US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[DMC]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Read the post in its entirety. I explicitly said, that those investigation should be indepedent on the person's voting record. That Manchin is a dickhead just makes it a bit more sweeter.

I was just fucking around.  Jack Bauer is too busy saving the world and/or being tortured anyway.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

By using what leverage there is against him like his corrupt fucking daughter! Like Jesus fucking Christ, LBJ wouldn’t have thought twice about it!

That might work.  But it’s a risk.  If he resigns due to the scandal… that’s control of the Senate.  It also makes it very hard to make the leverage work when he knows he’s the key to control of the US Senate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It’s fucked up progressives should…use leverage? In politics?

Go on man, like I can literally take nothing else you say seriously. Progressives are the only ones who can never play politics? Fuck that. That’s the con I’m talking about, right there.

We're talking about legislation that has to pass. You're treating this like you're negotiating with Republicans. Heads up, you're only leverage is political suicide, and if you want to inflict that on your own caucus to get your way, enjoy not having power with a side dish of nothing on infrastructure plus enjoying Republican control.

This is only hard if you make it so. Manchin shouldn't have done this, but it was also obvious he would if the price tag of $3.5T was demanded of him. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

By using what leverage there is against him like his corrupt fucking daughter! Like Jesus fucking Christ, LBJ wouldn’t have thought twice about it!

So, attack Hunter Biden if you want something from Joe?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

When was politics about always playing it safe? In case you haven’t noticed, we’re in an emergency here - time to break glass.

He could flip parties if he is pushed.  Look, I get where you are coming from I just don’t see where Manchin doesn’t come out winning this one.  If he flips the Senate progressives lose, if he resigns progressives lose, if he’s expelled due to scandal progressives lose.  

What is the progressives’ winning hand here that isn’t an obvious bluff?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Heads up, you're only leverage is political suicide, and if you want to inflict that on your own caucus to get your way, enjoy not having power with a side dish of nothing on infrastructure plus enjoying Republican control.

No, it isn't.  There's a big difference between using leverage and allowing Manchin to dictate terms for some reason - which is demonstrably your approach.  The only reason to allow him to do so is if you're naive enough to think he would allow both bills to fail.  You consistently act like Manchin using leverage is "just reality" while progressives using the same exactly leverage means they're being obstinate, unrealistic, and/or fatalistic.  It's a ludicrously pathetic double standard. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Well, then I guess Manchin & Sinema and the others will share in the blame when it tanks?

Certainly, but my point has been nationally they won't receive that much comparatively, and it's unclear how it hurts them. That's not the case with many other Democrats who need both bills to pass.

Look, again, I think they should have taken the deal from the start, but I was also realistic that they probably wouldn't. I just don't see why getting most of what you want isn't good enough so you'd blow up everything, which most likely means you get nothing and give the game away to those awful shitbags on the other side of the isle. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

No, it isn't.  There's a big difference between using leverage and allowing Manchin to dictate terms for some reason - which is demonstrably your approach.  The only reason to allow him to do so is if you're naive enough to think he would allow both bills to fail.  You consistently act like Manchin using leverage is "just reality" while progressives using the same exactly leverage means they're being obstinate, unrealistic, and/or fatalistic.  It's a ludicrously pathetic double standard. 

Heads up, he already said no to a $3.5T bill, and is far away from accepting anything close to it, so yes, saying it's a $3.5T bill or nothing, very clearly he's telling you nothing it is then. That hurts him less than Biden and Pelosi and the Democratic party overall. 

Like it or not, he's in the driver's seat.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Also I have to point out that it appears the moderates strategy to save themselves next year is to participate in brinksmanship and force progressives to come save them to get them re-elected…which takes chutzpah, to say the least.

It’s like sawing off the branch you’ve crawled out on and then griping at the people trying to save you as you’re falling because they’re not doing it the way you want.

Do you know what the bolded means? The moderates have been saying, "can we agree to a smaller bill, but still get something done?" The progressives have been the ones saying, "Take our offer or else."

That's the brinkmanship at play here my friend. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Heads up, he already said no to a $3.5T bill, and is far away from accepting anything close to it, so yes, saying it's a $3.5T bill or nothing, very clearly he's telling you nothing it is then. That hurts him less than Biden and Pelosi and the Democratic party overall. 

Like it or not, he's in the driver's seat.

Hohkay Neville.  You acting like he's in the driver's seat and holding the leadership in both chambers and the president hostage is the only reason he is in the driver's seat.  Maybe one day you'll grow a spine - or admit you're just shilling for Manchin.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we lose a Supreme Court Justice is having McConnell and the Republicans in charge of the Senate a more significant negative than the current situation?

Please when has the makeup of the Supreme Court ever mattered in the security of progressive causes. And don’t say gay rights, reproductive rights, or voting rights.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I love how history always gets re-written to favor moderates. Moderates already negotiated the bill down from a higher number.

Again, I'm not a moderate. I argued here that money can be done away with at the expense of losing some respect from @Mlle. Zabzie and @Iskaral Pust, for example. But I also said that would probably happen long after we're all dead. I have firm beliefs, but I also believe that things need to get done and I'm not going to blow everything up just because I don't get exactly what I want. 

Survive and advance baby! 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Honestly, I don’t see a winning hand Scot and neither do a lot of the people around here. Manchin and Sinema have seen to that by fucking up voting legislation.
 

The activists last year I was working with to get Horn re-elected are done with the national and state parties and are exclusively focusing on local and county races that we can flip next year, including going after moderate incumbent Democrats with primary challengers. Democrats are allowing Manchin & Sinema to fuck them over with the people that drive turnout in the Democratic Party. 

State and local elections have been ignored by the Democratic Party for far too long.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Bottomline boy, do you think Manchin would allow the infrastructure bill to fail?  If no, then you're obviously wrong and the Dems do have leverage against Manchin.  If yes, then you're laughably naive.  Which is it?

He'll let it fail if you force him to accept $3.5T or nothing on the reconciliation.

He'll probably happily pass it if you make the total package between the two bills $3.5T, which I've said for weeks now. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

He'll probably happily pass it if you make the total package between the two bills $3.5T, which I've said for weeks now. 

No, you haven't.  You're silly "proposal" was for $2.5 trillion.  Then, you said the Dems may just have to accept $1.5 trillion.  Stop lying about what you said.  The infrastructure bill is only $550 billion in new spending.  That would mean what you're suggesting would be a reconciliation bill of $2.95 trillion.  Learn how to do math.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, you haven't.  You're silly "proposal" was for $2.5 trillion.  Then, you said the Dems may just have to accept $1.5 trillion.  Stop lying about what you said.  The infrastructure bill is only $550 billion in new spending.  That would mean what you're suggesting would be a reconciliation bill of $2.95 trillion.  Learn how to do math.

Well it was $2.8T to start, so quit lying about what I said, and then I said when you add the two bills together in total it was roughly 85% of the total asking price.

Learn how to do math. 

ETA: And at this point, you'll be lucky to get even that. Digging in hasn't proven to be a great strategy, we can agree, right? 

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Bottomline boy, do you think Manchin would allow the infrastructure bill to fail?  If no, then you're obviously wrong and the Dems do have leverage against Manchin.  If yes, then you're laughably naive.  Which is it?

Why do you think that that Manchin is so attached to the infrastructure bill? There's no doubt that he would prefer it to succeed, but I have not seen anything to indicate that he is desperate to see it pass the House.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it was $2.8T to start, so quit lying about what I said, and then I said when you add the two bills together in total it was roughly 85% of the total asking price.

First, 2.8 is not 2.95 - and you've been arguing for far less than 2.8 for quite awhile.  Second, you explicitly stated the Dems may have to accept Manchin's "max" number of $1.5 trillion.  Stop pretending you didn't. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

Why do you think that that Manchin is so attached to the infrastructure bill? There's no doubt that he would prefer it to succeed, but I have not seen anything to indicate that he is desperate to see it pass the House.

Will, first of all because he insisted on maintaining the bipartisan group throughout the spring.  Second, it's rather obvious the only reason he voted to advance the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill in the first place was to ensure the infrastructure bill was passed.  Third, and most obviously, if he didn't care about anything passing he wouldn't be engaging in a media onslaught the past week or so that directly puts himself out there if both bills fail.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, 2.8 is not 2.95 - and you've been arguing for far less than 2.8 for quite awhile.  Second, you explicitly stated the Dems may have to accept Manchin's "max" number of $1.5 trillion.  Stop pretending you didn't. 

Calm yourself Derek. 

I very explicitly said progressives should be willing to take 80% of the $3.5T deal knowing there was another $1.1T in spending alongside it. 

Second, I did say Progressives may have to accept a deal that is less than that. I did also say that by dragging things on they're increasinging the chance that they get a worse deal, or no deal at all. Seems pretty accurate so far, no?