• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should Democrats take Manchin's small ball deal?

M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
www.politico.com

Dems lean toward taking Manchin's small-ball deal

Many in his party are ready to accept a healthcare-only bill, now that the centrist has said he wants to wait longer on climate and tax talks.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

I would like to hear what you would think would happen if Democrats went on strike and said to the Public you either get rid of people like Manchin and enough Republicans to for us to move real legislation or force him and the rest of the obstructive activists to change their attitude or we will do exactly what they are doing, nothing at all. No budget, no bills of any kind are going to pass. If you want stagnation perhaps chaos is what you should have sooner than later.
 
The same Manchin whose piece of shit daughter is a price gouger for epipens is going to vote to make healthcare cheaper? Right

giphy.gif
 
Well we all remember the tremendous success Ted Cruz had when he tried this with the ACA so seems like a good idea.
 
Manchin is a huge pain in the ass and has bungled legislative negotiations to the degree that I somewhat doubt he could do a deal for a bucket of water if he was on fire. However Sinema's opposition to tax increases is the other half of this problem nobody is talking about. Manchin is the best D senator from WV that you'll ever get. Sinema is entirely replaceable.

cytg111 said:
Why not bribe him? Give his company exclusive rights to coal mining in the US in exchange for, well, everything?
Click to expand...

Manchin is corrupt but that he has not availed himself of the massive opportunity for corruption in the reconciliation bill is just baffling.
 
K1052 said:
Manchin is a huge pain in the ass and has bungled legislative negotiations to the degree that I somewhat doubt he could do a deal for a bucket of water if he was on fire. However Sinema's opposition to tax increases is the other half of this problem nobody is talking about. Manchin is the best D senator from WV that you'll ever get. Sinema is entirely replaceable.



Manchin is corrupt but that he has not availed himself of the massive opportunity for corruption in the reconciliation bill is just baffling.
Click to expand...
Because his lizard brain cant contemplate a better deal than the Kochs... I say make him one.
 
fskimospy said:
Well we all remember the tremendous success Ted Cruz had when he tried this with the ACA so seems like a good idea.
Click to expand...
Do you expect the Democrats on current course will gain in power in 2024, or will Republican gain seats?

I think a big problem in American politics is that the American people are sheltered by the fact that politicians on the left will not inform them directly of who is at cause for the frustration they are feeling. It is self inflicted.
 
Moonbeam said:
Do you expect the Democrats on current course will gain in power in 2024, or will Republican gain seats?

I think a big problem in American politics is that the American people are sheltered by the fact that politicians on the left will not inform them directly of who is at cause for the frustration they are feeling. It is self inflicted.
Click to expand...
"Hey guys, Republicans are the reason most things suck."

"Fake news!"
 
Moonbeam said:
Do you expect the Democrats on current course will gain in power in 2024, or will Republican gain seats?
Click to expand...
No way to know - more than two years out is too far to predict.

I think the 'current course' is probably a lot less important than people think though as I think most elections turn on more macro level things. For example look at Bill Clinton in 1994 - he was considered left for dead. In 1996 he blew Bob Dole out so badly the Onion was making jokes about Dole asking for a recount before the election even happened. In 1991 GHWB appeared invincible and he would cruise to re-election and we all know how that went. You could argue Clinton's success was due to some sort of course correction but I don't think you could for GHWB - the economy just went south on him.

That's not to say something similar would happen here, it's just to show how much can change in two years or even less. Because of this I think politicians should focus less on trying to game what the electorate will like and focus on doing what they think is best. Sadly with Manchin and Sinema right now what Democrats can do is pretty limited.

I think a big problem in American politics is that the American people are sheltered by the fact that politicians on the left will not inform them directly of who is at cause for the frustration they are feeling. It is self inflicted.
Click to expand...
I don't think people pay enough attention for this to be very effective. I think the Democrats' best bet is to moderate on cultural issues and double down on taxing the rich. Swing voters are wary of things like expanded trans rights but love taxing rich people. That's probably the best way to win them over.
 
Can the dems just kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party? What qualifies someone to be called a Dem or Repub? Can a republican just run as a democrat and lie about all his policy positions until he is elected?
 
soulcougher73 said:
Can the dems just kick Manchin and Sinema out of the party? What qualifies someone to be called a Dem or Repub? Can a republican just run as a democrat and lie about all his policy positions until he is elected?
Click to expand...
What is gained by kicking those two out? Senate Dems only control the chamber because 2 independents caucus with them. Without the 50 (+ VP), Mitch McConnell would be majority leader, and republicans would once again completely control the Senate agenda.

The sad truth that the very online poo-poo is that people need to actually go out and vote in more democrats. A few more senators could neuter the Sinema/Manchin axis of obstruction.
 
You take what you can get in small, easy to explain pieces. Not this "1000 things all in the same piece of legislation" shit. You make it very very very politically difficult for them to oppose those individual pieces.

Then, you marginalize the ever loving shit out of them in november by adding 2 more D seats. And watch as they become as insignificant as they really should be.
 
Pens1566 said:
You take what you can get in small, easy to explain pieces. Not this "1000 things all in the same piece of legislation" shit. You make it very very very politically difficult for them to oppose those individual pieces.
Click to expand...
Manchin doesn't care about politics. It's not like he's going to be voted out from the left.

Part of the reason to package multiple pieces together is it's just the legislative sausage making process: everyone gets a little bit of what they want and need. Not sure how showboating with the already slow to act senate schedule would help here.
 
Brainonska511 said:
What is gained by kicking those two out? Senate Dems only control the chamber because 2 independents caucus with them. Without the 50 (+ VP), Mitch McConnell would be majority leader, and republicans would once again completely control the Senate agenda.

The sad truth that the very online poo-poo is that people need to actually go out and vote in more democrats. A few more senators could neuter the Sinema/Manchin axis of obstruction.
Click to expand...

My question was more about what qualifies them to be a Dem? They dont seem to have many affiliations to the party platform. Does the DNC get to decide who is a Dem, or does each person get to just say "hey im a Dem, vote for me" when in reality they dont have anything in common with the Dems on policy.

Has the DNC tried to primary him out with an actual Dem candidate?
 
soulcougher73 said:
My question was more about what qualifies them to be a Dem? They dont seem to have many affiliations to the party platform. Does the DNC get to decide who is a Dem, or does each person get to just say "hey im a Dem, vote for me" when in reality they dont have anything in common with the Dems on policy.

Has the DNC tried to primary him out with an actual Dem candidate?
Click to expand...
WV is a +40 R state. The fact that a commie like Manchin was even elected there was a minor miracle.
 
fskimospy said:
I don't think people pay enough attention for this to be very effective. I think the Democrats' best bet is to moderate on cultural issues and double down on taxing the rich. Swing voters are wary of things like expanded trans rights but love taxing rich people. That's probably the best way to win them over.
Click to expand...

QFT on both, with emphasis added for the underlined.
 
soulcougher73 said:
My question was more about what qualifies them to be a Dem? They dont seem to have many affiliations to the party platform. Does the DNC get to decide who is a Dem, or does each person get to just say "hey im a Dem, vote for me" when in reality they dont have anything in common with the Dems on policy.

Has the DNC tried to primary him out with an actual Dem candidate?
Click to expand...
Despite the ramblings of the online insane, the DNC and the Democratic party are not that powerful in their ability to control members. This isn't a parliamentary system where the party has a lot of power to decide who will fill their seats. Reforms with primaries largely ended that practice and left it pretty open.

And someone did try to primary Manchin from the left. They got absolutely crushed.
 
The problem is that politicians like Munchkin, yes he's a Munchkin, and like Mitch McConnell have this way of suggesting to Americans that they just aren't worth it. Americans aren't worthy of Healthcare or childcare or a decent wage or breathable air. These asswipes refuse to spend money on stuff that benefits you, and it's fucking YOUR MONEY. No, they'd rather spend your money on the corporations and wealthy so the corporations and the wealthy can have that money to donate back to McConnell's and Munchkin's campaigns.
Just look at the masses of money involved in a simple campaign these days. Who is it enabling individuals and corporations to have all that money to donate? Munchkin and McConnell. Old Mitch McConnell is still bitching about giving the American people that $1200. McConnell does not believe you were worthy of that either. And again... that was YOUR MONEY.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Manchin doesn't care about politics. It's not like he's going to be voted out from the left.

Part of the reason to package multiple pieces together is it's just the legislative sausage making process: everyone gets a little bit of what they want and need. Not sure how showboating with the already slow to act senate schedule would help here.
Click to expand...

No, he won't be voted out. But the grift gets a whole lot smaller when every major piece of legislation before the Senate doesn't need his vote anymore. He can go back to just being bought just/only by coal and pharma (by extension of his daughter).
 
Non-conservative democrats should not vote with conservative democrats. It is just opening the door for conservative democrats to work with conservative republicans. Which is a gateway for a fully illuminated corporate takeover of U.S.A. of which Jan 6. was a test run.
 
fskimospy said:
No way to know - more than two years out is too far to predict.

I think the 'current course' is probably a lot less important than people think though as I think most elections turn on more macro level things. For example look at Bill Clinton in 1994 - he was considered left for dead. In 1996 he blew Bob Dole out so badly the Onion was making jokes about Dole asking for a recount before the election even happened. In 1991 GHWB appeared invincible and he would cruise to re-election and we all know how that went. You could argue Clinton's success was due to some sort of course correction but I don't think you could for GHWB - the economy just went south on him.

That's not to say something similar would happen here, it's just to show how much can change in two years or even less. Because of this I think politicians should focus less on trying to game what the electorate will like and focus on doing what they think is best. Sadly with Manchin and Sinema right now what Democrats can do is pretty limited.


I don't think people pay enough attention for this to be very effective. I think the Democrats' best bet is to moderate on cultural issues and double down on taxing the rich. Swing voters are wary of things like expanded trans rights but love taxing rich people. That's probably the best way to win them over.
Click to expand...
I thank you for presenting your opinion. I do agree it makes a lot of sense. The reason I ask is that in my opinion the frustration over inaction and with the Democrats in the presumptive majority, not much of significance is getting passed and that actually all of the political victories are going to conservatives via the Senate blocking anything useful and the Supreme court taking us back to the religious Dark Ages. And while it is two years from the election the frustration is real and here today. If that does not change I think that the feelings people are having today, their frustrations will only magnify and be expressed in two years just like they are being expressed today.

So what I am wondering is what will the election look like tomorrow if things stay the same. I believe that the American people are driven not by reason but by a sense of entitlement at a pretty much two year old level and that they will gladly cut their noses off to spite their faces. My personal belief is that this kind of behavior, almost impossible to deal with, certainly never will be without first being identified.

For me a political campaign in America today needs to exactly what we know scientifically about how to deal with denial.

Denial is all about being motivated not so see the true because of the unconscious implications truth has for ones sense of self worth. In shout, the assumption is that truth will tell us that we feel worthless and nothing positive can penetrate that so long as that process isn't understood psychologically and only then addressed as the lie it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top