US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Killing the bipartisan deal is not as big of a victory as completely breaking the Democratic caucus, which is a live play, and if they were smart they'd consider it. But they are far from that.

What the fuck does this mean?  "Completely breaking the Democratic caucus."  You're just saying things that have no substantive value.  Bottomline, there is not going to be enough House GOP members to support the bipartisan bill in order for it to pass if the progressives revolt.  Either argue that point or stop with the Tolkein language.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Once again, I must reiterate my point from over the summer that Democrats were so fucking stupid for not including the debt ceiling language in the reconciliation bill instead. That would've also had the benefit of jamming Manchin/Sinema, since it would've all of a sudden made reconciliation a must-pass bill.

I totally agreed - and still do - with not putting the debt ceiling in the reconciliation bill.  It'd be incredibly stupid to make it a purely partisan measure and would hamstring Democratic administrations - including potentially this one, in the future.  I applaud Schumer and Biden for not making such a myopic mistake.

[Fez]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

I totally agreed - and still do - with not putting the debt ceiling in the reconciliation bill.  It'd be incredibly stupid to make it a purely partisan measure and would hamstring Democratic administrations - including potentially this one, in the future.  I applaud Schumer and Biden for not making such a myopic mistake.

It's going to end up being a purely partisan vote in the end anyway though or we're breaching the debt ceiling. Only its taking a lot more pain to get there, and greater risk of breaching, than to have just done it from the start.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

What the fuck does this mean?  "Completely breaking the Democratic caucus."  You're just saying things that have no substantive value.  Bottomline, there is not going to be enough House GOP members to support the bipartisan bill in order for it to pass if the progressives revolt.  Either argue that point or stop with the Tolkein language.

Lol. A month ago I walked you through everything that was going to happen and.....here we are, everything I said could very well happen did, and your arguments against it have been largely wrong. That leverage play you outlined that I said would fail has completely failed. It was obvious at the time, even if you couldn't see why.

No, there probably won't be, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't consider it, because it would drive a huge wedge through the caucus, one which they may not survive.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

It's going to end up being a purely partisan vote in the end anyway though or we're breaching the debt ceiling. Only its taking a lot more pain to get there, and greater risk of breaching, than to have just done it from the start.

Well, no, at least not "probably," according to the aforementioned John Kennedy.  This isn't all that different than the 2013 battle.  In fact the timing in the calendar is almost identical.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol. A month ago I walked you through everything that was going to happen and.....here we are, everything I said could very well happen did, and your arguments against it have been largely wrong. That leverage play you outlined that I said would fail has completely failed. It was obvious at the time, even if you couldn't see why.

So..you have no arguments?  This isn't even worth a reply.  I've been largely wrong in what exactly?  Not peeing my pants because this is coming down to the wire?  Or even realizing there isn't actually a wire....

Seriously, and this is more of an in general reply, the approach I'm arguing against here is so ignorant of dealing with both Congressional Republicans and the Democratic caucus it is genuinely laughable to me.  You are acting like September 27 and/or October 1 are armageddon days.  They're not.  Life will go on.

In terms of the infrastructure and reconciliation bill, there is no reason they can't last beyond a week from now.  It's ludicrous to think that's the case.  Obama didn't get the ACA passed until what would be the equivalent of next March.  In terms of the CR and debt ceiling, this is how things have always played out and it'd be strategic malfeasance to do it any other way.  

Let's just say I'd never want to be in a foxhole with this type of shit.  Especially after the last four years and dealing with shitbags like McConnell for long before that.  It's like you're living in an alternate universe where such capitulation isn't exactly the problem that got us here in the first place.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

So..you have no arguments?  This isn't even worth a reply.  I've been largely wrong in what exactly?  Not peeing my pants because this is coming down to the wire?  Or even realizing there isn't actually a wire....

No arguments? I just laid out a long one a few posts before and you bypassed it because there's not much you could argue against it. 

Quote

Seriously, and this is more of an in general reply, the approach I'm arguing against here is so ignorant of dealing with both Congressional Republicans and the Democratic caucus it is genuinely laughable to me.  You are acting like September 27 and/or October 1 are armageddon days.  They're not.  Life will go on.

You keep saying this without ever considering what to do if it fails. It's always just a tomorrow problem. 

Quote

In terms of the infrastructure and reconciliation bill, there is no reason they can't last beyond a week from now.  It's ludicrous to think that's the case.  Obama didn't get the ACA passed until what would be the equivalent of next March.  In terms of the CR and debt ceiling, this is how things have always played out and it'd be strategic malfeasance to do it any other way.  

Comparing this to a decade ago is misguided. The times were different, the margins were significantly different, and the intraparty hostility was not as fierce.

And I said kick it back a few weeks in a previous post, so thanks for reading, but that can only occur for so long. Eventually they'll have to vote on it if the reconciliation bill keeps getting tied up. 

Quote

Let's just say I'd never want to be in a foxhole with this type of shit.  Especially after the last four years and dealing with shitbags like McConnell for long before that.  It's like you're living in an alternate universe where such capitulation isn't exactly the problem that got us here in the first place.

And yet your strategy has been consistently to get nothing, lose power and probably get curb stomped if that's the cost of taking an ethical stand. 

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet your strategy has been consistently to get nothing, lose power and probably get curb stomped if that's the cost of taking an ethical stand. 

....I'm not really sure how much influence you think I have to think my "strategy" has anything to do with what's actually happened.  My "strategy," yes, is not capitulating to a handful of moderates and definitely not the GOP on the debt ceiling/CR.  That "strategy" is also what has been pursued by the Democratic leadership.  Because they've been through it before, and it's entirely dumb to fold before the artificial deadlines.  Maybe you don't have experience with this, but acting like the sky will fall in a week or so is really fucking stupid.

[Larry of the Lawn]

So if I understand this correctly, the Dems are a hairsbreadth away from having their caucus completely annihilated ( a live action play!) or whatever, but the GOP just doesn't realize it?

It all makes so much sense now.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

7 hours ago, Kaligator said:

I was under the impression that you wrote that post with the expectation that it was convincing someone of something. I mean, the same is true about Republicans not voting to increase the debt ceiling and authorize funding of the government. It'll be entirely their fault, AND it doesn't matter in the least. 

If someone was discussing a possible default and claimed that both sides were equally damaging for not coming together to avoid it, do you think you might reasonably interject that one side is plainly more damaging when you consider the actual substance of their position?

You're coming at this from such a weird angle. I'm giving my opinion on an internet forum, I don't have any expectation that it affects the real world. It's true that my opinion doesn't matter! It's also true that right and wrong largely don't matter in American politics! And yet I still feel that actual substance is a valid area of interest and discussion. YMMV.

[DMC]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

A month ago I walked you through everything that was going to happen and.....here we are, everything I said could very well happen did, and your arguments against it have been largely wrong. That leverage play you outlined that I said would fail has completely failed. It was obvious at the time, even if you couldn't see why.

Also, let's get one thing clear, because you seem to be pervasively deluded on what happens on an internet discussion board - neither of us have been, or will be, "right" or "wrong."  You've been saying the Dems should give in to Manchin's demands no matter what, I'm saying they should hold firm as long as possible.  Thus far, we're both "right" in what each side is done, but no matter what happens, you really need to stop acting like our argument on how to approach this - and just as importantly who's to blame if it does blow up - has anything to do with who's right or wrong.  It's childish.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

....I'm not really sure how much influence you think I have to think my "strategy" has anything to do with what's actually happened.  My "strategy," yes, is not capitulating to a handful of moderates and definitely not the GOP on the debt ceiling/CR.  That "strategy" is also what has been pursued by the Democratic leadership.  Because they've been through it before, and it's entirely dumb to fold before the artificial deadlines.  Maybe you don't have experience with this, but acting like the sky will fall in a week or so is really fucking stupid.

Lol, no it is not. If the infrastructure/reconciliation negotiations collapse Democrats are likely to get destroyed in 2022 and then again probably in 2024, and they may have nothing to show for it. But you seem to think it's worth it if progressives take a stand and get nothing. Because that's how we make progress! 

 

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Also, let's get one thing clear, because you seem to be pervasively deluded on what happens on an internet discussion board - neither of us have been, or will be, "right" or "wrong."  You've been saying the Dems should give in to Manchin's demands no matter what, I'm saying they should hold firm as long as possible.  Thus far, we're both "right" in what each side is done, but no matter what happens, you really need to stop acting like our argument on how to approach this - and just as importantly who's to blame if it does blow up - has anything to do with who's right or wrong.  It's childish.

No I have not. I literally just said a few posts back that progressives can't accept his shit offer at this point, in part because they've boxed themselves in. But they are going to have to accept a compromise and everyone knows, expect for maybe them. And yes, you are wrong because you argued that they need to hold firm at the $3.5T number and that they should leverage the entire deal over it, which was political suicide back when you first argued it and still is today.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yes, you are wrong because you argued that they need to hold firm at the $3.5T number and that they should leverage the entire deal over it, which was political suicide back when you first argued it and still is today.

I've never argued this and it's pathetic you are trying to pretend I have.  I've said from the start concessions are inevitable and it's a matter of positioning.

Again, the difference is in approach and who is to blame - which are decidedly normative arguments, as in what "should" be done.  You've stated the Dems should accept Manchin's $1.5 trillion max offer.  I'm saying, well, first, I don't think there's enough votes for that in either chamber, but more importantly I don't think the Dems should back down to that number. 

You've also repeatedly stated that if everything blows up it will be the progressives that are to blame, while I've consistently said it will be on Manchin and the moderates.  Granted, you seem to waffle on this day by day, but any failure at this point is clearly Manchin et al.'s fault by negotiating in bad faith.  You don't vote to start a reconciliation process that explicitly is setting up a $3.5 trillion bill and then turn around a month later and say the only thing you're willing to pass is for less than half of that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I've never argued this and it's pathetic you are trying to pretend I have.  I've said from the start concessions are inevitable and it's a matter of positioning.

You also said several times that $3.5T was the compromise and progressives should not accept anything less. 

Quote

Again, the difference is in approach and who is to blame - which are decidedly normative arguments, as in what "should" be done.  You've stated the Dems should accept Manchin's $1.5 trillion max offer.  I'm saying, well, first, I don't think there's enough votes for that in either chamber, but more importantly I don't think the Dems should back down to that number. 

I said they should take it if and only if it was that or nothing, which I don't think is the case. But the counterproposal to that number cannot be "We still demand $3.5T," which so far has been what a lot of progressives have been advocating for.

Quote

You've also repeatedly stated that if everything blows up it will be the progressives that are to blame, while I've consistently said it will be on Manchin and the moderates.  Granted, you seem to waffle on this day by day, but any failure at this point is clearly Manchin et al.'s fault by negotiating in bad faith.  You don't vote to start a reconciliation process that explicitly is setting up a $3.5 trillion bill and then turn around a month later and say the only thing you're willing to pass is for less than half of that.

No, again I said they will get the blame, not they deserve to get the blame. I've very careful written that several times. Argue with what I'm saying, not the exaggerations of what I've said.

And no, trying to put all the blame on Manchin is what is acting in bad faith. You can't offer someone something you know they'll likely reject and then blame them for not accepting it. Sanders has even stated that Manchin told him he wouldn't accept that number long before the gears of the legislature began spinning. If these negotiations collapse, both sides will deserve blame.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You also said several times that $3.5T was the compromise and progressives should not accept anything less. 

I've said $3.5 trillion is a compromise, because that's a fact.  I've never, ever said progressives should not accept anything less.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, again I said they will get the blame, not they deserve to get the blame. I've very careful written that several times. Argue with what I'm saying, not the exaggerations of what I've said.

And no, trying to put all the blame on Manchin is what is acting in bad faith. You can't offer someone something you know they'll likely reject and then blame them for not accepting it. Sanders has even stated that Manchin told him he wouldn't accept that number long before the gears of the legislature began spinning. If these negotiations collapse, both sides will deserve blame.

I am arguing what you said.  You're saying the progressives are to blame, or "both sides" are, and I've been saying the entire time this is all on Manchin and company if they maintain such an unreasonable position.

[Zorral]

"Huge hack reveals embarrassing details of who’s behind Proud Boys and other far-right websites
Researchers say it will allow them to gain important new insights into how extremists operate online"

Very Long.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/21/epik-far-right-hack-anonymous/

Quote

 

Epik long has been the favorite Internet company of the far-right, providing domain services to QAnon theorists, Proud Boys and other instigators of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol — allowing them to broadcast hateful messages from behind a veil of anonymity.

But that veil abruptly vanished last week when a huge breach by the hacker group Anonymous dumped into public view more than 150 gigabytes of previously private data — including user names, passwords and other identifying information of Epik’s customers.

Extremism researchers and political opponents have treated the leak as a Rosetta Stone to the far-right, helping them to decode who has been doing what with whom over several years. Initial revelations have spilled out steadily across Twitter since news of the hack broke last week, often under the hashtag #epikfail, but those studying the material say they will need months and perhaps years to dig through all of it.

“It’s massive. It may be the biggest domain-style leak I’ve seen and, as an extremism researcher, it’s certainly the most interesting,” said Megan Squire, a computer science professor at Elon University who studies right-wing extremism. “It’s an embarrassment of riches — stress on the embarrassment.”

Epik, based in the Seattle suburb of Sammamish, has made its name in the Internet world by providing critical Web services to sites that have run afoul of other companies’ policies against hate speech, misinformation and advocating violence. Its client list is a roll-call of sites known for permitting extreme posts and that have been rejected by other companies for their failure to moderate what their users post.

Online records show those sites have included 8chan, which was dropped by its providers after hosting the manifesto of a gunman who killed 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019; Gab, which was dropped for hosting the antisemitic rants of a gunman who killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018; and Parler, which was dropped due to lax moderation related to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Epik also provides services to a network of sites devoted to extremist QAnon conspiracy theories. Epik briefly hosted the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer in 2019 after acquiring a cybersecurity company that had provided it with hosting services, but Epik soon canceled that contract, according to news reports. Epik also stopped supporting 8chan after a short period of time, the company has said.

Earlier this month, Epik also briefly provided service to the antiabortion group Texas Right to Life, whose website, ProLifeWhistleblower.com, was removed by the hosting service GoDaddy because it solicited accusations about which medical providers might be violating a state abortion ban.

An Epik attorney said the company stopped working with the site because it violated company rules against collecting people’s private information. Online records show Epik was still the site’s domain registrar as of last week, though the digital tip line is no longer available, and the site now redirects to the group’s homepage.

Epik founder Robert Monster’s willingness to provide technical support to online sanctuaries of the far-right have made him a regular target of anti-extremism advocates, who criticized him for using Epik’s tools to republish the Christchurch gunman’s manifesto and live-streamed video the killer had made of the slaughter. ....

 

 

[Fez]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, no, at least not "probably," according to the aforementioned John Kennedy.  This isn't all that different than the 2013 battle.  In fact the timing in the calendar is almost identical.

So..you have no arguments?  This isn't even worth a reply.  I've been largely wrong in what exactly?  Not peeing my pants because this is coming down to the wire?  Or even realizing there isn't actually a wire....

Seriously, and this is more of an in general reply, the approach I'm arguing against here is so ignorant of dealing with both Congressional Republicans and the Democratic caucus it is genuinely laughable to me.  You are acting like September 27 and/or October 1 are armageddon days.  They're not.  Life will go on.

In terms of the infrastructure and reconciliation bill, there is no reason they can't last beyond a week from now.  It's ludicrous to think that's the case.  Obama didn't get the ACA passed until what would be the equivalent of next March.  In terms of the CR and debt ceiling, this is how things have always played out and it'd be strategic malfeasance to do it any other way.  

Let's just say I'd never want to be in a foxhole with this type of shit.  Especially after the last four years and dealing with shitbags like McConnell for long before that.  It's like you're living in an alternate universe where such capitulation isn't exactly the problem that got us here in the first place.

Your own link has Kennedy saying he doesn't think there's anywhere close to 10 GOP votes for the debt ceiling. And there's been tons of reporting (e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/22/debt-ceiling-yellen-mnuchin-paulson/) that McConnell really isn't bluffing this time. The debt ceiling is getting breached unless Democrats go it alone. And it would've been easier to go it alone if they planned for it from the start.

I agree that most deadlines aren't really deadlines. The infrastructure bill can get brought back up anytime until Jan 2022 even if it fails on Sept 27. Shutdowns have happened before and will happen again. Big bills like reconciliation can drag out forever. That's all normal. Breaching the debt ceiling isn't. There's no going back once it happens. And all evidence is that it will happen if Democrats don't act.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Your own link has Kennedy saying he doesn't think there's anywhere close to 10 GOP votes for the debt ceiling.

I'm aware, I was responding to you saying it'd be a pure party-line vote like the House's last night, and the link disputes that by saying Kennedy will "probably" vote for it.  As for whether McConnell is bluffing or not, I don't see any reason to think he may well cave again just like he did in 2013. 

He is obviously in the wrong, so if he wants to shutdown the government we'll see how long that lasts.  The debt ceiling isn't going to be breached on October 1st - Or rather, it already was breached on August 1st and when exactly Treasury exhausts their "extraordinary measures" is entirely unclear.

[Gorn]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, no it is not. If the infrastructure/reconciliation negotiations collapse Democrats are likely to get destroyed in 2022 and then again probably in 2024, and they may have nothing to show for it. But you seem to think it's worth it if progressives take a stand and get nothing. Because that's how we make progress! 

 

No I have not. I literally just said a few posts back that progressives can't accept his shit offer at this point, in part because they've boxed themselves in. But they are going to have to accept a compromise and everyone knows, expect for maybe them. And yes, you are wrong because you argued that they need to hold firm at the $3.5T number and that they should leverage the entire deal over it, which was political suicide back when you first argued it and still is today.

If the Democrats fail to deliver majority of their election promises (which were bundled into the 3.5T bill) while having full control of the government, they will likely get destroyed in 2022 and then probably again in 2024 anyway, since a significant portion of their base will stay home. Same thing happened to Republicans in 2018.

[Altherion]

13 minutes ago, Gorn said:

If the Democrats fail to deliver majority of their election promises (which were bundled into the 3.5T bill) while having full control of the government, they will likely get destroyed in 2022 and then probably again in 2024 anyway, since a significant portion of their base will stay home. Same thing happened to Republicans in 2018.

They will almost certainly lose in 2022 simply because that's what almost always happens in midterm elections to the party in power. This is more or less independent of the $3.5T bill because most people will not see most effects of this bill by then. In fact, depending on what happens with inflation, the $3.5T bill might actually be severely counterproductive for 2022; that's a major reason why there's significant resistance to it.

2024 is a different matter because the incumbent tends to win. There are obviously exceptions, but it requires something quite extraordinary and we have not seen signs of it yet with the current administration.

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Gorn said:

If the Democrats fail to deliver majority of their election promises (which were bundled into the 3.5T bill) while having full control of the government, they will likely get destroyed in 2022 and then probably again in 2024 anyway, since a significant portion of their base will stay home. Same thing happened to Republicans in 2018.

To be clear, Republicans didn't stay home in 2018, and point of fact some of the elections had huge turnout - especially the senate ones. There was in general a lot of turnout in 2018, and it was very similar to 2020's general pattern - in that a lot more people turned out because they hated the fuck out of Trump and wanted to punish him. Apathy and being disappointed in Trump's goals were not particularly salient in suppressing voters.

If current trends hold and Biden's disapproval remains high it won't be apathy that creams dems - it'll be disapproval. That said, Biden not passing a whole lot of the stuff he said he would be able to - especially with the promise of having bipartisanship and having the government work again and demonstrating how his shit doesn't actually work - would likely sink this further.