US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Do you have any idea how badly this will tank support among progressive Democrats? I’m not even a Democrat and I can tell you the progressive political operatives I’m talking to around here are fed the fuck up with moderates’ bullshit. 
 

It’s honestly been a great recruiting tool for leftists, but Democrats can kiss any chance at holding on to the House or Senate next year goodbye if they let Manchin get away with this bullshit. Progressives will not turn out next year under those circumstances, nor should they.

 

They made a shit ton of promises last year that they’re barely keeping, so why should Democrats turn out if the party doesn’t turn out for them?

Democrats can also kiss any chances of holding on to Congress if the bills fail. I get wanting stick it to Manchin because of that insulting counter offer, but the final number cannot be $0. If that happens good luck getting the party to work together for the reset of this Congressional term, and don’t forget there’s other important stuff that needs to pass this year. Tanking Biden’s signature piece of legislation and creating intense infighting is a great way to hand power over to Republicans, and imagine how you would feel if in 2024 Republicans recapture the government with not much to show for it.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Tanking Biden’s signature piece of legislation

You're laughably deluded if you think the infrastructure bill is Biden's signature piece of legislation rather than the reconciliation bill.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I hope I buy my next used truck from someone with Ty's negotiation style.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I hope I buy my next used truck from someone with Ty's negotiation style.

 

Right but Ty will have "predicted" you ripped him off.

[Mindwalker]

Biden administration tells ex-Trump officials to resign from military academy advisory boards or be dismissed

The Biden administration has told 11 officials appointed to military service academy advisory boards by former President Donald Trump to resign or be dismissed, a source familiar with the situation tells CNN's KFile.

The officials asked to resign include prominent former Trump officials like former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, former senior counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster. They were appointed to the advisory boards of the Naval Academy, Air Force Academy and West Point respectively. (...)

At least one Trump appointee, Vought, has signaled he will not resign.

"No. It's a three year term," Vought tweeted, attaching an image of the letter requesting his resignation. (...)

 

In a statement, Mobbs said she would not be resigning.

"Frankly, I find this whole act unconscionable and not all in the spirit by which this Administration promised to govern. President Biden ran on a supposed platform of unity" (...)

Conway posted a statement on Twitter addressed to Biden, calling the news "petty and political" and saying she would not resign.

"Your decision is disappointing but understandable given the need to distract from a news cycle that has you mired in multiple self-inflicted crises and plummeting poll numbers," Conway wrote. (...)

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/08/politics/trump-appointees-biden-boards/index.html

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're laughably deluded if you think the infrastructure bill is Biden's signature piece of legislation rather than the reconciliation bill.

It's both bills. They're a package deal.

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I hope I buy my next used truck from someone with Ty's negotiation style.

 

At least you'd have a truck. The other option seems to be buying Wonder Woman's invisible jet, sight unseen. Because seriously, no one has actually offered up a realistic scenario of what to do if brinkmanship goes terribly wrong which is a very real possibility. 

12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

The party working together goes both ways - that means moderates shouldn’t get to win EVERY.FUCKING.DISPUTE.

That’s just coalitional politics, and if one side gets all the wins, and the other does all the “compromising”, then simply knowing people should indicate that you will eventually burn your other side. Why would progressives ever trust moderates after this?

No, they shouldn't and I agree in the past they've been asked to be the bigger side too often. Frankly at this point both sides need to use a possession arrow system like they do in college hoops (only half joking). Manchin's counter offer is absurd, but it's clear now that if something passes it will be a good deal less than $3.5T. People need to accept that and just hope the number is as high as possible because walking away with nothing isn't an option. And if you think that is an option, good luck with that. 

[Mindwalker]

This is what I feared all along:

PS: Happy birthday Bernie.

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

It's both bills. They're a package deal.

Sure, they're a package deal!  Which means Manchin, Sinema et al. get their bipartisan infrastructure deal and in exchange they agree to what the overwhelming majority of Democrats have negotiated on the reconciliation bill.  That was the deal.  Yet you consistently dismiss the interests of one side - which is the much much bigger side within the Democratic caucus - and act like they're to blame, or somehow will be blamed.  It's pathetic.

[maarsen]

5 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

This is what I feared all along:

 

That is a silly tule as any dumbfuck can claim to a presidential candidate and avoid prosecution for misdeeds.  Divine right of monarchs is a non starter in a democracy.

[Martell Spy]

Schumer has shot down Manchin's "strategic pause."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, they're a package deal!  Which means Manchin, Sinema et al. get their bipartisan infrastructure deal and in exchange they agree to what the overwhelming majority of Democrats have negotiated on the reconciliation bill.  That was the deal.  Yet you consistently dismiss the interests of one side - which is the much much bigger side within the Democratic caucus - and act like they're to blame, or somehow will be blamed.  It's pathetic.

I don't consistently dismiss the interests of one side, what I've consistently said is both sides need to grow the fuck up and not wreck this because they aren't going to get exactly what they want. For example, have I said one good thing about Manchin or Sinema this entire time? No, I haven't. They're assholes, and like I've said several times they should have taken the $3.5T top line number and then negotiated sweetheart deals for their states. But they didn't do that, and like it or not you have to cut a deal with them, or you can get nothing, likely lose control of the government and enjoy whatever grotesque thing Republicans do when they're in power.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, maarsen said:

That is a silly tule as any dumbfuck can claim to a presidential candidate and avoid prosecution for misdeeds.  Divine right of monarchs is a non starter in a democracy.

It's not a rule, or even a norm.  There's plenty of precedent for politicians being prosecuted while running for office.  Bob Menendez immediately comes to mind, and he got reelected.  That tweet is wrong.  That being said, Garland clearly isn't going to prosecute Trump regardless, so the point is moot.

[Jaxom 1974]

Is it worth countering to Manchin with the idea, "You can have 1.5 trillion, but we want the filibuster gone..."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, maarsen said:

That is a silly tule as any dumbfuck can claim to a presidential candidate and avoid prosecution for misdeeds.  Divine right of monarchs is a non starter in a democracy.

Pretty much. And I don't think there's any legal basis for this given he wouldn't be a candidate for anything in the next 14 months.

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Schumer has shot down Manchin's "offer."

Not shocking at all.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Rumors that Biden is now offering Manchin East Virginia in exchange for a $1.6T appropriations bill after reading this thread.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Is it worth countering to Manchin with the idea, "You can have 1.5 trillion, but we want the filibuster gone..."

Nonstarter. You'd be better off pitching something like a $3T package and let him and KS have a guiding hand in $1T of it. That's a hard deal to refuse.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't consistently dismiss the interests of one side, what I've consistently said is both sides need to grow the fuck up and not wreck this because they aren't going to get exactly what they want.

You said, at the beginning of the round, exactly this:

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's hard to imagine them accepting $1.5T, but at the same time they really cannot tank the bipartisan bill. Everyone knows this.

Seems like feckless capitulation to whatever Manchin demands to me.  Then you said:

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It will be on him technically, but if progressives walk they'll catch more flak in the press and ultimately lose the PR battle. Accepting a smaller deal is a lot better than nothing at all, especially when you consider how the latter will impact everything leading up to 2022. 

You've consistently either put the blame on progressives, or said they will be to blame.  And in doing so, you've consistently asserted the entire Democratic party should acquiesce to Manchin's demands.  If that's not consistently dismissing the interests of one side, I don't know what is.

[Kalbear]

Ultimately it comes down to how much pressure one thinks they can put on Manchin and Sinema to be successful. 

My fear is that Manchin doesn't actually care that much about either bill, and he is more happy with nothing getting passed instead of spending what he considers to be 'too much'. (note: he shouldn't care about spending too much, because West Virginia has a looong history of getting absurd amounts of money from their senators, hence why every third bridge is named after Byrd in WV). There is a calculus that says that he cares more about getting the bipartisan bill passed than getting nothing passed, but I'm not convinced given his reticence of doing, well, anything at all that this is correct.

I do agree that the risk to Biden of getting nothing passed is losing basically everything. Not because it's his signature bill, but because this will be yet another sign that his brand of governance doesn't work, and another loss he's taken. Why he lost, how he lost - that doesn't matter nearly as much as 'Biden is a loser' will - the rest is the kind of debating with advanced stats that football nerds like me take some pride in. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

but I'm not convinced given his reticence of doing, well, anything at all that this is correct.

If he didn't care about passing anything at all he would not be writing op-eds in the WSJ and planting stories with Axios.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

If he didn't care about passing anything at all he would not be writing op-eds in the WSJ and planting stories with Axios.

I didn't say he doesn't care - I said that he doesn't care enough. Basically, would he be okay with getting nothing passed if he could say 'it was a too expensive bill'? Or would he be crushed? I'm sure the ideal thing for him would be to get something he wants done, but the options he has right now are:

1 - go along with progressive plan and spend more than he supposedly wants to

2 - bargain with progressive plan and spend more than he wants to, but not quite as much

3 - demand that progressives cave to his plan and force them to give him what he wants, with the risk of getting nothing

And my suspicion is that he would rather get nothing than spend too much. That #3 is more desirable for him than #2 or #1 by a large enough margin. Because at the end of the day I don't think he wants the reconciliation bill at all. He wants the bipartisan one, and that's it.