Anonymous wrote:Doesn't really matter.

Republicans will just gut it extensively when they take back the House next year. I'm looking forward to months-long government shutdown between Biden and a large Republican majority.

Republicans already shot in one foot by hitching their wagon to Trump, anti-vaxers and anti-maskers. Wait for winter and see what Covid would do to unvaccinated people. I doubt if majority of independents and suburban women will vote for Republicans to give them majority in the House or Senate. Abortion restrictions will be a shot in the other foot for Republicans.

Doesn't really matter.

Republicans will just gut it extensively when they take back the House next year. I'm looking forward to months-long government shutdown between Biden and a large Republican majority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Sine a and Manchin were part of the Senate bipartisan team that spearheaded the Senate passed version. Why? Because their constituents want it. That is the leverage to use on them by the House progressives. Also, Sienna and Manchin want about 1.5 trillion infracture spending through budget resolution. Why? Because their constituents want safety net items (may be with means testing, but they want them). That is another leverage on the two senators. Mind you, Dems have slim margin in the House. It is near impossibility to bring along over 100 progressives for a 1.5 trillion proposal. Many progressives come from very blue constituencies. Sienna and Manchin will, in the end, come around to agreeing for 3 trillion figure (a reduction of 0.5 trillion) and declare victory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watching the democrats crash and burn even with a mandate is hilarious.

At least someone has the spine to say no mas to more wreckless spending.

A 50/50 Senate and a narrow majority in the House is not a mandate.

Of course that is exactly the nature of the problem. They want so badly to believe they have a mandate to do great big incomprehensibly expensive things, but what voters really wanted was Trump out and otherwise no big changes.

That's not exactly right either. There are significant majorities that DO want big things, and in the grand scheme of things they aren't overly expensive nor even remotely incomprehensible. It's just that corporate interests oppose it. Really the only reason Manchin is opposing this infrastructure bill is because his corporate fossil fuel donors don't like it. That's it. That's all there is to it.

I get that you desperately want to believe that the "people" are behind a true revolutionary vanguard such as yourself, but it's just not the case.

Doesn't matter what "the people" want as long as we have big corporate dollars propping these politicians up. And stooges like yourself who enable all of it.

Well, that seems fortunate for you since I suspect that the people actually want people like you to pipe down for a while.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watching the democrats crash and burn even with a mandate is hilarious.

At least someone has the spine to say no mas to more wreckless spending.

A 50/50 Senate and a narrow majority in the House is not a mandate.

Of course that is exactly the nature of the problem. They want so badly to believe they have a mandate to do great big incomprehensibly expensive things, but what voters really wanted was Trump out and otherwise no big changes.

That's not exactly right either. There are significant majorities that DO want big things, and in the grand scheme of things they aren't overly expensive nor even remotely incomprehensible. It's just that corporate interests oppose it. Really the only reason Manchin is opposing this infrastructure bill is because his corporate fossil fuel donors don't like it. That's it. That's all there is to it.

I get that you desperately want to believe that the "people" are behind a true revolutionary vanguard such as yourself, but it's just not the case.

Doesn't matter what "the people" want as long as we have big corporate dollars propping these politicians up. And stooges like yourself who enable all of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watching the democrats crash and burn even with a mandate is hilarious.

At least someone has the spine to say no mas to more wreckless spending.

Here's the thing: the Democrats don't have a mandate for this. They won the presidency not because people wanted to Joe Biden, but because they were tired of Donald Trump's antics. They won the Senate for basically the same reason--Donald Trump stirring the pot in GA instead of pushing for a win. Otherwise, the Democrats actually lost seats in the House and didn't do well in lower level races all over the country. It is pure fantasy that there is some "mandate" to push through the wish list of the left wing of the Democratic party on a party line vote.

So when Republicans control the government they have a mandate to do what their supporters want and when Democrats are in the same position they do not have any mandate?

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The really sad thing is West Virginia needs that infrastructure bill so badly, but Manchin in more interested in flexing than helping his constituents.

More than the physical infrastructure, WV absolutely needs the “human infrastructure.” It’s population is one of the oldest in the country. And it’s largely poor, so it desperately needs senior housing, in home care, nursing facilities, etc

That’s not infrastructure, physical or human.

It's a matter of controlling the language. Democrats love to change terms ...... "undocumented immigrants," "pro-choice," "investment," (aka spending).......

“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Alin$ky

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The really sad thing is West Virginia needs that infrastructure bill so badly, but Manchin in more interested in flexing than helping his constituents.

More than the physical infrastructure, WV absolutely needs the “human infrastructure.” It’s population is one of the oldest in the country. And it’s largely poor, so it desperately needs senior housing, in home care, nursing facilities, etc

That’s not infrastructure, physical or human.

I'm so grateful for Manchin. This bill is a total disaster. Kudos for standing up to the mob!

Good. Dem here - some of the crap in the bills have nothing to do with Infrastructure. Get rid of the extraneous like immigration payouts and paid leave for all.

Seems like it’s time to talk to Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins and see what’s on their infrastructure wishlist. Bet there are a lot of things Alaska could use. And hey— looks like a lot of money that was headed to W. VA was just freed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watching the democrats crash and burn even with a mandate is hilarious.

At least someone has the spine to say no mas to more wreckless spending.

A 50/50 Senate and a narrow majority in the House is not a mandate.

Of course that is exactly the nature of the problem. They want so badly to believe they have a mandate to do great big incomprehensibly expensive things, but what voters really wanted was Trump out and otherwise no big changes.

That's not exactly right either. There are significant majorities that DO want big things, and in the grand scheme of things they aren't overly expensive nor even remotely incomprehensible. It's just that corporate interests oppose it. Really the only reason Manchin is opposing this infrastructure bill is because his corporate fossil fuel donors don't like it. That's it. That's all there is to it.

I get that you desperately want to believe that the "people" are behind a true revolutionary vanguard such as yourself, but it's just not the case.

Anonymous wrote:Watching the democrats crash and burn even with a mandate is hilarious.

At least someone has the spine to say no mas to more wreckless spending.

Here's the thing: the Democrats don't have a mandate for this. They won the presidency not because people wanted to Joe Biden, but because they were tired of Donald Trump's antics. They won the Senate for basically the same reason--Donald Trump stirring the pot in GA instead of pushing for a win. Otherwise, the Democrats actually lost seats in the House and didn't do well in lower level races all over the country. It is pure fantasy that there is some "mandate" to push through the wish list of the left wing of the Democratic party on a party line vote.