Jump to content

US Politics: Manchin Shin Drinks the Blood and Cracks the Bone


A True Kaniggit

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Right. And when this reasonbable, realistic trifecta loses the House and/ or Senate, I'm sure it has less to do with said government and Manchin and more with progressives because... reasons.

If those losses start to look very real closer to midterm elections, we'll start hearing those reasons. I'm interested to see how progressives botched this one. Maybe if they hadn't tried to do anything, they wouldn't have forced Joe Manchin to obstruct everything? I think it could be that simple. It'll be a simultaneous reforming of Manchin's public persona while the pundits try to stomp the Squad and Bernie into the ground for being "so unrealistic." 

In a way they're right--asking for incremental change back to the center in this country is extreme behavior. We only shift right until people who have been lifelong Republicans are suddenly like, "Hey, I'm a Democrat now!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Why do you think I'm angry? I'm just bored with this question of yours (paraded as "pragmatism"--which it is not). I think you're projecting your own feelings about things onto my tone. Please don't!

What have I said that is inaccurate?  Is it possible for a leftist Democratic candidate to win the US Senate seat from WV?  Sure, it’s hypothetically possible.  The better questions are whether it is likely and worth a significant outlay of limited resources?

What say you to the second and third questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What have I said that is inaccurate?  Is it possible for a leftist Democratic candidate to win the US Senate seat from WV?  Sure, it’s hypothetically possible.  The better questions are whether it is likely and worth a significant outlay of limited resources?

What say you to the second and third questions?

Why did you say I was angry for your responding to your question? Is it possible for Manchin to lose the seat to a centrist Democrat? I'd say that's more than a hypothetical possibility. You create a strawman of progressivism, but the reality is Manchin is a Republican masquerading as a Dem, he'll be changing parties soon enough, and a moderate Dem, a progressive, etc. will be the only option the Dem party has to support there. 

What limited resources are you worried about activists in WV wasting? Are you worried the Dem party will funnel money into a longshot challenger against Manchin? Don't worry, they won't. The people of WV who are mobilizing (much as Stacy Abrams did these last few years) are working hard to improve the truly squalid living conditions leadership such as Manchin's has brought. 

Mainstream Democrats have long campaigned on shutting coal mines down--and that's literally the only option people there have for work. Instead of offering support and help while we transition, Hillary and Obama treated this as a war to win.

The right isn't helping them, and the Dems certainly didn't help them. Organizers in West Virginia are looking for elected leaders who want to help them not be in the top 3 poorest countries in the U.S. 

Ultimately, the Senate itself is the problem. North and South Dakota have 4 senators representing 1.4 million people. California has 2 senators representing 40 million people. 1.4 million people get twice as many votes in the Senate--which is the more powerful of the two branches of Congress. 

The Senate, in its current form, needs about 60 Dem senators to probably do anything meaningful--and by "meaningful" I mean incremental shifts back to the center. 

So, to bring this back round to your original question: there aren't resources being wasted on this question. Nationally, we have a right to criticize and hope for the removal of a single person obstructing the majority of the party he claims membership with. Many of us would love to see him get his due because he's corrupt, gets lots of money donated to him right before he makes these "tough stands against spending," his children are financially well off due to his position and they exploit workers in WV, etc. 

Sitting here saying, "but who else" is either a dense question that misses the entire point, or an antagonistic question posed against those you don't agree with ideologically. I know you're not dense.

Who is there? Who cares--many of us hope WV finds someone to replace Manchin for the harm and pain he causes the people there and, now, in the rest of the country. 

ETA: And please, by all means, read this post in the tone in which I wrote it--my natural, monotone voice that's not conveying much of any emotion at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Why did you say I was angry for your responding to your question? Is it possible for Manchin to lose the seat to a centrist Democrat? I'd say that's more than a hypothetical possibility. You create a strawman of progressivism, but the reality is Manchin is a Republican masquerading as a Dem, he'll be changing parties soon enough, and a moderate Dem, a progressive, etc. will be the only option the Dem party has to support there. 

What limited resources are you worried about activists in WV wasting? Are you worried the Dem party will funnel money into a longshot challenger against Manchin? Don't worry, they won't. The people of WV who are mobilizing (much as Stacy Abrams did these last few years) are working hard to improve the truly squalid living conditions leadership such as Manchin's has brought. 

Mainstream Democrats have long campaigned on shutting coal mines down--and that's literally the only option people there have for work. Instead of offering support and help while we transition, Hillary and Obama treated this as a war to win.

The right isn't helping them, and the Dems certainly didn't help them. Organizers in West Virginia are looking for elected leaders who want to help them not be in the top 3 poorest countries in the U.S. 

Ultimately, the Senate itself is the problem. North and South Dakota have 4 senators representing 1.4 million people. California has 2 senators representing 40 million people. 1.4 million people get twice as many votes in the Senate--which is the more powerful of the two branches of Congress. 

The Senate, in its current form, needs about 60 Dem senators to probably do anything meaningful--and by "meaningful" I mean incremental shifts back to the center. 

So, to bring this back round to your original question: there aren't resources being wasted on this question. Nationally, we have a right to criticize and hope for the removal of a single person obstructing the majority of the party he claims membership with. Many of us would love to see him get his due because he's corrupt, gets lots of money donated to him right before he makes these "tough stands against spending," his children are financially well off due to his position and they exploit workers in WV, etc. 

Sitting here saying, "but who else" is either a dense question that misses the entire point, or an antagonistic question posed against those you don't agree with ideologically. I know you're not dense.

Who is there? Who cares--many of us hope WV finds someone to replace Manchin for the harm and pain he causes the people there and, now, in the rest of the country. 

ETA: And please, by all means, read this post in the tone in which I wrote it--my natural, monotone voice that's not conveying much of any emotion at all.

Okay.  As I said above if a progressive or moderate Democrat wins a US Senate seat from WV I will absolutely eat my words and admit I was wrong.  As I said above long shots do sometimes work.  And if they are never tried they never have an opportunity to work.  That will always be true.

All that said I think targeting Manchin for a primary challenge and running someone to his left if he loses such a primary in WV is likely to result in a new Republican Senator.  There are no other Democrats in any Federal offices from WV at this point.  

Is there any real indication that Manchin will change parties.  If so, I’ve heard nothing of it.

As I have pointed out changing the structure of the US Senate is extremely difficult (more so than other Constitutional structures).   Regardless I have also said, for a very long time, we need serious structural changes in the US.  That includes the structure of the US Senate.

As to why I think you are angry… it’s simply my impression.  If you are not and I have misjudged your mood that is absolutely my mistake and I sincerely apologize for making assumptions about your emotions on this issue.  It was wrong for me to make such assumptions and again, I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchin has the maximum leverage now. He stays in the pivot role…(help us all)  Yes, the structure needs to change. It will be hard with Faux news and the propaganda being pumped out, the Sinclair purchase of local news, the Murdoch media empire, the undermining and purchase of smaller news outlets, the Facebookization of media which is so bad that they changed their name, the smearing of anyone who is a liberal, truthful, or black or female, or preferable all of the above, made so popular by Trump. How about,  a new slogan, I’m a D, because I’m not a creep! ( Kavanaugh, Trump, Thomas, McConnell) I know, I know, I won’t get the marketing job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

As to why I think you are angry… it’s simply my impression.  If you are not and I have misjudged your mood that is absolutely my mistake and I sincerely apologize for making assumptions about your emotions on this issue.  It was wrong for me to make such assumptions and again, I apologize.

It's cool, Scot. You and I just see things differently--I understand your point of view, and there's no doubt that Manchin switching parties is purely speculation at this point. I'm a pessimist, so I'm assuming he will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

It's cool, Scot. You and I just see things differently--I understand your point of view, and there's no doubt that Manchin switching parties is purely speculation at this point. I'm a pessimist, so I'm assuming he will.

Thanks.  Hope the remainder of the Christmas Holiday and the New Year are amazing for you and your family.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be weird for Manchin to change parties. He votes with Democrats almost always, so I don't think he inclines towards the GOP, and he'd lose his seniority in any case. Besides, party-switchers don't exactly have a track record of electoral success. So I can't see any benefit to Manchin changing sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

I think it would be weird for Manchin to change parties. He votes with Democrats almost always, so I don't think he inclines towards the GOP, and he'd lose his seniority in any case. Besides, party-switchers don't exactly have a track record of electoral success. So I can't see any benefit to Manchin changing sides.

He’d also be immediately primaried by a Trumpanista in a Trump loving State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He’d also be immediately primaried by a Trumpanista in a Trump loving State.

Right, and that's not a contest he's likely to win.

I think sometimes we on the left forget how lucky we are to have Manchin. Sure, he's annoying, and I don't know what he's getting out of protecting the filibuster, but we're not likely to get a better senator from West Virginia. I'd rather have him than Rand Paul II, which is what the Mountain State would likely deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For fun, since I'm currently bored at work...a quote from our own Ser Scot, from the oldest US Politics thread there is on the Forum.  A thread that was punctuated in the early discussion on it about the need and viability of containing US Politics to a single thread...

From November 9th, 2008:

I'd like to add my voice to those who thin' a single thread for U.S. Politics will not work. It is too broad a topic to confine to one thread. - Ser Scot

 

And now back to the regular gloom and doom...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

For fun, since I'm currently bored at work...a quote from our own Ser Scot, from the oldest US Politics thread there is on the Forum.  A thread that was punctuated in the early discussion on it about the need and viability of containing US Politics to a single thread...

From November 9th, 2008:

I'd like to add my voice to those who thin' a single thread for U.S. Politics will not work. It is too broad a topic to confine to one thread. - Ser Scot

 

And now back to the regular gloom and doom...

I still think that is the case.  Regardless, I bow to convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

He votes with Democrats almost always, so I don't think he inclines towards the GOP, and he'd lose his seniority in any case.

Well, the GOP is recruiting him, and any party switch would be predicated on retaining ranking membership of the energy committee, so seniority wouldn't be an issue.  The GOP's current ranking member is John Barrasso, and as a part of leadership he'd surely give it up.

That being said, it is quite possible if he leaves the party it will more just be an electoral strategy - switching to independent and still caucusing with the Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Harry Reid died today. He was only 82. Yes, only.

I was under the impression that a substantial fraction of congress, along with a SC justice or three, among others, were that age or older....along with at least one other prominent political figure.  Says something when we have so many extremely old people in office...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I was under the impression that a substantial fraction of congress, along with a SC justice or three, among others, were that age or older....along with at least one other prominent political figure.  Says something when we have so many extremely old people in office...

 

Yes, but Reid had the good sense to retire instead of dying in office. I am not mentioning a certain SC justice from California by name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Virginia supreme court has approved the state's new redistricting map.  It is largely unchanged from the old map:

Quote

After Virginia’s new bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a new map by the deadline, congressional redistricting in Virginia fell to the state Supreme Court, which appointed two special masters to complete the task. After considering public comment on a draft map proposed on Dec. 8, the special masters unveiled a final congressional map that the court unanimously approved on Dec. 28.

The new map has the same partisan breakdown as the old one — five Democratic-leaning seats, five Republican-leaning seats and one highly competitive seat — but it appears to be more fair, with a lower efficiency gap and a median congressional district closer to the state as a whole.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghislaine Maxwell is now a convicted sex trafficker.

Jury finds Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficked a minor for Jeffrey Epstein, guilty on five of six counts

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/us/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-wednesday/index.html

Time to look at the other clients participation in these rape-y getaways.

Yes I'm talking about you former Prez(2) and royals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Ghislaine Maxwell is now a convicted sex trafficker.

Jury finds Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficked a minor for Jeffrey Epstein, guilty on five of six counts

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/us/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-wednesday/index.html

Time to look at the other clients participation in these rape-y getaways.

Yes I'm talking about you former Prez(2) and royals.

She’s spending the rest of her life in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

She’s spending the rest of her life in prison.

Which may encourage her to spill the beans on the aforementioned others in a bid to reduce her sentence. Up till now I got the impression she was of the belief that her social position would protect her and she would get off. She came across as having a huge sense of entitlement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...