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

[Jaxom 1974]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Manchin privately admits why he torpedoed the child tax credit.

In recent months, Manchin has told several of his fellow Democrats that he thought parents would waste monthly child tax credit payments on drugs instead of providing for their children, according to two sources familiar with the senator’s comments.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-manchin-build-back-better-child-tax-credit-drugs_n_61bf8f6be4b061afe394006d

Someone should point out that yes, some parents might have to use that tax credit money to buy insulin, or any number of life saving drugs that cost hundreds of dollars...

[Jaxom 1974]

And sorry, not sorry, this brightened my day...

 

[TrueMetis]

36 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Someone should point out that yes, some parents might have to use that tax credit money to buy insulin, or any number of life saving drugs that cost hundreds of dollars...

Wasn't one of the provisions of the bill something that would make insulin cheaper?

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Wasn't one of the provisions of the bill something that would make insulin cheaper?

It was! And once people spend less money on insulin they'll have more to spend on drugs and gambling!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

This whole "setting expectations too high" is standard boilerplate talking head bullshit that almost always isn't actually a real thing.  Speaking of Tester, here he is responding to this inane canard:

 

Two things can be true at once. Or in other words, as I've said here for years, spike the god damn mother fucking football for once you cowards. 

4 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

It was! And once people spend less money on insulin they'll have more to spend on drugs and gambling!

Don't forget the sex workers! 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Two things can be true at once. Or in other words, as I've said here for years, spike the god damn mother fucking football for once you cowards. 

...I mean, sure spike the football, but the point there was the "setting expectations too high" narrative is all-too familiar bullshit lazy "analysis."  It is not setting expectations too high when all but one of your House members votes for the bill and all but one of your Senators - who is also the pivotal vote - is on board.  An actual example of setting expectations too high would be the House passing the cap and trade bill in 2009 and it never even being considered in the Senate.  This is like saying I set my expectations too high in 2019 when I thought the Niners could win the Super Bowl just because Garoppolo couldn't put the Chiefs away.

Anyway, been thinking about this Captain Hindsight thing.  The only compelling argument I can think of is if, after passing the stimulus bill in late March, the leadership took up the reconciliation bill first and said they won't take up infrastructure until that's resolved.  This would obviously deter Manchin from stalling, although it also obviously would piss him off.  But it's the only credible alternative premise I can think of for forcing him to actually reveal his true preferences and maybe convince him to support as much as possible.

Of course, that's the fallacy of Captain Hindsight.  That still assumes all the GOP Senators that voted for infrastructure would be on board after the Dems dealt with the reconciliation bill first.  That's a very dubious proposition.

[Maithanet]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Don't forget the sex workers! 

Don't you mean job creators?

[Jaxom 1974]

29 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

It was! And once people spend less money on insulin they'll have more to spend on drugs and gambling!

YOLO...?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

Wasn't one of the provisions of the bill something that would make insulin cheaper?

It was going to cap insurance copays at $35 a month.  But anyone without insurance was still fucked.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

...I mean, sure spike the football, but the point there was the "setting expectations too high" narrative is all-too familiar bullshit lazy "analysis."  It is not setting expectations too high when all but one of your House members votes for the bill and all but one of your Senators - who is also the pivotal vote - is on board.  An actual example of setting expectations too high would be the House passing the cap and trade bill in 2009 and it never even being considered in the Senate.  This is like saying I set my expectations too high in 2019 when I thought the Niners could win the Super Bowl just because Garoppolo couldn't put the Chiefs away.

Democrats promised their supporters the sun and the stars and have thus far failed to deliver on the heart of their legislative agenda as well as voting rights reform, just to name a few issues. They would have delivered on probably nothing if not for getting lucky with the GA special elections. I don't think it's wrong to be honest with your supporters and set realistic expectations. YMMV though.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Don't you mean job creators?

Technically speaking, wouldn't that be the pimps and madams? 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think it's wrong to be honest with your supporters and set realistic expectations. YMMV though.

It's not only preposterous but also nakedly hypocritical to say the Dems thinking they could get Manchin to agree to the framework he..basically agreed to in October is an unrealistic expectation.  You certainly didn't think so at the time when you said they should just accept Manchin's purported top line number and pass the infrastructure bill - and then they did.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It's not only preposterous but also nakedly hypocritical to say the Dems thinking they could get Manchin to agree to the framework he..basically agreed to in October is an unrealistic expectation.  You certainly didn't think so at the time when you said they should just accept Manchin's purported top line number and pass the infrastructure bill - and then they did.

Have you not seen the video after video of Dem voters saying how frustrated they are with the party for not doing what they felt like they explicitly promised? That's what I'm talking about.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you not seen the video after video of Dem voters saying how frustrated they are with the party for not doing what they felt like they explicitly promised? That's what I'm talking about.

K.  Have you not realized that my argument has been that not trying would have led to more frustrated Dem voters - and more importantly completely outraged the people that actually fund and do the work that wins elections?  And also that the "unrealistic expectations" canard is a tired and inaccurate refrain people revert to when they don't have anything of interest or substance to offer - in addition to being blatantly wrong in this case? 

At least in this scenario the blame can much more clearly be directed to where it belongs - Joe Manchin.  Well, and Biden and Schumer for thinking they could get him on board, but still, it's painfully obvious that's a whole hell of a lot better than them saying "fuck it we're screwed anyway" back six months ago.

[Fragile Bird]

Hey, how about some useless news, brought to light via Facebook?

Greta Thunberg and Kyle Rittenhouse were born the same day. Which one took the road less travelled?

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Greta Thunberg and Kyle Rittenhouse were born the same day. Which one took the road less travelled?

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, how about some useless news, brought to light via Facebook?

Greta Thunberg and Kyle Rittenhouse were born the same day. Which one took the road less travelled?

Lol wasn't there a thread awhile ago where someone claimed Greta Thunberg was everything wrong with world ?

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Democrats promised their supporters the sun and the stars and have thus far failed to deliver on the heart of their legislative agenda as well as voting rights reform, just to name a few issues. They would have delivered on probably nothing if not for getting lucky with the GA special elections. I don't think it's wrong to be honest with your supporters and set realistic expectations. YMMV though.

Technically speaking, wouldn't that be the pimps and madams? 

If by "lucky" you mean people in Georgia turning out like mofos and doing everything possible to get Warnock and Ossoff into office and the rest of the country donating money, then yeah, guess that's lucky.  

[Gorn]

13 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Democrats promised their supporters the sun and the stars and have thus far failed to deliver on the heart of their legislative agenda as well as voting rights reform, just to name a few issues. They would have delivered on probably nothing if not for getting lucky with the GA special elections. I don't think it's wrong to be honest with your supporters and set realistic expectations. YMMV though.

And without setting ambitious goals, their voters wouldn't have shown up.

[IFR]

Wow, this thread moves incredibly fast.

So are we claiming that Democrats are playing game theory on each and go for mediocre candidates because they are believed to be the most electable?

I argued with my parents about this issue. They were fully on board with Biden. I thought both candidates would be lame duck presidents on the legislative front, but Sanders would make the most of his executive power in forwarding his progressive agenda, which would be temporary, sure, but would have a much more positive impact than whatever Biden achieved.

They of course didn't think Sanders had a chance to be elected, which may have been true. But I think this narrative that it's either the tyranny of Republicans or the stopgap nothing of Republican-lite neoliberals like Clinton and Biden is extremely damaging.

Ideally, would any of you actually like a candidate like Sanders as president, or would you still prefer a Biden?

[Week]

29 minutes ago, IFR said:

Ideally, would any of you actually like a candidate like Sanders as president, or would you still prefer a Biden?

The general feeling of the thread IIRC was pro-Warren followed by Sanders (mostly Simon, Great Unwashed, Larry) and some Klobuchar or Buttigieg interest. Biden was pretty universally a last choice among actual Democrats (excluding Bloomberg and Gabbard).

That is to say, for me, my choice is neither. I'd prefer someone more on the Left that is under 50 (Warren was my pick - though she's older than I'd prefer too).