US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So, my question is: if you agree with me that none of this is actually working, then why don’t you agree that we need to try a new strategy? And you can’t say that a strategy has been tried if it gets some buzz for a few weeks until party leaders coalesce around a talking point designed to kill that alternative strategy.

Because Sanders as the leader would fail pretty spectacularly and set progressives' causes back by several years. Are we clear now? 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's only that if we assume nothing could have changed the result.

Manchin has confirmed nothing would have changed the result.  In addition to the fact he already confirmed he wasn't going to negotiate - let alone cut a deal - before October when he leaked that document.  The only practical effect Schumer sharing the (contents of) the document with the rest of the party is perhaps they could have gotten Manchin to agree to the framework he agreed to in late October a month or so earlier.  Which means...I guess maybe he could have broken that commitment similarly earlier?  That doesn't seem like much of a substantive difference.

[HoodedCrow]

I have heard about the wallets influencing Manchin.

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Liberals’ ability to confidently prognosticate that no one will ever turn out for a progressive nominee sure is convenient, don’t you think? Considering, after all, how they can make sure they never have to put that assertion to the test by just confidently proclaiming it to be true.

How very…Republican.

Oh please. Again, in a national election the progressive candidates were not chosen. Hell, Sanders couldn't even get Warren on his side. There is plenty of evidence to indicate what was proposed wouldn't have won, the biggest thing being that it did not, ya know, win. 

40 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Of course I’m talking about that kind of stuff! If you don’t have a propaganda outlet, build one! 

 

Yes, multimillionaires routinely decide to build super progressive leaning media empires that emphasize increasing their own tax burden

[ThinkerX]

well, since Manchin won't go along with the BBB, perhaps there is some other priority item he could go along with? Maybe strengthening the ACA? Or an immigration deal (which would require R votes, but whatever) 

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Says the person who has consistently been arguing the moderate position?

Agree to disagree until moderates’ are actually willing to allow that assertion to be put to the test.

Nope, there will be absolutely no self reflection on why progressives couldn't win. It's always the voters fault!

No one is going to 'let' progressives get a shot. They either sell something people want to support or they get nothing. You're in favor of quixotic get nothing and feeling confident in knowing that if only they had done it exactly your way things would have been fine. And ya know, an end state is a possible authoritarian left ruling the US, so maybe! But in politics people don't let you do things. Maybe stop asking for permission and crying when you don't get it. 

[Tywin et al.]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Manchin has confirmed nothing would have changed the result.  In addition to the fact he already confirmed he wasn't going to negotiate - let alone cut a deal - before October when he leaked that document.  The only practical effect Schumer sharing the (contents of) the document with the rest of the party is perhaps they could have gotten Manchin to agree to the framework he agreed to in late October a month or so earlier.  Which means...I guess maybe he could have broken that commitment similarly earlier?  That doesn't seem like much of a substantive difference.

Perhaps, and I'm not trying to guarantee a different approach would have resulted in everything working out, but I just think that if they had started from a place with more knowledge earlier on that it's possible it would have played out differently. That people were operating under so many different understandings of what was on the table contributed to so much of the chaos, and one person is responsible for that specific failure.

35 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Says the person who has consistently been arguing the moderate position?

Agree to disagree until moderates’ are actually willing to allow that assertion to be put to the test.

Read between the lines. I'm very progressive, but the moderate's position needs to be considered. 

[Fez]

Funnily enough, the end result of all this could end up being getting a better bill than we otherwise would've. Getting a few key new programs made permanent would be a much bigger deal than getting a bunch of a programs for just a few years. Also some of the programs as currently designed in the BBB are absolute rube goldberg nightmares.

Not to say that Manchin necessarily cares about that, or honestly ever will get to yes. But if the White House changes the bill to meet all his demands I do actually think it's a better bill than currently drafted. And Democrats should've made this change months ago anyway; they were simply too afraid to tell any of their key supporter groups that their pet issue wasn't going to make it on the boat.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

Getting a few key new programs made permanent would be a much bigger deal than getting a bunch of a programs for just a few years.

They can only get one program, the CTC, funded for ten years at the same price as the entire bill.  They obviously should not have adopted this tack.

[HoodedCrow]

When people are set on flaming…there is no reading between lines.

[A True Kaniggit]

1 minute ago, HoodedCrow said:

When people are set on flaming…there is no reading between lines.

Fuck racists and bigots!