|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 07 2018 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: ![[image loading]](https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180404_states_fullwidth.png) This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. You know there is no way to kick him out, right? He picks which party he is. They can no more stop him from being a Democrat than the GOP could stop Trump from running as a Republican. The party has made it quite clear it's comfortable pushing people out of races, but that's not my point. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there. That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. They do not always succeed in removing people. They failed this primary cycle in several races. In one the state party picked a different candidate than the national party. The national party lost. They cannot control who is in the party. You quoted me but didn't really address anything I said? Other than agree with me that they have no problem pressuring people out of primary races or supporting a particular candidate. Is that what you intended? Yeah, they have no problem trying to doing. It doesn’t mean they succeed every time. Are you proposing that the Democrats could kick him out of the party easily? That they could gather enough support in both the W.V. Democratic party and the National party to make that effort? It was literally in the post you quoted. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo.
And I am asking the question, is it a choice? Or do the people who object to him know that there is nothing they can do to remove him? And someone pointed out, a lot of people in the GOP hate Ted Cruz. Openly. They cannot get rid of Ted Cruz.
|
On June 07 2018 22:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'.
He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww
Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020?
We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. You know there is no way to kick him out, right? He picks which party he is. They can no more stop him from being a Democrat than the GOP could stop Trump from running as a Republican. The party has made it quite clear it's comfortable pushing people out of races, but that's not my point. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there. That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. They do not always succeed in removing people. They failed this primary cycle in several races. In one the state party picked a different candidate than the national party. The national party lost. They cannot control who is in the party. You quoted me but didn't really address anything I said? Other than agree with me that they have no problem pressuring people out of primary races or supporting a particular candidate. Is that what you intended? Yeah, they have no problem trying to doing. It doesn’t mean they succeed every time. Are you proposing that the Democrats could kick him out of the party easily? That they could gather enough support in both the W.V. Democratic party and the National party to make that effort? It was literally in the post you quoted. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. And I am asking the question, is it a choice? Or do the people who object to him know that there is nothing they can do to remove him? And someone pointed out, a lot of people in the GOP hate Ted Cruz. Openly. They cannot get rid of Ted Cruz.
Yes, removing him from committees is a choice. If he wants to put a D next to his name there's not much they can do about that, but they can remove him from committees, which is what I said.
Before you quoted me saying that and then responded with a non-sequitur, and then doubled down on it.
|
On June 07 2018 23:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 22:57 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:[quote] We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. You know there is no way to kick him out, right? He picks which party he is. They can no more stop him from being a Democrat than the GOP could stop Trump from running as a Republican. The party has made it quite clear it's comfortable pushing people out of races, but that's not my point. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there. That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. They do not always succeed in removing people. They failed this primary cycle in several races. In one the state party picked a different candidate than the national party. The national party lost. They cannot control who is in the party. You quoted me but didn't really address anything I said? Other than agree with me that they have no problem pressuring people out of primary races or supporting a particular candidate. Is that what you intended? Yeah, they have no problem trying to doing. It doesn’t mean they succeed every time. Are you proposing that the Democrats could kick him out of the party easily? That they could gather enough support in both the W.V. Democratic party and the National party to make that effort? It was literally in the post you quoted. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. And I am asking the question, is it a choice? Or do the people who object to him know that there is nothing they can do to remove him? And someone pointed out, a lot of people in the GOP hate Ted Cruz. Openly. They cannot get rid of Ted Cruz. Yes, removing him from committees is a choice. If he wants to put a D next to his name there's not much they can do about that, but they can remove him from committees, which is what I said. Before you quoted me saying that and then responded with a non-sequitur, and then doubled down on it.
Can they? Can the minority leadership strip a senator of every committee position and leave them powerless beyond their vote? I am not sure that is allowed, to be honest.
|
On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Why? Is what I'm asking. If he wants to keep the D and he's the better candidate fine, but he shouldn't' be on committees representing the party, especially on something like "Energy". What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? Show nested quote +It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Of course they would lol.
It's a bit old, but this 538 article seems like a good starting point:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/amp/
IIRC, the tl;dr is that Manchin votes with Democrats less than a normal Democrat, but way more than the Republican you'd expect WV to elect. Imagine someone like a Blankenship in his seat.
I don't normally post on workdays when I'll probably be too busy to follow the thread in real time, but it seemed like things were going in circles and I thought the article might help.
|
On June 07 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 23:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:57 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. You know there is no way to kick him out, right? He picks which party he is. They can no more stop him from being a Democrat than the GOP could stop Trump from running as a Republican. The party has made it quite clear it's comfortable pushing people out of races, but that's not my point. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there. That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. They do not always succeed in removing people. They failed this primary cycle in several races. In one the state party picked a different candidate than the national party. The national party lost. They cannot control who is in the party. You quoted me but didn't really address anything I said? Other than agree with me that they have no problem pressuring people out of primary races or supporting a particular candidate. Is that what you intended? Yeah, they have no problem trying to doing. It doesn’t mean they succeed every time. Are you proposing that the Democrats could kick him out of the party easily? That they could gather enough support in both the W.V. Democratic party and the National party to make that effort? It was literally in the post you quoted. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. And I am asking the question, is it a choice? Or do the people who object to him know that there is nothing they can do to remove him? And someone pointed out, a lot of people in the GOP hate Ted Cruz. Openly. They cannot get rid of Ted Cruz. Yes, removing him from committees is a choice. If he wants to put a D next to his name there's not much they can do about that, but they can remove him from committees, which is what I said. Before you quoted me saying that and then responded with a non-sequitur, and then doubled down on it. Can they? Can the minority leadership strip a senator of every committee position and leave them powerless beyond their vote? I am not sure that is allowed, to be honest.
The long and short of it is that it's pretty much up to the party.
There are three steps in the nomination and assignment process for Senate Democrats. The first is for the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee to make nominations for committee assignments. The second consists of approval of the nominations by the Democratic Conference, which comprises all Democrats in the Senate. The final step is for the assignment rosters to be incorporated into one or more Senate resolutions and considered and approved by the full Senate. Senate Democrats do not have written rules governing this assignment process, as do Senate Republicans.
The size of the Steering and Outreach Committee is set by the Democratic Conference. The Democratic leader serves on the committee and appoints its members, subject to ratification by the conference
There are some informal rules that could make it a bit convoluted, but it's sort of still besides the point. The Democratic party isn't even at the "Whoa Joe, You're thinking about endorsing Trump?! We need to talk" stage. They are at the "OMG you progressives (and everyone left of them) better vote for this guy who supports the worst of Trump's nominees and might endorse trump for 2020" stage.
www.senate.gov
On June 07 2018 23:29 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Why? Is what I'm asking. If he wants to keep the D and he's the better candidate fine, but he shouldn't' be on committees representing the party, especially on something like "Energy". What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Of course they would lol. It's a bit old, but this 538 article seems like a good starting point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/amp/IIRC, the tl;dr is that Manchin votes with Democrats less than a normal Democrat, but way more than the Republican you'd expect WV to elect. Imagine someone like a Blankenship in his seat. I don't normally post on workdays when I'll probably be too busy to follow the thread in real time, but it seemed like things were going in circles and I thought the article might help.
Thanks for the effort but no, it doesn't help.
Voting with Democrats is cool and all, but I was trying to find out what difference it would have made if he wasn't there and instead there was someone further to his right (not something I agree would happen automatically, but figured I'd humor it to see if it got anywhere).
|
|
|
5930 Posts
On June 07 2018 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 20:55 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 20:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 19:55 Gahlo wrote:On June 07 2018 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 18:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 07 2018 17:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 17:04 iamthedave wrote:On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:
[quote]
I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent.
It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Why? Is what I'm asking. If he wants to keep the D and he's the better candidate fine, but he shouldn't' be on committees representing the party, especially on something like "Energy". What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. Of course they would lol. I assume they get his vote on matters of import elsewhere on the agenda? Which is why I'm trying to figure out what those are. Not having much luck though. I think that might just be something people repeat without thinking about. How do you not have luck with the first Google result for "Joe Manchin Voting Record"? I thought this was all public information. And yeah, first result. First page shows him voting with Democrats against healthcare repeal and tax cut bills, which were like the only two big bills of last year? I'm familiar with the votes. I'm not clear what you're trying to say though? Those votes are supposed to be worth the ones I mentioned? If the Dems don't back him and then they lose the seat to a Republican who will always vote against them, then yes. What difference would that have made? Keeping in mind I'm familiar with the already mentioned votes. For one, ACA would have straight up died when the Republicans first tried to repeal it if Manchin wasn't around. It only got beaten back because McCain took one for the team and crossed the floor. You can argue that it should have died because the ACA was deeply flawed and it dying is good for accelerationism purposes but we're not really arguing that right now. His vote was crucial to keep the ACA around. Again. I don't disagree with you, Manchin is horrible but your system of government is horribly inflexible and the Democrats feel like they have to compromise with fossil fuel state Democrats like Heitkamp and Manchin to maximize any chance of obtaining or maintaining a majority. This isn't getting any easier with demographic shifts and brain drains from these states. Though, you have a political class who are all right wing as heck and things are going to continue to get worse in the USA. I dunno how you break a stranglehold where both parties are producing candidates to the right of a lot of our right wing candidates both socially and economically. Even Bernie Sanders has a nationalist streak like his support for tarrifs that seem awfully mercantile when described. Speaking of economic stances, its pretty concerning that the Democrats might legitimately be to the economic right of some Republicans right now. Republican methods of stimulating the economy with tax cuts and military spending are horribly inefficient and disproportionately benefit the already wealthy but its arguably preferable than zero sum spending policies that Pelosi is suggesting with paygo. Regarding your edit, Clinton got slammed in West Virginia as she was directly tied to Obama and his anti-coal policies. She also wasn't a strongman like Obama could be or what Trump appears to be, something that is appealing to the "political moderate". You could primary him but the last person who did got body slammed 70-30 with no one relevant in the state endorsing her. If you're not selling your soul for coal, you're not winning. How was his vote crucial to protect ACA? Or how would it have 'straight up died' without him rather?
How do you not know the biggest Congress showdown in this administration? Republicans wanted to repeal and replace the ACA with their "skinny repeal" bill, which aimed to eliminate the individual mandate and the requirement for large corporations offer some degree of health coverage to their employees. Its intentional sabotage of the ACA, it would have straight up died because the individual mandate is essential to its operation.
Because Mitch McConnell is passing all of his bills through budget reconciliation, he only needed a tie to pass the bill since Mike Pence can intervene if there's a draw. All 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Collins, Murkowski, McCain) voted against the "skinny repeal", I sincerely doubt they would find another Republican to cross the floor if Manchin was replaced by someone like Patrick Morrisey.
|
On June 07 2018 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 23:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:57 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 11:38 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You know there is no way to kick him out, right? He picks which party he is. They can no more stop him from being a Democrat than the GOP could stop Trump from running as a Republican. The party has made it quite clear it's comfortable pushing people out of races, but that's not my point. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there. That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. They do not always succeed in removing people. They failed this primary cycle in several races. In one the state party picked a different candidate than the national party. The national party lost. They cannot control who is in the party. You quoted me but didn't really address anything I said? Other than agree with me that they have no problem pressuring people out of primary races or supporting a particular candidate. Is that what you intended? Yeah, they have no problem trying to doing. It doesn’t mean they succeed every time. Are you proposing that the Democrats could kick him out of the party easily? That they could gather enough support in both the W.V. Democratic party and the National party to make that effort? It was literally in the post you quoted. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. And I am asking the question, is it a choice? Or do the people who object to him know that there is nothing they can do to remove him? And someone pointed out, a lot of people in the GOP hate Ted Cruz. Openly. They cannot get rid of Ted Cruz. Yes, removing him from committees is a choice. If he wants to put a D next to his name there's not much they can do about that, but they can remove him from committees, which is what I said. Before you quoted me saying that and then responded with a non-sequitur, and then doubled down on it. Can they? Can the minority leadership strip a senator of every committee position and leave them powerless beyond their vote? I am not sure that is allowed, to be honest. The long and short of it is that it's pretty much up to the party. Show nested quote +There are three steps in the nomination and assignment process for Senate Democrats. The first is for the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee to make nominations for committee assignments. The second consists of approval of the nominations by the Democratic Conference, which comprises all Democrats in the Senate. The final step is for the assignment rosters to be incorporated into one or more Senate resolutions and considered and approved by the full Senate. Senate Democrats do not have written rules governing this assignment process, as do Senate Republicans.
The size of the Steering and Outreach Committee is set by the Democratic Conference. The Democratic leader serves on the committee and appoints its members, subject to ratification by the conference There are some informal rules that could make it a bit convoluted, but it's sort of still besides the point. The Democratic party isn't even at the "Whoa Joe, You're thinking about endorsing Trump?! We need to talk" stage. They are at the "OMG you progressives (and everyone left of them) better vote for this guy who supports the worst of Trump's nominees and might endorse trump for 2020" stage. www.senate.gov
There's no reason to be. I don't believe in this kind of purity test you are pretending is an existing rule. Ideological purity is very rarely a positive quality.
A senator from WV ever voting with democrats is a miracle. Who are you saying should take Joe's place?
|
Personally, my theory is that he is endorsing Trump because W.V. loves Trump and he is doing what he needs to win in W.V. And I question if there is support in the Senate democrats to strip him of his committee appointments. The last time they tried to slap down a democratic senator for disagreeing with them, they got burned hard and didn’t get to remove the guy from office or from power.
My bet is if the Democrats removed him from committees, he would just go to the Republicans and say “Hey, would you like my vote?”
|
So I posted earlier about the ambassador to Germany being under fire for his comments to Breitbart. So now a State Department spokeswoman, came to explain that in fact there is a good relationship:
“Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government of Germany.”
So now I'm not sure if this is a 'Libya model' style threat for a new invasion of Europe or she's just this oblivious to quote D-day as a good example of the strong relationship with the Germans. She did get hired straight from Fox so it's probably the latter.
source
|
So buzzfeed put out an article recently that links Ivanka Trump to meeting with the Russians. It stems from Cohen's recent raid it seems. Have any of you given it a glance yet? Buzzfeed has seem to be hiring some fascinating journalist lately.
|
On June 07 2018 23:48 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 20:55 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 20:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 19:55 Gahlo wrote:On June 07 2018 18:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 18:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 07 2018 17:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 17:04 iamthedave wrote:On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Why? Is what I'm asking. If he wants to keep the D and he's the better candidate fine, but he shouldn't' be on committees representing the party, especially on something like "Energy".
What do Democrats get out of keeping him there?
[quote]
Of course they would lol. I assume they get his vote on matters of import elsewhere on the agenda? Which is why I'm trying to figure out what those are. Not having much luck though. I think that might just be something people repeat without thinking about. How do you not have luck with the first Google result for "Joe Manchin Voting Record"? I thought this was all public information. And yeah, first result. First page shows him voting with Democrats against healthcare repeal and tax cut bills, which were like the only two big bills of last year? I'm familiar with the votes. I'm not clear what you're trying to say though? Those votes are supposed to be worth the ones I mentioned? If the Dems don't back him and then they lose the seat to a Republican who will always vote against them, then yes. What difference would that have made? Keeping in mind I'm familiar with the already mentioned votes. For one, ACA would have straight up died when the Republicans first tried to repeal it if Manchin wasn't around. It only got beaten back because McCain took one for the team and crossed the floor. You can argue that it should have died because the ACA was deeply flawed and it dying is good for accelerationism purposes but we're not really arguing that right now. His vote was crucial to keep the ACA around. Again. I don't disagree with you, Manchin is horrible but your system of government is horribly inflexible and the Democrats feel like they have to compromise with fossil fuel state Democrats like Heitkamp and Manchin to maximize any chance of obtaining or maintaining a majority. This isn't getting any easier with demographic shifts and brain drains from these states. Though, you have a political class who are all right wing as heck and things are going to continue to get worse in the USA. I dunno how you break a stranglehold where both parties are producing candidates to the right of a lot of our right wing candidates both socially and economically. Even Bernie Sanders has a nationalist streak like his support for tarrifs that seem awfully mercantile when described. Speaking of economic stances, its pretty concerning that the Democrats might legitimately be to the economic right of some Republicans right now. Republican methods of stimulating the economy with tax cuts and military spending are horribly inefficient and disproportionately benefit the already wealthy but its arguably preferable than zero sum spending policies that Pelosi is suggesting with paygo. Regarding your edit, Clinton got slammed in West Virginia as she was directly tied to Obama and his anti-coal policies. She also wasn't a strongman like Obama could be or what Trump appears to be, something that is appealing to the "political moderate". You could primary him but the last person who did got body slammed 70-30 with no one relevant in the state endorsing her. If you're not selling your soul for coal, you're not winning. How was his vote crucial to protect ACA? Or how would it have 'straight up died' without him rather? How do you not know the biggest Congress showdown in this administration? Basically, Republicans wanted to repeal and replace the ACA with their "skinny repeal", which aimed to eliminate the individual mandate and the requirement for large corporations offer some degree of health coverage to their employees. Its intentional sabotage of the ACA, it would have straight up died because the individual mandate is essential to its operation. Because Mitch McConnell is passing all of his bills through budget reconciliation, he only needed a tie to pass the bill since Mike Pence can intervene if there's a draw. All 48 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Collins, Murkowski, McCain) voted against the "skinny repeal", I sincerely doubt they would find another Republican to cross the floor if Manchin was replaced by someone like Patrick Morrisey.
You seem to presume me asking you to make your case means I'm unfamiliar. So I know you started as "for one..." but I think it's fair to presume this is the biggest vote like this (there was only 1 other one presented and I think this one was bigger?)
Going from there we're at the "skinny repeal". The plan to destroy the ACA by killing the provision that made it profitable for insurance companies while also causing millions to end up without insurance when they need it, and even more explosive rates.
Imagining for a moment Republicans really did want that disaster to pass, it still had to go back to the House.
Where the person in charge already assured them the "House will not pass "skinny" Obamacare repeal"
So considering that vote was merely to kick the can back to the House (where they only got it to the Senate by promising it would get better [it got more watered down, so worse in their view]) and the House knew there was no chance of passing it, I was hoping people had something better than that.
It's not that I didn't know about that, it's that balancing that against the other factors I found it lacking.
So I'm still of the opinion he should be a pariah in the party and defending him weakens the party, not strengthen it. Though I'm still open to being presented with something where his vote made a critical difference justifying/balancing his support of Trump (Who Democrats were supposedly '#Resisting' for the last almost 2 years).
On June 07 2018 23:52 Plansix wrote:
Personally, my theory is that he is endorsing Trump because W.V. loves Trump and he is doing what he needs to win in W.V. And I question if there is support in the Senate democrats to strip him of his committee appointments. The last time they tried to slap down a democratic senator for disagreeing with them, they got burned hard and didn’t get to remove the guy from office or from power.
My bet is if the Democrats removed him from committees, he would just go to the Republicans and say “Hey, would you like my vote?”
This is getting a bit complicated because people are making parts of arguments rather than whole ones, but this presumes his "important votes" of which we've only identified the rather unimportant one on the ACA, are strictly a result of party loyalty and not any moral or ethical center. Meaning something like the ACA vote, Democrats only got as part of an exchange for supporting him elsewhere. To which I'm saying still, that's not worth it.
As to removing him, he threatened retire and the national party begged him to run.
WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia told colleagues on Tuesday that he intended to run for re-election this year after all, ending an anxiety-making flirtation with retirement and easing Democratic fears that the most conservative Democrat in the Senate was about to effectively hand his seat to a Republican.
“I was very vocal,” Mr. Manchin said, adding, “they read between the lines.”
www.nytimes.com
Feel like people thought they knew this topic better than they actually do.
On June 07 2018 23:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 23:14 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 23:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:57 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2018 11:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The party has made it quite clear it's comfortable pushing people out of races, but that's not my point. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo.
They do not always succeed in removing people. They failed this primary cycle in several races. In one the state party picked a different candidate than the national party. The national party lost. They cannot control who is in the party. You quoted me but didn't really address anything I said? Other than agree with me that they have no problem pressuring people out of primary races or supporting a particular candidate. Is that what you intended? Yeah, they have no problem trying to doing. It doesn’t mean they succeed every time. Are you proposing that the Democrats could kick him out of the party easily? That they could gather enough support in both the W.V. Democratic party and the National party to make that effort? It was literally in the post you quoted. You know committee placement is chosen by party members right? So the Democrat who backs Pruitt and Trump "more than some Republicans", sitting on the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources, is someone the Democratic (*the* "left" party) puts there.
That's a choice they make. It's the wrong one imo. And I am asking the question, is it a choice? Or do the people who object to him know that there is nothing they can do to remove him? And someone pointed out, a lot of people in the GOP hate Ted Cruz. Openly. They cannot get rid of Ted Cruz. Yes, removing him from committees is a choice. If he wants to put a D next to his name there's not much they can do about that, but they can remove him from committees, which is what I said. Before you quoted me saying that and then responded with a non-sequitur, and then doubled down on it. Can they? Can the minority leadership strip a senator of every committee position and leave them powerless beyond their vote? I am not sure that is allowed, to be honest. The long and short of it is that it's pretty much up to the party. There are three steps in the nomination and assignment process for Senate Democrats. The first is for the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee to make nominations for committee assignments. The second consists of approval of the nominations by the Democratic Conference, which comprises all Democrats in the Senate. The final step is for the assignment rosters to be incorporated into one or more Senate resolutions and considered and approved by the full Senate. Senate Democrats do not have written rules governing this assignment process, as do Senate Republicans.
The size of the Steering and Outreach Committee is set by the Democratic Conference. The Democratic leader serves on the committee and appoints its members, subject to ratification by the conference There are some informal rules that could make it a bit convoluted, but it's sort of still besides the point. The Democratic party isn't even at the "Whoa Joe, You're thinking about endorsing Trump?! We need to talk" stage. They are at the "OMG you progressives (and everyone left of them) better vote for this guy who supports the worst of Trump's nominees and might endorse trump for 2020" stage. www.senate.gov There's no reason to be. I don't believe in this kind of purity test you are pretending is an existing rule. Ideological purity is very rarely a positive quality. A senator from WV ever voting with democrats is a miracle. Who are you saying should take Joe's place?
Then of course there's the "stop with the purity politics! Joe's better than a Republican!" folks who don't even bother to engage with the actual question of "why is it worth having him?"
Platitudes like "he's better than a Republican" sound nice, but it doesn't seem most people, especially as displayed by mohdoo's post ever bothered to look into it's validity/substance/value.
|
Those online quizzes working to fund some journalism. Apparently there are calls in the German government to eject our ambassador. Never in my life time did I think we would be dumb enough to piss of Germany to the point where they would openly talk about ejecting our ambassador. And congress doesn’t give a shit.
|
On June 07 2018 23:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:So I posted earlier about the ambassador to Germany being under fire for his comments to Breitbart. So now a State Department spokeswoman, came to explain that in fact there is a good relationship: Show nested quote +“Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government of Germany.” So now I'm not sure if this is a 'Libya model' style threat for a new invasion of Europe or she's just this oblivious to quote D-day as a good example of the strong relationship with the Germans. She did get hired straight from Fox so it's probably the latter. source
That's actually quite funny. Though you can make the argument that US did liberate Germany from the Nazi regime, but that's too much modern military speak even for me.
|
On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. What do Democrats get out of keeping him there?
You mean other than his votes? Like the one that saved the ACA last year?
Do you think they get those votes if they kick Manchin out? I know you're all about the ideological purity, but having someone who votes with you a lot is better than having someone who votes with you never.
Edit: was on prior page when I responded, but I see many others have made the point.
Instead, then, I'll ask this. What's the better alternative for Democrats to Joe Manchin? Do you think having a Republican in the seat would somehow be better for the Democrats? Do you think there is another Democrat who could win the seat? I get not liking him, I'm just not seeing a clear path to improvement.
|
On June 08 2018 00:37 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 12:52 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 11:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:24 Womwomwom wrote:On June 07 2018 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 07 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:For those on twitter you know that every tweet about "Bernie is ____ Democratic party" pretty much always has the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" line in the replies. I think Democrats still don't understand Bernie being "not a Democrat" is one of his most attractive superficial features. Why does it make him a more attractive candidate? Well, Joe here, *is* a Democrat. RANSON, W.Va. — Joe Manchin wants you to know he really likes Donald Trump.
The West Virginia senator doesn’t put it quite that way. But more than any other Democrat in Congress, he's positioned himself as a vocal Trump ally. In fact, the senator, up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points, told POLITICO he isn’t ruling out endorsing Trump for reelection in 2020 — a position practically unheard of for a politician with a “D” next to his name.
“I’m open to supporting the person who I think is best for my country and my state,” Manchin said this week from the driver’s seat of his Grand Cherokee, insisting he’s game to work with any president of either party. “If his policies are best, I’ll be right there.”
Manchin supported Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, voted for now-embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and even backed the president’s hard-line immigration proposal.
“I’m with him sometimes more than other Republican senators are with him,” Manchin said. www.politico.com To be fair, "if his policies are the best" holds true for everyone else, too. If I thought Trump would do a better job than ____, I would vote for Trump. Which would matter if he hadn't already thought Gina "torturer" Haspel, Scott Pruitt, and Trump's immigration proposal were 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. He's openly saying he's a bigger Trump supporter than some Republicans,and he might endorse him for 2020. ww Are you unsure if you'll vote for Trump in 2020? We've been through this. Joe Manchin is garbage but I'm convinced that's the what the demography of West Virginia wants from their elected congressmen right now. No, I don't think Democrats should tolerate him but I imagine they tolerate him because he'll back them when push comes to shove with regards to shit like the ACA. For people in West Virginia, Haspel and immigration proposals are meaningless to mild positives while Pruitt's gutting of the EPA is seen as a huge boon. They don't want renewables or natural gas to succeed, that's their primary concern and that's what they think they're getting from this Whitehouse. This isn't the Great Plains where populism with an agrarian socialist slant still seems to work, West Virginia is a state that's completely built around coal and the pride of coal mining. Any proposal that suggests elimination or the winding back of coal production, like providing retraining into new industries, is seen as an affront to their identity. Mining towns in Australia are no different, I've worked in one for a few years and the macho pride and identity these towns build around mining is similar to what I see from West Virginia. Courtesy of Morning Consult, I've pretty sure running an anti-Trump campaign in West Virginia is going to get you killed: This is the the usual go to explanation, but why does he have to be a Democrat then? If he's what WV wants, let WV have him, but the 'left' party doesn't need people pondering on endorsing Trump in 2020 in leadership. I agree they should boot these guys out but I'm literally giving you the reason why the Democrats feel that they need to compromise with these red state senators stuck in places like North Dakota and Missouri. For the purposes of narrow and tight races, like a very tight general election, they clearly feel that senate seat is better as a Democrat and not a Republican or an Independent. It doesn't help that most people in Congress seem to like the guy on a personal level. What do Democrats get out of keeping him there? You mean other than his votes? Like the one that saved the ACA last year? Do you think they get those votes if they kick Manchin out? I know you're all about the ideological purity, but having someone who votes with you a lot is better than having someone who votes with you never.
jfc.
You don't get to be condescending and ignorant of the topic/discussion. You have to pick one. Catch up to the discussion where your question is answered, or don't act like you're adding something of value that we didn't know.
At least now it's quite clear people are repeating that slogan without really knowing what they are talking about.
Edit: was on prior page when I responded, but I see many others have made the point.
Instead, then, I'll ask this. What's the better alternative for Democrats to Joe Manchin? Do you think having a Republican in the seat would somehow be better for the Democrats? Do you think there is another Democrat who could win the seat? I get not liking him, I'm just not seeing a clear path to improvement.
I'm not supposed to keep telling you to read so I'll just answer again that I'm waiting on what difference it would have made to have a Republican there. So far the only thing we got is "Skinny repeal" would have went back to the House if there was a Republican there. Hardly worth calling him a member of the 'left' party imo.
It appears many Democrats/liberals/nominally left people think it's not just a good bargain, but one they should inexplicably defend.
EDIT 2: I have to point out there are some remarkable parallels between Republicans arguing against gun control and Democrats arguing against moving left.
|
See edit above. I've caught up. I still don't know what you're proposing as a better alternative for the Democrats. Kick him out...then what?
|
The continued focus on Manchin by some progressives I know really confuses me. It seems like a fruitless fight with nothing to gain. They aren’t going to win W.V. with some progressive labor candidate, especially if the well is poisoned by forcing Manchin out. W.V. has to be one of the most hostile states for outside influence on their voting. It just seems like a fight that is least likely to result in any movement towards what the progressives want.
|
On June 08 2018 00:44 CatharsisUT wrote:
See edit above. I've caught up. I still don't know what you're proposing as a better alternative for the Democrats. Kick him out...then what?
Presumably sleep a little better knowing you didn't spend millions to support a guy who supports Trump.
But to give your question more credit than it's due, focus on building a party that doesn't have to support people who support Trump "more than some Republicans" in order to get empty and symbolic 'majorities', or as it sits currently, a minority.
EDIT:
On June 08 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. Evacuates Multiple Employees From Chinese Consulate Over Mysterious Illness
The U.S. State Department has sent "a number of individuals" from the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China, back to the U.S. after screenings showed they may have been affected by mysterious health problems similar to what diplomats experienced in Cuba.
Two weeks ago, the agency said one government employee in Guangzhou experienced "vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure," similar to the unexplained incidents — sometimes described as "sonic attacks" — that recently sickened staffers in Cuba.
The State Department says it sent a medical team to Guangzhou to screen any employees or family members who requested a test.
On Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said the employees were sent to the U.S. for a "further evaluation and a comprehensive assessment of their symptoms and findings."
A department spokesperson said the agency was not specifying the exact number of people evacuated, saying it was due to medical privacy concerns.
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a task force to respond to the "unexplained health incidents."
He said that as of now, 24 government employees or family members who worked in Cuba had confirmed symptoms "similar to those noted following concussion or minor traumatic brain injury." The Guangzhou employee was found to have similar symptoms on May 16.
The symptoms, which first appeared in late 2016 in Havana, include "dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, cognitive issues, visual problems, ear complaints and hearing loss, and difficulty sleeping."
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in March that a study of 21 former Havana staffers found "most experienced persistent cognitive, balance, hearing, oculomotor dysfunction, or all 4, as well as sleep impairment and headaches."
One of the study's authors, Randel Swanson, described the symptoms as being "like a concussion without a concussion."
The government says it still doesn't know the cause.
In February, the nonprofit news organization ProPublica detailed the frustrations of U.S. government officials investigating the mysterious illnesses in Cuba:
"After nearly a year of investigation that has drawn on intelligence, defense and technology expertise from across the U.S. government, the FBI has been unable to determine who might have attacked the diplomats or how. Nor has the bureau ruled out the possibility that at least some of the Americans weren't attacked at all. Officials who have been briefed on the inquiry described it as having made strikingly little progress in answering the basic questions of the case, with frustrated FBI agents reporting that they are running out of rocks to overturn."
The U.S. first pulled out all nonessential staff in Cuba in September, followed shortly after by the expulsion of 15 Cuban diplomats from their U.S. post. Cuba has denied involvement.
China's government said Thursday that it investigated and could not find anything to cause the described symptoms, NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports from Beijing. The foreign ministry said it takes its obligation to protect foreign diplomats seriously and is open to conducting further investigations if requested by the U.S.
The Associated Press reported that the evacuated staff members from China are being sent to the University of Pennsylvania for testing, where doctors have tested former employees stationed in Havana.
The U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, in southern China, officially opened in 1979 and moved to its current location in 2013. It's one of five consulates the U.S. operates in China, along with its main embassy in Beijing, according to the State Department's website.
SourceIf people didn't follow the weird story from Cuba where our people U.S. Consulate heard a weird, loud noise and then got sick, it has happened again in China. No one can figure out what is causing the employees to get sick. It could be anything, but the single factor that seems to link the two is the strange noise that is quickly followed by employees getting sick to the point where they need to be sent back to the US. This is some metal gear level non-sense. It could just be the food, but the noise just makes just feeds the "maybe its communist nanomachines?"
I'm rooting for nanomachines. Rooting for the brown note after that. Then just some generic sonic weapon the backwards commies figured out before the massive US war machine.
My bet is a combination of emotion, food, and placebo.
|
U.S. Evacuates Multiple Employees From Chinese Consulate Over Mysterious Illness
The U.S. State Department has sent "a number of individuals" from the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, China, back to the U.S. after screenings showed they may have been affected by mysterious health problems similar to what diplomats experienced in Cuba.
Two weeks ago, the agency said one government employee in Guangzhou experienced "vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure," similar to the unexplained incidents — sometimes described as "sonic attacks" — that recently sickened staffers in Cuba.
The State Department says it sent a medical team to Guangzhou to screen any employees or family members who requested a test.
On Wednesday, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said the employees were sent to the U.S. for a "further evaluation and a comprehensive assessment of their symptoms and findings."
A department spokesperson said the agency was not specifying the exact number of people evacuated, saying it was due to medical privacy concerns.
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a task force to respond to the "unexplained health incidents."
He said that as of now, 24 government employees or family members who worked in Cuba had confirmed symptoms "similar to those noted following concussion or minor traumatic brain injury." The Guangzhou employee was found to have similar symptoms on May 16.
The symptoms, which first appeared in late 2016 in Havana, include "dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, cognitive issues, visual problems, ear complaints and hearing loss, and difficulty sleeping."
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in March that a study of 21 former Havana staffers found "most experienced persistent cognitive, balance, hearing, oculomotor dysfunction, or all 4, as well as sleep impairment and headaches."
One of the study's authors, Randel Swanson, described the symptoms as being "like a concussion without a concussion."
The government says it still doesn't know the cause.
In February, the nonprofit news organization ProPublica detailed the frustrations of U.S. government officials investigating the mysterious illnesses in Cuba:
"After nearly a year of investigation that has drawn on intelligence, defense and technology expertise from across the U.S. government, the FBI has been unable to determine who might have attacked the diplomats or how. Nor has the bureau ruled out the possibility that at least some of the Americans weren't attacked at all. Officials who have been briefed on the inquiry described it as having made strikingly little progress in answering the basic questions of the case, with frustrated FBI agents reporting that they are running out of rocks to overturn."
The U.S. first pulled out all nonessential staff in Cuba in September, followed shortly after by the expulsion of 15 Cuban diplomats from their U.S. post. Cuba has denied involvement.
China's government said Thursday that it investigated and could not find anything to cause the described symptoms, NPR's Anthony Kuhn reports from Beijing. The foreign ministry said it takes its obligation to protect foreign diplomats seriously and is open to conducting further investigations if requested by the U.S.
The Associated Press reported that the evacuated staff members from China are being sent to the University of Pennsylvania for testing, where doctors have tested former employees stationed in Havana.
The U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou, in southern China, officially opened in 1979 and moved to its current location in 2013. It's one of five consulates the U.S. operates in China, along with its main embassy in Beijing, according to the State Department's website.
Source
If people didn't follow the weird story from Cuba where our people U.S. Consulate heard a weird, loud noise and then got sick, it has happened again in China. No one can figure out what is causing the employees to get sick. It could be anything, but the single factor that seems to link the two is the strange noise that is quickly followed by employees getting sick to the point where they need to be sent back to the US.
This is some metal gear level non-sense. It could just be the food, but the noise just makes just feeds the "maybe its communist nanomachines?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
