US Politics: Don't Manchin the war...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

"Shitting on Biden"= pointing out all the things Biden has failed to do. 

I also have absolutely no idea how that equals being fine with Trump again.  That's a massive leap.

It’s not being fine with Trump so much as not being strategic. I have a number of friends on the far left who won’t vote for moderate or middle of the road Democrats, and when it’s pointed out to them that overall that helps Republicans they tend to say that’s not their problem. Be more liberal.

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s not being fine with Trump so much as not being strategic. I have a number of friends on the far left who won’t vote for moderate or middle of the road Democrats, and when it’s pointed out to them that overall that helps Republicans they tend to say that’s not their problem. Be more liberal.

And what does that have to do with criticizing (shitting on) Biden?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

And what does that have to do with criticizing (shitting on) Biden?

Biden deserves criticism, but it should be within reason, and I find a lot of people who rag on him incessantly are willing to act in manner that helps Republicans win. They may not be for Trump, but they're also not willing to do what it takes to prevent him. Just think about all the people in 2016 who said Trump was the worst candidate they've seen, but they still couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary. They too were often times overly zealous to attack her.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Biden deserves criticism, but it should be within reason, and I find a lot of people who rag on him incessantly are willing to act in manner that helps Republicans win. They may not be for Trump, but they're also not willing to do what it takes to prevent him. Just think about all the people in 2016 who said Trump was the worst candidate they've seen, but they still couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary. They too were often times overly zealous to attack her.

Pretty sure everyone who has been criticizing Biden here voted for him in 2020.  

Would love to know how "shitting on" Biden is helping Trump.  

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Pretty sure everyone who has been criticizing Biden here voted for him in 2020.  

Would love to know how "shitting on" Biden is helping Trump.  

Agree. 
 

I was in no way happy with how the Afghanistan withdraw happened. That was ridiculous. And that is on President Biden.

I’m still not supporting Trump or any Trumpanistas.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just think about all the people in 2016 who said Trump was the worst candidate they've seen, but they still couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary.

A lot of those people came from the ideological middle, not just the left.  Just looking at third party votes is admittedly crude, but Johnson got three times as many votes as Stein - as well as tripling the libertarian vote share compared to both 2012 and 2020.  Stein 2016 popped in a similar fashion compared to 2012, but with a third of the voters.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Pretty sure everyone who has been criticizing Biden here voted for him in 2020.  

Would love to know how "shitting on" Biden is helping Trump.  

I'm not talking about just here though. And I would split hairs and say it's fine to criticize Biden, because he certainly has made some blunders, but there's a difference between legitimate criticism and attacking him just for the sake of attacking, which you know happens. The intent of that is not to help Trump/Republicans, but it certainly doesn't help Democrats, especially when you consider how little trust there is between the different factions in the party.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

A lot of those people came from the ideological middle, not just the left.  Just looking at third party votes is admittedly crude, but Johnson got three times as many votes as Stein - as well as tripling the libertarian vote share compared to both 2012 and 2020.  Stein 2016 popped in a similar fashion compared to 2012, but with a third of the voters.

Absolutely, but I was talking about it just within the context of the left. 

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Pretty sure everyone who has been criticizing Biden here voted for him in 2020.  

Would love to know how "shitting on" Biden is helping Trump.  

I didn't say that it is helping Trump. I did say that a number of progressives here have indicated that if this is how Biden is going to be, they're fine with Trump. You can browse through the rest of the thread if you like. 

[DMC]

I've read the thread pretty closely and I don't recall anyone saying they're "fine with Trump again."  There's been anger directed towards Biden and definitely moderates (rightfully so on the latter), and there's been the suggestion that certain things are more important than the 2024 election.  But neither even closely amounts to saying they're fine with Trump.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

I didn't say that it is helping Trump. I did say that a number of progressives here have indicated that if this is how Biden is going to be, they're fine with Trump. You can browse through the rest of the thread if you like. 

Just went through it again and the only things I saw that could even be misinterpreted as such were TGU being frustrated that the Dems look doomed and Fez saying that if the ceiling is breached voters should blame the Democrats.  I think that's a far cry from being fine with Trump if this is how Biden is going to be.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

From the quotes from various Congress folks, I don't think that's just a media perception. It sounds like Manchin does want some sort of deal, just likely quite a bit smaller than the current proposal. Whereas its entirely unclear if Sinema wants a bill to pass at all; including whether she actually cares if the infrastructure bill passes.

Ro Khanna straight up said they don't have a two senator problem, they have a one senator problem.

Yeah, the Manchin's made it clear the Dems can buy his vote and make him richer, and Sinema has already been bought by lobbyists. 

[Kalbear]

57 minutes ago, DMC said:

I've read the thread pretty closely and I don't recall anyone saying they're "fine with Trump again."  There's been anger directed towards Biden and definitely moderates (rightfully so on the latter), and there's been the suggestion that certain things are more important than the 2024 election.  But neither even closely amounts to saying they're fine with Trump.

 

56 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Just went through it again and the only things I saw that could even be misinterpreted as such were TGU being frustrated that the Dems look doomed and Fez saying that if the ceiling is breached voters should blame the Democrats.  I think that's a far cry from being fine with Trump if this is how Biden is going to be.

Apologies - I guess I misinterpreted it or was thinking about previous threads! I'm sure that there definitely aren't any progressives who are saying that they're just as fine with Trump as with Biden right now!

[sologdin]

anyone catch the edsall column this morning, questioning the 'assumed causal link of affective polarization on anti-democratic attitudes'?  i wonder if affective polarization, even if not causally related to anti-democratic attitudes, leads to a sort of hobbesian trap between opposed groups. the dems may be experiencing one internally, wherein its left wants to join the exterior far left to nuke the center with a bomb full of far right--the same error as in the 1930s. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

43 minutes ago, sologdin said:

anyone catch the edsall column this morning, questioning the 'assumed causal link of affective polarization on anti-democratic attitudes'?  i wonder if affective polarization, even if not causally related to anti-democratic attitudes, leads to a sort of hobbesian trap between opposed groups. the dems may be experiencing one internally, wherein its left wants to join the exterior far left to nuke the center with a bomb full of far right--the same error as in the 1930s. 

So much this.  

[DMC]

36 minutes ago, sologdin said:

anyone catch the edsall column this morning, questioning the 'assumed causal link of affective polarization on anti-democratic attitudes'?  i wonder if affective polarization, even if not causally related to anti-democratic attitudes, leads to a sort of hobbesian trap between opposed groups. the dems may be experiencing one internally, wherein its left wants to join the exterior far left to nuke the center with a bomb full of far right--the same error as in the 1930s. 

I'm definitely in the Broockman et al. camp on this.  Affective polarization is not the causal factor increasing antidemocratic attitudes in the US.  Maybe it's an intervening factor, but even that is dubious.  This type of thinking is derived from old hat on how multiparty systems throughout the world devolve into authoritarianism.  It's not particularly relevant to the US.  The right is solely responsible for the rise in antidemocratic attitudes, there is no comparison on the left.  If anything the most "radical" changes the left is arguing for are for more democracy, or at least as much as the concept can be linked to Rousseau's general will.

As for its relation to the current intraparty squabble, such an application is vastly overstating things.  This is primarily a conflict between two recalcitrant Senators and the rest of the caucus.  Not sure any broader conclusions can be drawn from it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm definitely in the Broockman et al. camp on this.  Affective polarization is not the causal factor increasing antidemocratic attitudes in the US.  Maybe it's an intervening factor, but even that is dubious.  This type of thinking is derived from old hat on how multiparty systems throughout the world devolve into authoritarianism.  It's not particularly relevant to the US.  The right is solely responsible for the rise in antidemocratic attitudes, there is no comparison on the left.  If anything the most "radical" changes the left is arguing for are for more democracy, or at least as much as the concept can be linked to Rousseau's general will.

As for its relation to the current intraparty squabble, such an application is vastly overstating things.  This is primarily a conflict between two recalcitrant Senators and the rest of the caucus.  Not sure any broader conclusions can be drawn from it.

That's true, but if you take away Sinema and Manchin, do special interests simply buy somebody else?  If there was a 55-45 Dem majority do we just get a group of 4 or 5 Dem moderates who occasionally cross party lines, giving each other just enough plausible cover to neuter any significant legislation?

[DMC]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

That's true, but if you take away Sinema and Manchin, do special interests simply buy somebody else?  If there was a 55-45 Dem majority do we just get a group of 4 or 5 Dem moderates who occasionally cross party lines, giving each other just enough plausible cover to neuter any significant legislation?

I mean, it depends on the Senators.  Jon Tester has just about as difficult a constituency as Manchin, but you don't see him out there...well I guess I shouldn't say the word, but doing what Manchin is doing.  And then you got Sinema that's even more confounding considering she's royally pissing off the entire Arizona Democratic Party.  I know that's not a satisfying answer but it's hard to give one without specifics...

Like, let's say Gideon and Cunningham won their races, and it was 52-48.  Do I think Gideon would be playing the same game Manchema are playing, which basically amounts to this:

Nah, I don't think Gideon would.  OTOH, I could totally see Cunningham being bought.  So, really depends on who we're talking about.

[The Anti-Targ]

Seems like a significant reason for a devolution to authoritarianism is a widely held belief on one (or more) side that they hold a divine or natural right to power and that anyone else holding power is a distortion of the divine / natural order. Therefore it is legitimate to take any steps necessary to preserve the divine / natural order and prevent divergence from it as much as possible. And of course in this respect the right has a greater ability to take those steps because it has a lot more money behind it to both put the plan into action and to deploy propaganda to convince the people it is all being done in the interests of protecting freedom and their own safety.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And progressives are trying to tell moderates they need to be strategic too - if progressives get elected on promises that moderates cause them to not be able to deliver on at all, that hurts the whole party. This game doesn’t only go one way.

I agree, but it is fair to point out you cannot also make promises you know you probably can't deliver on. I still think Manchin should have taken the deal from the start, but he didn't and you can't really be surprised by it. The need to dig in on the total cost rather than what you can get in it has been frustrating though. 

I'm still deeply concerned that this will all collapse, and as I've maintained for more than a month, that cannot happen. I wish they could just split the difference, handle the rest of what they need to do in 2021, take a breather, and then see how they can make the best of 2022. I think that's really the only way to get meaningful legislation passed that both sides can live with while doing there best to prevent significant losses in the next elections. Pride and the desire to stick it to one another cannot get in the way of the greater good.

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pride and the desire to stick it to one another cannot get in the way of the greater good.