Don’t blame Manchin (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

If only Republicans would put forth bills, then all the Democrats would line up to vote for them.  

They would not. And that is the same problem.

 
I know you think that I’m blaming Republicans here. I’m not; I’m only using them as an example because they are currently the party of no. If we get a Republican majority and/or a Republican President, Democrats will become the party of no. The divide is the problem. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

They would not. And that is the same problem.

 
I know you think that I’m blaming Republicans here. I’m not; I’m only using them as an example because they are currently the party of no. If we get a Republican majority and/or a Republican President, Democrats will become the party of no. The divide is the problem. 

The problem is that neither party doesn't want to do the real work.  They want to virtue signal so they can get votes.  You have to be willing to make concession.  Democrats don't want to do that so it's easy for Republicans to vote no. 

When the Dobbs ruling came down, Democrats didn't try to negotiate abortion rights with Republicans to come up with a bill that both sides could live with, instead they had a vote on unfettered access to abortion that even Democrats didn't like.  Why?  So Democrats can motivate their base on the issue.  When are they going to sit down with Republicans and make some concessions.  Time is running out for them.  The are almost certain to lose one of the chambers, maybe both.  Then you can make a thread about how radical the Republican proposals are and thank goodness for the sanity of the Democrats voting against them.

 

[Rich Conway]

The problem is that neither party doesn't want to do the real work.  They want to virtue signal so they can get votes.  You have to be willing to make concession.  Democrats don't want to do that so it's easy for Republicans to vote no. 

When the Dobbs ruling came down, Democrats didn't try to negotiate abortion rights with Republicans to come up with a bill that both sides could live with, instead they had a vote on unfettered access to abortion that even Democrats didn't like.  Why?  So Democrats can motivate their base on the issue.  When are they going to sit down with Republicans and make some concessions.  Time is running out for them.  The are almost certain to lose one of the chambers, maybe both.  Then you can make a thread about how radical the Republican proposals are and thank goodness for the sanity of the Democrats voting against them.

There's definitely a chicken and egg component to this, at least over the past 10+ years or so.  The minority party becomes intransigent, signaling that they will vote no on everything, no matter what, so the majority party has no incentive to compromise or negotiate, so the minority party votes no in bloc, so there's no compromise...

 

[Snotbubbles]

There's definitely a chicken and egg component to this, at least over the past 10+ years or so.  The minority party becomes intransigent, signaling that they will vote no on everything, no matter what, so the majority party has no incentive to compromise or negotiate, so the minority party votes no in bloc, so there's no compromise...

Which is why a split chamber is good.  When the stimulus negotiations happened, both sides needed to be comfortable with it.  Then the last stimulus was just rammed through by one party.  That's not good.

 

[The Commish]

There's definitely a chicken and egg component to this, at least over the past 10+ years or so.  The minority party becomes intransigent, signaling that they will vote no on everything, no matter what, so the majority party has no incentive to compromise or negotiate, so the minority party votes no in bloc, so there's no compromise...

Im as "both sides" as it gets here, because long view its true. That said, all one has to do is take a look at the legislation brought up and passed the last 10 years to see, currently, they arent close to the same legislation wise. 

 

[timschochet]

When the Dobbs ruling came down, Democrats didn't try to negotiate abortion rights with Republicans to come up with a bill that both sides could live with, instead they had a vote on unfettered access to abortion that even Democrats didn't like.  Why?  So Democrats can motivate their base on the issue. 

You’ve made this argument several times now and I don’t find it the least bit compelling. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Republican Party, who were joyful after Dobbs and who moved quickly to enact or enforce legislation in various states that would make all abortions illegal, would have been willing to compromise. The pro-life movement would have viewed it as a betrayal and likely would have left the GOP. It was never even considered. You have pointed to the Graham proposal, a year before Dobbs, but all that did was limit abortion. I don’t believe Graham would offer it today. 

 

[dkp993]

Im as "both sides" as it gets here

Hey I resemble that remark.  

 

[supermike80]

You’ve made this argument several times now and I don’t find it the least bit compelling. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Republican Party, who were joyful after Dobbs and who moved quickly to enact or enforce legislation in various states that would make all abortions illegal, would have been willing to compromise. The pro-life movement would have viewed it as a betrayal and likely would have left the GOP. It was never even considered. You have pointed to the Graham proposal, a year before Dobbs, but all that did was limit abortion. I don’t believe Graham would offer it today. 

Ohhh.    Let me summarize.  Republicans bad

Thanks Tim.  Good to see you continually reinforce the bias

 

[Rich Conway]

You’ve made this argument several times now and I don’t find it the least bit compelling. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Republican Party, who were joyful after Dobbs and who moved quickly to enact or enforce legislation in various states that would make all abortions illegal, would have been willing to compromise. The pro-life movement would have viewed it as a betrayal and likely would have left the GOP. It was never even considered. You have pointed to the Graham proposal, a year before Dobbs, but all that did was limit abortion. I don’t believe Graham would offer it today. 

Of course Graham would offer it today.  The bill would have limited all abortions after ~20 weeks.  Blue states would be more limited, red states would be unaffected.  Why wouldn't Graham offer that?

 

[Snotbubbles]

You’ve made this argument several times now and I don’t find it the least bit compelling. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Republican Party, who were joyful after Dobbs and who moved quickly to enact or enforce legislation in various states that would make all abortions illegal, would have been willing to compromise. The pro-life movement would have viewed it as a betrayal and likely would have left the GOP. It was never even considered. You have pointed to the Graham proposal, a year before Dobbs, but all that did was limit abortion. I don’t believe Graham would offer it today. 

As he shouldn't.  The ball is now in the Democrats court.  They are unwilling to come off their position, the Republicans were.

 

[timschochet]

Ohhh.    Let me summarize.  Republicans bad

Thanks Tim.  Good to see you continually reinforce the bias

Hey man only if you’re pro-choice. If you’re pro-life I suppose it’s all good. 

 

[Stoneworker]

Looks like our boy is finally coming around...$369B in energy/climate spending...

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., on Wednesday announced that they have struck a long-awaited deal on legislation that aims to reform the tax code, fight climate change and cut health-care costs.

$369B from a suite of energy and climate-related programs

Manchin, Schumer announce tax/climate/energy reconciliation bill

 

[FairWarning]

Now lets see how he benefits from this.

 

[skol asylum]

All these leftists  showing up on MSNBC blaming Joe Manchin for killing the climate change deal, killing Biden’s agenda, not agreeing to end the filibuster, etc. They really dislike the guy, can’t stand that he’s a moderate. And they’re endlessly whining about him. Makes me sick. 

The only reason that Joe Manchin is even a thing is because Republicans oppose every one of these measures. Which in some cases is ideological, and in some cases just because they want to #### over the Democrats. But you know what? That’s their right. Hey Democrats you want to beat this? Win more elections. Take these issues to the voters; they agree with you on a lot of it. And stop whining. 

What a simplistic take. The very nature of the Senate giving outsized power to tiny states along with the filibuster make this extremely difficult. The Senate is a non-democratic body that does not represent the will of the vast majority of Americans.

 

[djmich]

Wait, I thought he owned coal stock and that drives how he votes.  Did he sell?

 

[The Commish]

Wait, I thought he owned coal stock and that drives how he votes. Did he sell?

I thought his biggest hang-up was paying for it? Maybe I'm wrong here.