US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

You've said it three times in the last four hours!  Seriously, how you can be this delusional is beyond me.  It's frankly not even worth responding to at this point.  But in case you're wondering what you yourself said, here ya go:

It's a shocking delusion that you don't get what you're actually arguing.  I think Manchin can be reasoned with.  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden all think Manchin can be reasoned with.  You're the only one that thinks the Dems have to accept whatever terms he stipulates and capitulate to his demands.  It's a completely ignorant and naive position you've taken that is not based on Manchin's own behavior since Biden took office.

If you want to shill for Manchin, that's your own business.  But please stop acting as if he's the only one with leverage and the party has to bend to his will.  It's a preposterous position.

Omg, stop the presses, you got me at this:
 

Quote

Second, I did say Progressives may have to accept a deal that is less than that.

You said the same fucking thing dude. I'm not going to bother and find which post it was because it was in our last back and forth, but you specifically said $3.5T wasn't going to be the final number and pretty much everyone knows it. So eat a huge bowl of STFU.

Now:

Quote

I said progressives have to look themselves in the mirror if all they can get is a $1.5T bill on top of $1.1T infrastructure deal. And yes, if that is a take it or leave situation they should take it.

Yes, this is me saying that if it's the only option, they should take it. That doesn't mean they should grovel for it nor does it mean they shouldn't negotiate to get it higher. I have said that now probably 20 or 30 times. Again, this is not hard unless your intention is to be a complete dumbass and selectively read everything I write to fit a narrative that simply doesn't exist. This is becoming sad.

Now, OTOH, since you would presumably reject such an offer, what would you do next? I've asked you this several times, and it's convenient that you always refuse to answer. Because we both know you have no answer. 

The rest of your post is utter nonsense, and again, you seem to only want to work from a framework that supports your completely delusional view. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Now, OTOH, since you would presumably reject such an offer, what would you do next? I've asked you this several times, and it's convenient that you always refuse to answer. Because we both know you have no answer. 

My answer is not accepting $1.5 trillion as an acceptable counter-offer.  Which to you it is.  And, frankly, it doesn't matter what I think because it's not an acceptable offer to "progressives" or even the Democratic leadership.  That's the bottomline son.  The fact you can't get that, again, is your own business.  

[VigoTheCarpathian]

If only someone could pry open Joe Manchin’s eyeballs a la “A Clockwork Orange”, and force him to read the last two threads where @DMC and @Tywin et al. talk past one another and argue minutiae about post wording and intent, I think he’d quickly see the error of his ways.  If not, we can threaten with 10+ more thread wormholes of the same - the only words he’d be able to recite at the end would be “Progressive. Moderate. Compromise. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. Negotiate. I didn’t say that. One time I served as a legislative aide. I didn’t say that. Pelosi. I didn’t say that. Compromise. I didn’t say that.” in a perpetual loop as they wheeled him away.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Yeah, he just made up a number. Or, he saw we've neglected infrastructure and American workers for decades and said, "hey, this is a minor step in the right direction." 

Are you a Republican or something? You sure are concerned about restoring meager amounts of prosperity to Americans.

I mean, you either have no clue how 3.5 trillion over ten years looks compared to yearly budgets, or you're just being disingenuous. 

It's totally fair to say we've neglected a lot of things for a long time. To then say we need to pay for them all at once, with yes, a number that is probably kind of made up, is not good policy making. And to then say cutting that number is the compromise without total buy in is a mistake anyone can see with the current political landscape.

No, I'm the furthest thing from being a Republican. I view myself as a Democratic Socialist who dreams of a very different world, but I live in this one and have to operate within the lines. Is your goal to get Republicans elected? Because it sure seems to be the case. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

My answer is not accepting $1.5 trillion as an acceptable counter-offer.  Which to you it is.  And, frankly, it doesn't matter what I think because it's not an acceptable offer to "progressives" or even the Democratic leadership.  That's the bottomline son.  The fact you can't get that, again, is your own business.  

And then what happens next, if progressives turn it down? Do you think you'll get a better deal, absent any evidence that's the case?

Unlikely, we both know. So then what? Be realistic. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

And then what happens next, if progressives turn it down? Do you think you'll get a better deal, absent any evidence that's the case?

Unlikely, we both know. So then what? Be realistic. 

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

[Martell Spy]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

I have a great idea. We can cut the payments to poor families. Manchin can then go home and brag about all the money he saved. It'll be just like the very serious Paul Ryan inflicting maximum damage on the poors.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

He's already said he'd walk if it's $3.5T, take it or leave it, so no, I haven't overlooked anything. And the negative fallout for him would be less than for all the other major actors at play, so again, you gotta play ball with him, not the other way around.

You keep leaning on killing the bipartisan bill as a leverage point to get him to do everything you want. That's very clearly failed. And your response has been..... keep leaning on killing the bipartisan deal. Okay then....

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You keep leaning on killing the bipartisan bill as a leverage point to get him to do everything you want. That's very clearly failed. And your response has been..... keep leaning on killing the bipartisan deal. Okay then....

How has it failed?  Only in your deluded little mind has it failed.  You keep on spewing bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.  Which is it?  Do you think Manchin is the only one with leverage - which is ludicrously naive - or do you think the rest of the party retains leverage against him - in which case your arguments are demonstrably wrong?  You have insisted it's one or the other, so make a choice or stop bothering me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

How has it failed?  Only in your deluded little mind has it failed.  You keep on spewing bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.  Which is it?  Do you think Manchin is the only one with leverage - which is ludicrously naive - or do you think the rest of the party retains leverage against him - in which case your arguments are demonstrably wrong?  You have insisted it's one or the other, so make a choice or stop bothering me.

Silly personal attacks again without any substance, per usual. What's new? A side of more nonsensical bullshit?

No Manchin is not the only one with leverage, but his is the strongest. If you can't figure that out, well, that's a you issue. 

Or are you going to quote me again saying that people will need to accept that a $3.5T deal is off the table (which you also said, btw), and then argue that means I'm stating that everyone needs to accept a $1.5T deal? That was rather pathetic. 

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

then argue that means I'm stating that everyone needs to accept a $1.5T deal? That was rather pathetic. 

Agreed, the multiple quotes of you explicitly saying everyone needs to accept a $1.5 trillion deal are rather pathetic.  But that's your own problem.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No Manchin is not the only one with leverage, but his is the strongest. If you can't figure that out, well, that's a you issue. 

Well, that's a hell of a lot different than you saying the only leverage anyone had was "political suicide:"

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Heads up, you're only leverage is political suicide

Honestly, it's too easy to demonstrate how you argue against yourself.  You flail and shift pathetically to pose as if you know what you're talking about, but in the end there's nothing substantive about your arguments at all.

[Ran]

Folks, some civility, please. I also suggest that if two people are practically monopolizing the thread that they should take it to private messages.

[DMC]

13 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

$900 billion of increases on corporations.  Top rate of 26.5%

Biden wanted 28, Manchin wanted 25.  26.5 sounds fair.  Anyway, sounds like $2.9 trillion will be payed for before "dynamic scoring."  As others have mentioned, hard to see how Manchin justifies going lower than the payfors in the name of "fiscal responsibility." 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Biden wanted 28, Manchin wanted 25.  26.5 sounds fair.  Anyway, sounds like $2.9 trillion will be payed for before "dynamic scoring."  As others have mentioned, hard to see how Manchin justifies going lower than the payfors in the name of "fiscal responsibility." 

Bill is out.  Lots and lots of stuff in it. (It’s over 800 pages).  I’m still digesting it, but there is an 18 page summary of the revenue raisers that  I’m posting here if people are interested:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/SubtitleISxS.pdf

[Mindwalker]

Sen. Feinstein would totally do something about the filibuster if democracy was at stake, but she just doesn't think it is. Just don't see it folks, sorry!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

I heard somewhere (I wish I could find it, but I can't seem to locate it) that Manchin is working behind the scenes with Schumer and Biden right now on a deal that will send a ridiculous amount of money to West Virginia. I think he'll get what he wants, and so long as Sinema doesn't obstruct, the bills should pass.

[Mindwalker]

To WV or to corporations/ donors, who knows...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

50 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I heard somewhere (I wish I could find it, but I can't seem to locate it) that Manchin is working behind the scenes with Schumer and Biden right now on a deal that will send a ridiculous amount of money to West Virginia. I think he'll get what he wants, and so long as Sinema doesn't obstruct, the bills should pass.

That was Byrd’s methodology for staying in office.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That was Byrd’s methodology for staying in office.

Robert Byrd was never in serious danger of losing reelection.  He brought home a shit ton of pork, of course, but it's not comparable to the jeopardy Manchin is in.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Y'all are all super focused on the Senate.  I think that is myopic.  The House is also VERY, VERY close.  I personally think the bigger obstacles are there.