Manchin tells Dems to 'hit the pause button' on $3.5T spending plan

[CornusKousa]

Sorry the way the map is drawn getting 60/40 is all but impossible. The only way it happens is if one side screws up so bad that a few of the states that almost always go one way or the other switch it up. It also doesn't help that since the right has done a fantastic job of convincing people that it goes both ways far too often we just swap out as many as possible.

Yes, almost always forcing some bipartisanship if you want it to pass. It keeps the bully sticking in check.

I think in most situations in a healthy democracy this is a good thing.

And by healthy I mean a common set of core values and respect for institutions.

Unfortunately as you've pointed out in some ways, this has become a contentious thing because our democracy is NOT healthy right now and rather dysfunctional, because we don't have shared values.

This is false however. A majority of Americans do health care for everybody and safe legal abortions. That's reason why even on the right nobody really runs on I'll end abortion by legislature. Its always trying to slip in the back door with the SCOTUS.

Except what that is and should look like is wildly different depending on which group you ask and where. Even and especially within parties. And on top of that while you might be the majority, you're not the majority everywhere and states are a thing in the United States. 1 size fits all policy for any touchy issues are not going to ever fly much less a whole bunch of them. And they shouldn't...everyone needs a place to live. We have 50 states, they don't all need to be turned into Los Angeles at gunpoint.

You can't get shit done in a country where one side can refuse to play. Whenever polls are done on the ISSUES most Americans want much of what we're offering. We Europe with its longer life spans, more upward mobility. If we're not talking specifically about guns they are much freer than we are.

It almost forces you to do things at the state level and convince the other 49 states to join you voluntarily.

Yea, it is very hard to wield the centralized authority of the federal government in a decentralized system deigned by a bunch of classical liberals.

They are much freer than some of us. Because some of our states and even cities are downright draconian control freaks.

Others, not so much, I'm arguably more free in Montana than anywhere in Europe.

Its hard to live and left live when one party and philosophy are more interested in owning libs than they are in improving the lives of their familes.

That's because Lib's don't seem to understand the lives of their families is their business, not the libs.

Their philosophy is that they want you to leave them the fuck alone, respect their democracy and mind your own god damn bidnizz.

And it drives ya'll insane, I don't know why.

It does not go both ways and thats why you couldn't instantly pull up the last time Dems just shut down the a Republican president's budget. You can't name when the last time was that they just flat refused to play ball.
You look at the deficit that Obama cut by 2/3 and then claim that both sides do the same amount of over spending.

I said antagonistic partisan fuckery...

(D) and (R) brands of antagonism are obviously different, but they both very much engage in them.

You can pretend (D)'s are just all virtuous and pure as the drive snow if you really need, but you're never convincing me they aren't assholes with an inner troll same as everyone else.

 

[CornusKousa]

Eh?
The Pubs STOLE two!

There ain’t no rules

No they played the game for two seats, and ya'll mad about it.

If you want to pack the court and add seats go ahead, just don't be shocked when there are consequences for that.

Yet, Dems keep following rules

(R)'s too. Nothing they did was illegal.

Manchin hopes for bipartisan and has managed NONE

We are a polarized society with opposing value sets, not at all surprised.

 

[ll74]

^^^^^^
If I'm not mistaken the last senate infrastructure bill was sent over on a flying carpet to the house and Pelosi refused to pass the house version unless the senate co-sponsored congruently a $3.5 trillion people's infrastructure bill. Blame Adolf Pelosi for that fuck-up!

Actually, you are mistaken. Pelosi negotiated internal party differences to get both bills through. And when I said they couldn't get infrastructure passed, it was the previous administration's week I was discussing, not the current one, which is on track to pass a solid bill or two within the next two months.

 

[ll74]

Like you're doing right now? We're not subsidizing outdated energy. We don't have the technology to be carbon free. We need some amount of fossil fuels until we the technology to be free of fossil fuels.

Yes, thanks for demonstrating the problem well. We do have the technology, just have to invest and get you outdated fuckers out of the way.

Fossil fuel companies don't need subsidizing, yet we give them more money than any other industry. And you're believing their lobby line well.

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually, you are mistaken. Pelosi negotiated internal party differences to get both bills through. And when I said they couldn't get infrastructure passed, it was the previous administration's week I was discussing, not the current one, which is on track to pass a solid bill or two within the next two months.

Ya as two separate bills. Originally it was all or nothing. You’re a hypocrite.

Now you reverted to Trump’s first infrastructure bill, you must move goalpost for a living.

 

[ll74]

Ya as two separate bills. Originally it was all or nothing. You’re a hypocrite.

Now you reverted to Trump’s first infrastructure bill, you must move goalpost for a living.

You were arguing about Pelosi and the current Congress. I was talking about Republican leadership. No goal posts were moved....you just have difficulty reading

Originally, there was a list of things that the Democrats wanted to do. They'll get most of that passed. Why does it matter how many bills there are to do it?

Both bills will be passed. That's the thing you aren't getting. Whether it's as expensive as some want isn't really a matter...because Democrats will achieve the infrastructure bill and pass a while bunch of other items. Republicans passed a temporary tax cut that most Americans won't even see past next year in any meaningful way.

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually, you are mistaken. Pelosi negotiated internal party differences to get both bills through. And when I said they couldn't get infrastructure passed, it was the previous administration's week I was discussing, not the current one, which is on track to pass a solid bill or two within the next two months.

Pelosi’s original stance was she would not agree to a vote on the infrastructure bill till the senate agreed to co-sponsor both bills together. Pelosi had to back off of her tyrannical rant because of 9 moderate Democrat house members threatening to kill Adolf Pelosi’s agenda altogether. Pelosi didn’t negotiate, she capitulated and had to agree with two separate bills. The moderate Dems wanted an infrastructure bill and didn’t feel Adolf Pelosi’s approach of dictating to the senate was feasible. Adolf Pelosi think she runs both houses. Adolf has zero republican support, pretty sad she can’t conjure up one republican vote. That is a testament to her failure as a speaker.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

If you kill the filibuster, you're gonna miss it the second you're not the one holding the bully stick anymore.

That's only a little over a year away....making that move a terribly short sighted thing to do.

The objective of killing the filibuster is to allow the totalitarians of the Democrat Party to make structural changes that make it much harder to overthrow Democrat Party rule.

 

[ll74]

Pelosi’s original stance was she would not agree to a vote on the infrastructure bill till the senate agreed to co-sponsor both bills together. Pelosi had to back off of her tyrannical rant because of 9 moderate Democrat house members threatening to kill Adolf Pelosi’s agenda altogether. Pelosi didn’t negotiate, she capitulated and had to agree with two separate bills. The moderate Dems wanted an infrastructure bill and didn’t feel Adolf Pelosi’s approach of dictating to the senate was feasible. Adolf Pelosi think she runs both houses. Adolf has zero republican support, pretty sad she can’t conjure up one republican vote. That is a testament to her failure as a speaker.

You really don't understand how the legislative process works and seemingly don't understand how effective leaders get things accomplished.

Democrats have worked together to a common goal. Multiple factions within the party have differing interests to be included in the bill and both Senate and House Democratic leaders have worked with those factions to move the legislation forward. The complexity of that tight rope act has led to a large number of changes and even some changes to approaches that originally weren't considered. And still, the legislation remains on course to be passed by both the House and the Senate in a form that benefits the entire party.

All Democrats have and will have to compromise on the bill. And all have participated in some form of public political posturing to apply political pressure to the process......that's how politics work.

Your distorted view of things is irrelevant...and was my original point - Trumpies can't seem to understand that Democrats always disagree internally ....because they engage in normal political behavior. Republicans stopped doing that decades ago, so maybe that's a foreign concept.

 

[ll74]

The objective of killing the filibuster is to allow the totalitarians of the Democrat Party to make structural changes that make it much harder to overthrow Democrat Party rule.

It wouldn't make it any harder. It would just require less compromise with obstructionists. Republicans have the advantage in the Senate when it comes to elections and would benefit the most from filibuster removal in the long run.

 

[CornusKousa]

The objective of killing the filibuster is to allow the totalitarians of the Democrat Party to make structural changes that make it much harder to overthrow Democrat Party rule.

I understand, and if they had a lot more time maybe they could do that.

But with our system, I still think in such a heated/polarized environment making the bully stick of democracy stronger is a foolishly short sighted thing to do.

Because anyone thinking that 50%+1 ain't going to come back and show the other how Democracy feels on the other foot, is just a fucking child incapable of seeing past the end of their nose.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It wouldn't make it any harder. It would just require less compromise with obstructionists. Republicans have the advantage in the Senate when it comes to elections and would benefit the most from filibuster removal in the long run.

It would make it a lot harder when the Democrats make "states" our of DC and Puerto Rico, then expand and pack the Court with compliant stooges.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I understand, and if they had a lot more time maybe they could do that.

But with our system, I still think in such a heated/polarized environment making the bully stick of democracy stronger is a foolishly short sighted thing to do.

Because anyone thinking that 50%+1 ain't going to come back and show the other how Democracy feels on the other foot, is just a fucking child incapable of seeing past the end of their nose.

Getting to the 50% will be a lot harder with four new Senators from DC and PR.

 

[ll74]

It would make it a lot harder when the Democrats make "states" our of DC and Puerto Rico, then expand and pack the Court with compliant stooges.

So work on recruiting more Republicans, I guess.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

So work on recruiting more Republicans, I guess.

I rest my case.

 

[ll74]

I rest my case.

Yes, I get that you don't like democracy because people disagree with you and have a voice in the process.

 

[pecksniff]

We are a polarized society with opposing value sets, not at all surprised.

That will change, as the GI Generation dies off, the Boomers retire, and the GenXers and Millennials come into their own.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Yes, I get that you don't like democracy because people disagree with you and have a voice in the process.

And really, what could be more democratic than stacking the Senate with Dem party hacks that represent little more than cities, while packing an unelected body like the Court with yet more party stooges?

Having lived in a banana republic, let me tell you, this is just the sort of thing I'd expect to see...down there.

 

[pecksniff]

The objective of killing the filibuster is to allow the totalitarians of the Democrat Party to make structural changes that make it much harder to overthrow Democrat Party rule.

No, that is the objective of Republican voter-suppression legislation.

 

[pecksniff]

And really, what could be more democratic than stacking the Senate with Dem party hacks that represent little more than cities . . .

There is little more than cities. This is a nation of cities. The countryside is irrelevant except with respect to primary food production. The old farm-family culture died out decades ago.

 

[ll74]

And really, what could be more democratic than stacking the Senate with Dem party hacks that represent little more than cities, while packing an unelected body like the Court with yet more party stooges?

Having lived in a banana republic, let me tell you, this is just the sort of thing I'd expect to see...down there.

And yet the Republican party still control the Senate even with a minority. Rough life.....

Sorry that you don't like the rules that the Constitution set for how government works.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

No, that is the objective of Republican voter-suppression legislation.

That's a lot like systemic racism: you never really can actually show that it happens. It's purely rhetorical.

 

[ll74]

There is little more than cities. This is a nation of cities. The countryside is irrelevant except with respect to primary food production. The old farm-family culture died out decades ago.

He doesn't like that populations favor urban areas, apparently.

 

[pecksniff]

That's a lot like systemic racism: you never really can actually show that it happens. It's purely rhetorical.

It makes a lot more sense than the motivation you are attributing to killing the filibuster.

 

[ll74]

If you are unwilling or unable to find a compromise with your political opposition, then of course it will seem like authoritarianism when they are in power.