right/left ideology and everything to do with getting something passed.

Of course it does.  If it only had to do with "getting things passed" and you being "Mr. Pragmatic," you wouldn't freak out when the left gets pissed off at the moderates but be all "meh" when the moderates make much more of an actual stink.

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The loudest voices of the progressive side have countered that they'll walk away if that's the case.

....See!  You're STILL blaming the "progressives" even when it's obviously, objectively, observably the moderates' fault.

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Right now I suspect Manchin and Senima are asking for significant cuts to the bill. To what extent I cannot say, but I have to believe if they were asking to trim it by $100B-$250B that Schumer and Pelosi would have made that deal.

Ok.  I suspect you're wrong.

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can progressives accept that deal or will they walk away? And if so, where do they go from there?

Why is it on progressives to "accept" a deal if Manchin and Sinema are major dicks demanding ~ a 20% cut?  I wouldn't, and I'm hardly "progressive" in the contemporary sense.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Why is it on progressives to "accept" a deal if Manchin and Sinema are major dicks demanding ~ a 20% cut?  I wouldn't, and I'm hardly "progressive" in the contemporary sense.

Yes I am pragmatic when it's the best way to actually achieve progress rather than talk about it. We can all agree they should have been team players, but surprise, surprise they weren't given the price tag of the proposed legislation. So what then? Of course you negotiate it down some while hoping to keep in as much as possible, and if their firm number is $2.8B in this hypothetical, you take it. That's still a grand total of $4T in spending, and in so doing it eliminates any possible fallout to the hard infrastructure deal. This is all a huge win, and not worth risking over $700B So again, for the umpteenth time, Manchin and Sinema are being dickheads over this, but unfortunately you need those dickheads.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong about the amount they want to strip away, but if it was a relatively small amount it would have already been accomplished by now given the scope of the spending package.

[mcbigski]

23 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Two geniuses of our US Congress decided it was a good idea to fly to Kabul to observe things, and didn't announce it to anyone.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-members-congress-fly-kabul-003208089.html

OK, I really don't get the objection here.  A Democrat and a Republican booked a chartered flight to Kabul to see for themselves what the Executive branch and unelected military officers were telling them.  Sounds like checks and balances to me.  

Did their flying in an extra plane mean extra people got stranded?  Missing something here.  Unless we just need to trust Big Brother and not double check anything.  Personally, I find it heartening that two veterans, one from each party, thought it was important enough to work together to find things out first hand.

Personally, this makes me more likely to trust both Moulton and Meijer in the future.  It would have been easy enough to just nod along with military/media complex.

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what then? Of course you negotiate it down some while hoping to keep in as much as possible, and if their firm number is $2.8B in this hypothetical, you take it.

Says the worst negotiator ever.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is all a huge win, and not worth risking over $700B So again, for the umpteenth time, Manchin and Sinema are being dickheads over this, but unfortunately you need those dickheads.

Manchin and Simena (and 9 House members) being dickheads is not worth $700 billion.  It's ludicrous to think it is.  Especially when considering the "bipartisan" deal they want in exchange is only $550 billion in new spending.  Seriously, you're the worst negotiator ever.

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

if it was a relatively small amount it would have already been accomplished by now given the scope of the spending package.

Well, there's pretty obvious reasons there's an "impasse."  Mainly, the people objecting want their constituents to know they caused an impasse.  In terms of haggling over the amount, though, no, it definitely could be a lot less than you're assuming. 

Again, this IS a deal brokered by Senators on all reasonable sides of the party.  The "progressives" you're worrying so much about are being responsible.  Demanding more - as the moderates are doing - is irresponsible.  They're the ones being babies here.  Just because you want to ignore it doesn't change that fact.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Why is it on progressives to "accept" a deal if Manchin and Sinema are major dicks demanding ~ a 20% cut?  I wouldn't, and I'm hardly "progressive" in the contemporary sense.

What exactly are they going to do if Manchin and/or Sinema say that they don't like the bill? The only leverage they have is the bipartisan bill and it's not at all clear that Manchin would be willing to give ground on the $3.5T over that (and that's assuming that the Chamber of Congress is wrong and the bills have not already been decoupled...).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Says the worst negotiator ever.

Manchin and Simena (and 9 House members) being dickheads is not worth $700 billion.  It's ludicrous to think it is.  Especially when considering the "bipartisan" deal they want in exchange is only $550 billion in new spending.  Seriously, you're the worst negotiator ever.

Well, there's pretty obvious reasons there's an "impasse."  Mainly, the people objecting want their constituents to know they caused an impasse.  In terms of haggling over the amount, though, no, it definitely could be a lot less than you're assuming. 

Again, this IS a deal brokered by Senators on all reasonable sides of the party.  The "progressives" you're worrying so much about are being responsible.  Demanding more - as the moderates are doing - is irresponsible.  They're the ones being babies here.  Just because you want to ignore it doesn't change that fact.

Lol, you cannot call someone the worst negotiator ever when you're risking losing everything with no plan at all. What have you actually proposed? Don't give in and be willing to walk away from a deal that's still pretty good all things considered?

You must be fun at the Pirate Game.

$3.5T was the high asking price that not everyone agreed too, and you need everyone. We all know this. That was never going to be the actual price, which you have said as much. So the next step is identifying a range in which you can accept a deal. Obviously you want to get it as a high as possible, but anything within it you can live with. More than 85% overall is not doing too shabby, especially when, once again, you can again find other ways to make up the difference. That result still achieves all of the overall political goals and most of the policy ones as well. Coming away with nothing is a disaster. And you seem to be okay with accepting that result while blaming the moderates and ignoring the progressives' role in this. At least I have been consistent in saying that it this fails both sides suck.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

What exactly are they going to do if Manchin and/or Sinema say that they don't like the bill? The only leverage they have is the bipartisan bill and it's not at all clear that Manchin would be willing to give ground on the $3.5T over that (and that's assuming that the Chamber of Congress is wrong and the bills have not already been decoupled...).

They don't even have that anymore. It's been decoupled from the reconciliation bill as of now, and if the latter fails there's no guarantee the hard infrastructure bills passes the House. 

[Martell Spy]

Federal judge imposes sanctions on Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and other pro-Trump lawyers
The court found that the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Michigan election fraud lawsuit filed it “in bad faith and for improper purpose.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/25/powell-wood-trump-sanctions-506910

Quote

 

A federal judge on Wednesday imposed sanctions on Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and seven other pro-Trump lawyers in a strongly worded denouncement of what the court called a frivolous election fraud lawsuit.

U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker found that Powell and her colleagues involved in the case, which sought to make former President Donald Trump Michigan’s official 2020 presidential pick, “filed this lawsuit in bad faith and for improper purpose.”

The lawsuit to decertify President Joe Biden’s victory in the state should have never been filed, Parker said in her opinion.

“Further, they presented pleadings that were not ‘warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or establishing new law’ and contained factual contentions lacking evidentiary support or likely to have evidentiary support,” Parker said.

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

$3.5T was the high asking price that not everyone agreed too, and you need everyone. We all know this. That was never going to be the actual price, which you have said as much. So the next step is identifying a range in which you can accept a deal. Obviously you want to get it as a high as possible, but anything within it you can live with.

Bernie Sanders sought 6 trillion.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Bernie Sanders sought 6 trillion.

 

Which is not an even remotely serious proposal. 

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, Altherion said:

What exactly are they going to do if Manchin and/or Sinema say that they don't like the bill? The only leverage they have is the bipartisan bill and it's not at all clear that Manchin would be willing to give ground on the $3.5T over that (and that's assuming that the Chamber of Congress is wrong and the bills have not already been decoupled...).

Not pass the bipartisan bill that they both, especially Sinema, desperately want.  You're right, I'm assuming the Chamber of Commerce (NOT "Congress") is wrong that the two bills are actually "decoupled" in any effective way.  I understand why Pelosi gave that to them as an empty gesture, but it doesn't change the fact they aren't going to get the votes in late September unless they also pass the reconciliation bill.

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, you cannot call someone the worst negotiator ever when you're risking losing everything with no plan at all. What have you actually proposed? Don't give in and be willing to walk away from a deal that's still pretty good all things considered?

I propose what you've already admitted is the proper course both politically and policywise.  How you think it's laughable that the Dem leadership should hold that position - especially when they actually are - is your own deal. 

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

$3.5T was the high asking price that not everyone agreed too

No, it wasn't.  You're making this up.  Stop spreading absolute bullshit.

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you seem to be okay with accepting that result while blaming the moderates and ignoring the progressives' role in this. At least I have been consistent in saying that it this fails both sides suck.

It's true, I enjoy seeing you flailing around like this.  Yes, I'm blaming the moderates.  Because it's obviously the moderates' fault for anyone that isn't so hilariously stupid. 

[Corvinus85]

58 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

OK, I really don't get the objection here.  A Democrat and a Republican booked a chartered flight to Kabul to see for themselves what the Executive branch and unelected military officers were telling them.  Sounds like checks and balances to me.  

Did their flying in an extra plane mean extra people got stranded?  Missing something here.  Unless we just need to trust Big Brother and not double check anything.  Personally, I find it heartening that two veterans, one from each party, thought it was important enough to work together to find things out first hand.

Personally, this makes me more likely to trust both Moulton and Meijer in the future.  It would have been easy enough to just nod along with military/media complex.

 

They went into a dangerous area, which likely caused a security risk/distraction and didn't even announce their plans until the plane was well on its way to Kabul. And yes, on top of that, that was 2 more seats that could have been taken by someone in need on the way out of Kabul. That's a military operation, they're not in the chain of command, they can check the executive branch all they want, but all they could do there was distract. As veterans they should have known better. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

@Tywin et al. so if Sinema and Manchin say they want $2.8 or $2.7 or $3.1 trillion, why should the Dems just acquiesce instead of negotiating?  It's not like either Manchin or Sinema would just nuke the entire thing because their own party had the audacity to negotiate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not pass the bipartisan bill that they both, especially Sinema, desperately want.  You're right, I'm assuming the Chamber of Commerce (NOT "Congress") is wrong that the two bills are actually "decoupled" in any effective way.  I understand way Pelosi gave that to them that empty gesture, but it doesn't change the fact they aren't going to get the votes in late September unless they also pass the reconciliation bill.

Oh, great, further self-destruction. That's your fucking plan? One that taints Pelosi in the process?

Your argument is give me everything I want or I burn it all down. Some negotiator you are.

Quote

I propose what you've already admitted is the proper course both politically and policywise.  How you think it's laughable that the Dem leadership should hold that position - especially when they actually are - is your own deal. 

You offered what you knew to be smart policy, but one that would likely also not be accepted. How is this so hard for you to understand? If you thought Manchin and Sinema would rubber stamp this you're very naïve. 

Quote

No, it wasn't.  You're making this up.  Stop spreading absolute bullshit.

It's not bullshit, and you know it. There was immediate pushback which was to be expected, so obviously it was coming in with a high asking price. Would it have made everything easier if they took it? Of course, but assuming they would is a stupid thing to do.

Quote

It's true, I enjoy seeing you flailing around like this.  Yes, I'm blaming the moderates.  Because it's obviously the moderates' fault for anyone that isn't so hilariously stupid. 

I'm not flailing at all. You're the one literally acting like an idiot who doesn't understand how you make deals. Saying take it over leave it as a starting position without any leverage that isn't also cutting off your nose to spite your face is incredibly moronic and a great way to get nothing done. So sink the bipartisan infrastructure deal. Lose both chambers in 2022 and probably the WH in 2024 while failing on a number of key issues.

Great logic, bro. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

@Tywin et al. so if Sinema and Manchin say they want $2.8 or $2.7 or $3.1 trillion, why should the Dems just acquiesce instead of negotiating?  It's not like either Manchin or Sinema would just nuke the entire thing because their own party had the audacity to negotiate.

And here in lines the key, they haven't said they want to nuke them. They have said they want a lower number. They're not the ones threatening to walk away if they don't get what they want. If you want to point to the House moderate Democrats, fine, but I said at the start they just wanted to get a clean vote on the first bill and they got it. So for now they played this well. 

Again, the final number doesn't matter politically. Obviously from a policy standpoint you want it to be as high as possible, but getting nothing cannot be an option. And once you accept that taking 80 cents on the dollar isn't so bad when close to $5T is at stake.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh, great, further self-destruction. That's your fucking plan? One that taints Pelosi in the process?

Your argument is give me everything I want or I burn it all down. Some negotiator you are.

No.  My argument is the deal has already been negotiated, give me what you promised.  It's absolutely reasonable outside of your fantasy land.  And plus -- it's not feckless!

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How is this so hard for you to understand? If you thought Manchin and Sinema would rubber stamp this you're very naïve. 

How do you not understand that two Senators don't get to cut $700 billion in funding that can help people?

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not bullshit, and you know it.

It's absolutely bullshit.  $3.5 trillion was not Bernie Sanders' - the chair of the Budget Committee - high asking price.  It's ludicrous to even argue this.

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

ou're the one literally acting like an idiot who doesn't understand how you make deals. Saying take it over leave it as a starting position without any leverage that isn't also cutting off your nose to spite your face is incredibly moronic and a great way to get nothing done

....I didn't say "take it or leave it."  But thanks for spreading even more bullshit.  I said your "concessions" to a small handful of moderates is way too much to give away.  And in turn you're the worst negotiator ever.  I said that because you are, indeed, the worst negotiator ever.