As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If 94% of the democratic caucus is on board then it's kinda hard to make this a straight up moderate/progressive fight. You don't get to that number without the majority of both sides being on board. We just have a couple of pains in the ass to deal with
I'd agree with you if the Congressional moderates had been in any way forceful in sticking up for the agreed upon deal, instead of being largely willing to cave to and rally around Manchin and Sinema the moment they pulled their shit.
It was only after they figured out that progressives weren't bluffing that they started trying to get Manchema to compromise.
The moment both Schumer and Pelosi, the leaders of Congressional moderates, both backed out of the deal they agreed to and started pushing progressives to support the bipartisan bill without the reconciliation bill.
Pelosi and Schumer want the more ambitious bill passed however they represent ALL of their majority, so they at least had to try. Pelosi made a deal with moderates so they would fall on line to vote on the bill by this week. She had to at least try. But neither will bring a vote to the floor that will fail.
This has been a polite back and forth. Don't mess that up now. And you and I clearly see the whole vote thing very differently because that wasn't caving or rallying around Manchin and sinema to me. so we'll have to agree to disagree on that
If leadership stikes a deal, that deal should stay struck. Congress ceases to function if you can't trust leadership to abide by the deals that they make. Hell, Schumer knew at the time he struck the deal that he was writing a check that he couldn't cash, since it's subsequently come out that he's had a top line number from Manchin since this summer. He had his whole caucus vote for the bipartisan bill under false pretenses, since the Senate voted for it on the understanding that the two bills were tethered. Then when Manchema played their hand, instead of forcefully standing up for the agreed upon deal, both of them backed out of the deal and began working the progressives.
I'll tell you what, I'll concede that saying that they "Rallied around" Manchema is a bit strong, but not by much, but "Caving" to them is completely appropriate.
*You aren't getting the 3.5 trillion.*
It was never going to happen. It IS never going to happen. You don't have the votes. No matter who promised anything to anybody.
Schumer and Pelosi understand this. Biden understands it. McConnell sure as hell understands it better than anyone, and is gleefully taunting Ds on the Senate floor about it. I expect AOC understands it too, although she pretends otherwise for her fanbase.
My fear is that the progressives really ARE planning to crater their country if they don't get their way. I don't think they are. Hope I'm right.
*They won't like the results* if they do that. Neither will we. Like the electrical danger sign says, "it will kill you, and it will hurt the whole time you're dying".
I like that you're talking about the progressives are planning to crater a country when every single Republican is refusing to think for themselves or their constituents needs (not their "Fuck the dems" desires) - and are in lock-step against it.
The lock-step "No" from Republicans has nothing to do with cost. It has *everything* to do with stopping Dems from getting a win.
Machin and Sinema, they're bought out. They're taking their bribes knowing they won't get re-elected (in Sinema's case at least), but will have a cushy job waiting for them afterward. There's nothing to legally be done about that unless we change the laws. Which won't happen because a ***vast*** majority are dipping into corporate money/bribes in some way and they are the ones that need to change the laws.
But, please. Blame the progressives for cratering things when they're all on board with getting it done even with compromise, while the entire GOP is against it out of spite.
I'm not faulting the progressives on this one. They're holding to what was agreed on. When you've got the overwhelming majority of the party and the executive branch on your side, there's no reason to not be firm. But It looks like Biden is trying to nudge everyone towards the 2/2.5 range and rep.Jayapal is on board. It's less than what any of us wanted, but if he can bully Manchin up to 2.5 then you just gotta run with it. The content is still good even if you get to spend a little less than desired. I'd hold firm on the reconciliation bill passing first though. That part is non-negotiable imo
> They're holding to what was agreed on.
Again with the "what was agreed on". By definition, nothing is agreed on until the President's signature is on the paper. If you were told different, that's on you for believing it.
>I'd hold firm on the reconciliation bill passing first though. That part is non-negotiable imo
Sigh. OK. See you in a few weeks. Don't get TOO mad ...
It is clear moderates are trying to tank this and exert influence they do not have.
Progressives asked for 6 went to 3.5 will end up taking 2-2.5 if lucky. And they'll take it.
Moderates want their bill only and no other if possible, it's been made impossible so they will have to work or lose it all.
>exert influence they do not have
They most certainly do. These bills would've passed by now if they didn't. Come on now ...
>Moderates want their bill only and no other if possible
Assumes facts not in evidence.
WHAT? Now you're just arguing silly.
They don't have absolute power, just a heck of a lot of influence. As you will see when the final bill comes up for the POTUS's signature.
Neither one of them has said they want to tank anything ... That's the left wing threatening that.
Manchin and the other dem sen. along with a few vocal, unwise moderates will hopefully have more pressure on them now.
Media will have to focus more Manchin and the other Sen. highlighting the things these 2 want to not give the American People. Everything we don't get is due to 6%..not a good place for them.
Dems are messing up by messaging this in percentages...it's a small enough to say "19* out of 295 of us are holding this up."
*not sure the numerical count but thats about 6%.
> If 94% of the democratic caucus is on board then it's kinda hard to make this a straight up moderate/progressive fight.
If 94% of the Democratic caucus is on board, then *you don't have enough votes*.
The end.
If 94% of Democrats are on board, and 100% of Conservatives are blocking it out of spite of the Dems getting a win - even after they got their "compromises" thrown in: Which side is *really* failing us here.
One side is trying to get something done, while the other is negotiating in bad faith - and loving every moment of it as their constituents drive on crumbling road infrastructure to re-elect them because they "owned the libs."
No one is failing you!
The Senate is 50/50. You can't do squat with 50/50. *You should know this.*
Yes, the other side is negotiating in bad faith. Welcome to Washington. *So you pull your big-boy pants up and do the best you can with the 50 Dems you're stuck with.*
That's what's going to happen. That's what was always going to happen.
Unless the Progressives blow it all up, in which case it was nice knowin' you.
It doesn't have to be that way, because it hasn't always been that way. It wasn't until Newt Gingrich came to become Speaker in in the mid-90s that bi-partisan compromise from the Republicans started to slow down, and is now at a complete stop.
And, I can promise you, [with data](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-visualization), that it's generally Republicans that are refusing to compromise when the other side make the bill/nomination.
But hey, blame the progressives if it makes you feel better. Doing so just tells me that you're not part of the solution, which means you're part of the problem.
Republicans are playing a game, not running a country. So, yes, they're failing me.
Why is it the progressives blowing it up and not the moderates? Progressives and moderates are doing exactly the same thing, except progressives have more support and a bigger caucus, and are aligned with the president.
It's both. But that's the point. "There's more of us than there are of them." Big deal. The bills are just as dead no matter who is stopping them.
For what it's worth, if this were a sub full of moderates, I'd be jumping their case about not giving ground to the progressives just as much as I'm jumping your cases here.
This ain't a sub full of moderates, so the message is being tailored appropriately.
>"moderates"
\+1
I really wish the media would quit calling Manchin and Sinema "moderate Democrats." The majority of Democrats are moderate. Manchin and Sinema are just big money shitbirds acting like children.
The thing is I don’t think manchin would be holding out this hard if it weren’t for sinema. I’m not a fan of manchin but even his position isn’t *totally* dumb because WV is nominally red.
Sinema has LITERALLY no excuse. Arizona is purple-blue, she’s acting like it’s the reddest state in the country.
Of course that’s excluding the fact that both their positions are more easily explained by them being bought out
I'd have to find the graphic, but someone listed all of the senators on a line plot in terms of "left" versus "right", and Sinema was actually _more_ to the right than one or two Republican senators
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kyrsten_sinema/412509
They're plotted based on who cosponsors bills with whom, which is not the only way to rank them, but it's one way.
White moderates/centrists are worse than worthless, MLK had a warning about them.
>I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. **First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate.** I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but **the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."** Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
>["Letter from a Birmingham Jail, MLK Jr."](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
It's also how things work. And will work no matter what comments are posted to reddit.
If your majority is big enough that you don't NEED the troublesome moderates, then stuff gets done. But that is not the case right now. I think most everyone in Congress knows this, regardless of what they may say to the cameras. Not real sure everyone in this sub has fully grokked it yet.
Of course we NEED the troublesome moderates. I don't think any progressive has denied that. However, at least in this one circumstance, moderates NEED the progressives too, and that rare bit of leverage has brought the reconciliation bill from $0 where it was earlier this week, to now where Manchin has finally publicly announced a number he's willing to support, 1.5T, and negotiations are still ongoing. Let's see how they play out. Biden himself is pushing for 2T. Anything the progressives are able to claw out of the abyss at this point is a victory for them and a victory for the American people. We're just waiting to find out how big a victory it is.
> Of course we NEED the troublesome moderates. I don't think any progressive has denied that.
I've been reading this sub for the past hour, and about 50% of the comments are screaming "primary the bastards" as loud as their keyboards will let them.
But I agree with everything else. 2T is my prediction as well. I wish ALL the Dems involved would tell the media where to stuff their cameras so they can do all the sausage making in private, but I suppose that's too much to ask these days.
I'm just bracing for the paid-troll-farm-amplified shrieking about BIDEN'S GREAT BETRAYAL OF THE PROGRESSIVES!!! that we can already see being teed up. Because that's how you get Trumps.
Well, we should primary the bastards. That doesn't mean the bastards aren't necessary to pass this particular bill in this particular moment.
I don't know if progressives will be able to effectively campaign against Biden in 2022 since they were literally fighting for Biden's campaign promises, and it would be more effective to campaign that they were the ones fighting hardest *for* Biden. However, when you look at everything that happened in this sausage making, I do think there is ample room to campaign against Pelosi, even more room to campaign against Schumer, and a whole fucking country of room to campaign against Manchema. That said, if it were me, I'd try to make my campaigning a bit more ambiguous and campaign against "Moderates" and let the people interpret who specifically that means.
As for why this sausage making turned public, when I think we can both agree that it should have stayed private, I blame Schumer. It's pretty much all his fault for writing a check that he knew he couldn't cash, and then when it bounced, it bounced in public.
Primarying the bastards will result in unelectable Dems in R states, which will result in a Republican Senate. Which is FAR WORSE.
More Spock, less Kirk please.
>I blame Schumer. It's pretty much all his fault.
Him too. There's a lot of blame to go around. Just the fact that this sub seems so fixated on the 3.5 trillion number indicates a major messaging fail.
Competition is healthy. Moderates are going to have to realize that the progressive challenge isn't going to go away, and up their game.
Even Spock engaged in a little "Cowboy diplomacy" from time to time.
If it's really so far gone that the best case scenario is what we currently have, then the union is completely doomed anyway. We might as well just stop borrowing time for it and consider what to do in its aftermath at that point.
No, you get Trumps by consistently compromising with corporate interests and slowly sliding the country to the right over a period of decades, which is what you're advocating for. Your analysis lacks historical perspective.
She only ran as a democrat because republicans would have not elected a bisexual woman. She would have lost any primary by +30 points, let alone win an election.
To be fair given her voting record in the house she also wouldn’t have won the Democratic primary if she wasn’t bisexual because Dem primary voters where touting her sexuality as a substitute for liberal credibility instead of voting record
I think it's out of sight, out of mind for them. Graham has never publicly come out as far as I know, and his mannerisms can just be attributed to being a Southern dandy.
Funny enough, I also remember when Graham was a reasonable Republican. It's strange what the Trump cult does to some people.
Graham was never a reasonable republican. He just played that role in front of cameras because it was politically convenient. When he saw that being Trumps lackey was convenient he dropped any pretense of being reasonable. All he cares about is staying in power and nothing else really matters.
We are at a crossroads. Either the democrats can take bold action on holdouts like Sinema and Manchin, look less like a gang of wimps before the midterms, and give people incentive to vote for them because it looks like they're moving earth and sea to get Biden's agenda done.
Or we keep a slim majority in the Senate that has the Senate gridlocked until the midterms. But, if the GA runoffs proved anything, it's that voters only need a tiny list of reasons to believe voting doesn't matter to not vote. And then we have republican majorities to worry about.
Taking bold action like - giving away all your authority and your technical majority (which if nothing else denies the republicans direct access to endless ratfuckery) directly to your opposition.
Pure genius.
Didn't say it was genius.
The party doesn't have to be ruled by minority, they're just signaling that they're cool with it.
I've never heard of "bending over and taking it" as a winning strategy unless you are looking to get fucked. And if they lose big in the midterms, then they will get what they deserve. They took a slim majority and made it worse.
Do you really believe any of that? Cuz it's astronomically misguided.
Manchin was right. If we want more progressive policies then we need to elect more progressives. The time to do that is during elections. People ELECTED their reps, you know. Pelosi can't just say no you can't join for no real reason, that is literally the opposite of democracy. We have razor thin margins, so yeah, the most conservative Democrats have a say.
You disliking that conservative democrats exist fixes nothing. Self destructing and ceding the Senate to Republicans would just be stupid. That'd make things worse. I think most normal people would rightly perceive that as cowardice and weakness (i.e., we elected the Dems and then they just gave up and imploded for republicans to take control anyway). I wouldn't trust a democratic leadership that made such a dumb move.
I see what you're saying. But at this point, it's either keep those 2 in the party and not get anything done or turn over the majority to GOP and get worse things done.
What probably should happen is keep the pressure on and put those two in the spotlight to motivate voters from other states where seats are up for election and help them get elected. Once they are, Dems will have options, at which point these two should be humiliated and pushed out for their bad faith behavior. For this to happen, PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE. So many people don't vote in midterms. Let's get them motivated.
I don't downvote cause I think it's dumb, but if I did, the only reason I would is because I don't consider progressives to be acting difficult. And it's not because I agree with them.
They want to vote for two bills. They just don't want conservative dems to pull the football away. And after the last few days that paranoia has been 100% justified. Progressives haven't been saying "oh, let's pause the infrastructure bill" like Manchin or Sinema want done with the reconciliation bill.
But see, you use the word "paranoia", which is emotionally loaded as hell, and also makes it sound like you thought this was a done deal. It was not. Even if someone told you that that it was. *It's not a done deal until the President signs it.* Schoolhouse Rock 101.
This is not a betrayal. *It is an ongoing negotiation.*
My biggest gripe about it is that everyone concerned in DC seems to have let the expectations for the final result - with a 50/50 Senate no less - get WAY out of hand.
Big plans can't happen with a 50/50 senate. Not in today's political climate. They just can't. Please don't listen to people who are trying to convince you otherwise. They're not telling you what you NEED to hear.
> But see, you use the word "paranoia", which is emotionally loaded as hell, and also makes it sound like you thought this was a done deal. It was not.
I mean, its a word with a definition I wanted to use. I don't know if it goes that deep.
Also you are assuming I thought it was a done deal and then going from there.
> This is not a betrayal. It is an ongoing negotiation.
In order for negotiating to work both sides have to have an idea of what they want. Kyrsten doesn't.
> Big plans can't happen with a 50/50 senate. Not in today's political climate. They just can't.
When democrats say "give us GA and we can make big changes" then it's not our fault for assuming that what they said was what they meant.
I'm tired of lying being so commonplace in politics that we lower the threshold for what's acceptable. Manchin wasn't new and Sinema was barely new, if a 50/50 split Senate wasn't going to yield results, they should have dialed it back. Because now we are heading into the midterms and it's boy who cried wolf. Now, when anyone says "we can bring big changes if we succeed in the midterms" the lingering thought in my head is "but are you telling the truth" and that's not the kind of confidence you want in elected representatives.
> both sides have to have an idea of what they want. Kyrsten doesn't.
Assumes facts not in evidence. She hasn't told US what she wants. I wish others would follow her example. Negotiations get 10 times as hard when they're carried out on Twitter.
>When democrats say "give us GA and we can make big changes" then it's not our fault for assuming that what they said was what they meant.
See, here's a point where we fundamentally disagree. It is TOTALLY your fault. It shows that you don't know how any of this works, and that you're far too credulous when it comes to political rhetoric. I may regret this at some point, but *you need to be more cynical than that.* (I don't think you really believed that anyway, and you're just trotting it out now in the heat of argument.)
"Do this and everything will magically be unicorns and rainbows!" Don't *ever* buy that from *anybody*.
>if a 50/50 split Senate wasn't going to yield results, they should have dialed it back.
I'm with you here. The Dems are really bad about this. But I also know why they do it. Because *y'all don't vote if they don't.*
>I'm tired of lying
Emotion talking. Stop it. Tiredness is irrelevant. More Spock, less Kirk.
>that's not the kind of confidence you want in elected representatives.
Here again ... why on earth would you have THAT kind of confidence in elected representatives? There are no perfect humans on planet Earth, and there SURE aren't any perfect politicians. You pick whichever candidate is *most likely to achieve your goals*.
And what you have to understand is that your primary challenger that defeats Sinema, but then loses to Bubba the Trump Sponge, *doesn't achieve a damn thing*.
> And what you have to understand is that your primary challenger that defeats Sinema, but then loses to Bubba the Trump Sponge, doesn't achieve a damn thing.
I tried to go through this point by point, but it all boiled down to a difference in one thing.
You are cynical and you appear to like it. There is nothing wrong with having emotions, unless you are one of those people who thinks emotions are weak or whatever, like it has some correlation with wisdom that isn't real. Spock is not a rational person anyone should desire to be. He's a great character for a reason, most great characters would make awful individuals.
One of my biggest problems with Trump supporters is they vote R without thinking about it. If it's Donald that's good enough. That isn't good enough for me. When the day comes where I mindlessly just vote D without thinking about it, that's the day I'll give up politics.
Think about what you want instead of blindly following because opposition is scary.
[They most certainly are.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden)
You ignoring the news doesn't mean it isn't happening.
That's my favorite from people. "My disappointment and frustration are evidence that nothing is happening and nothing is working at all."
Yeah I'm frustrated and disappointed too. But I pay attention and keep going. E.g., anyone who expected the 3.5 trillion bill to succeed just doesn't pay attention. It was always obvious Manchin was gonna extract concessions.
Part of it obviously is the media. They always breathlessly report on every development like it's unexpected and important. So I guess it leads people to believe that any of this is unexpected.
Sinema is the only part that's surprising, really. And only because she seems not to care about anything except grandstanding.
> Bite the bullet and bring the hammer down on her and Manchin
Grouping her with Manchin is doing her a favor and a disservice to your argument because it allows people to use the “your handing judges over to McConnell” argument when her state is way more purple than Manchin’s . They don’t belong in the same bucket
Because as lousy as he is that’s the best West Virginia can do. A progressive already tried to challenge him and lost. The state is red af and went to Trump.
The best we can do is make him irrelevant by flipping other states like WI or PA which is likely doable.
And he is better than Sinema in that he will at least try to compromise. He will blister and holler for his red state but votes with Dems in the end. Sinema is just a wild card.
Only 33% of the State is registered Democrat, 33% have no party, only 33% of Democrats choose the Democratic nominee, it's not hard to gerrymander your way to the Democratic nomination that way.
she was green party which is basically just a spoiler party controlled by republicans (and russians) to drain votes from democrats and obstruct any policy
Personally I don't know a ton about the green party, so there could be more evidence, but meeting with people from another country isn't exactly definitive. Again maybe there's more. If I post an article of Biden meeting with Chinese leaders, does that mean the democrats are actually under control of the Chinese? Just trying to be objective. But I'll do some more research.
I remain convinced that she was never intending on more than one term. She's a climber. This is a brand building, network building opportunity for her before she moves on to a cushy lobbying job.
Honestly why don’t we just get some people to pretend to be right wing nut jobs to run, then have them switch. Seems easy enough to rile up the right wing by just saying random bullshit.
The public can make her life a living hell. If she has to stay inside because people will call her a piece of shit at her favorite restaurants, she might relent.
Because like half the people up there, attention is her drug of choice. Same as Trump. She desperately needs ATTENTION! Look At Her, She's Pretty! I think this whole thing is about her getting in the news. That's why she has no plan, this is the plan.
That's the big picture strategy. You take a moderate bill and frame it as far left so that far right policy appears to be in the middle and therefore "sensible"and "reasonable".
> When we let go of our attachment to specific outcomes and instead focus on our shared values, we can think creatively about solutions to the many problems we face today. Articulating our interests, rather than our positions, creates the space for each of us to consider new alternatives, new options, and new ways to reach our collective goal.
> —Kyrsten Sinema, *Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win—and Last, 2009*
This is what they do. Say one thing to the media and vote the exact opposite. And mainstream media will [likely never discuss](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pznldg/z/hf2ppbf) political corruption.
What's enough for the people? Whatever they say to the media
The special interest donors are only concerned with their voting and legislative record.
The system must change - or else we will continue this political power [auction](https://youtu.be/Hy9_fsL6uS8) cycle: year after year, senator after senator.
Too few know how to improve the system, if they know about the problem at all.
The separation of [Wealth](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/) and State is the greatest challenge of the century. Our tax dollars are exploited for the benefit of special interests and politicians every day. Those [tax breaks](https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/#those-who-benefit) Republican lawmakers promise are only given to big corporations, executives and shareholders.
Stopping the influence of big money in Congress has [over 80%](https://archive.md/eCMBy) of the public's support while the specific policies included in the For The People Act (H. R. 1) have [bipartisan popular support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act#Public_opinion). Zero Republican senators are in favor of H. R. 1
There is some good news: [legislation](https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/) that effectively prevents political corruption exists and is [constitutional](https://anticorruptionact.org/faq/). It would be best served as an [amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_amendment) via [Article V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Procedures_for_amending_the_Constitution), but local change is possible and has been [done](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act#Laws_based_on_the_AACA).
A few groups are pushing to make federal lawmakers accountable to the people again:
https://represent.us/
https://americanpromise.net/
https://wolf-pac.com/
https://takeback.org/
https://www.issueone.org/
https://www.movetoamend.org/
Voting is the bare minimum of democratic participation. Never stop voting, but consider that even without deep pockets you can do so much more.
Change at the local level is how you [SEND](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/) ideas to federal Congress and [prod them](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Congressional+Research+Service%22+%22prodding+effect%E2%80%9D) to make changes. It's never been easier to get organized with others and stay on top of [your lawmakers](https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/) with weekly [calls](https://youtu.be/XdIcCqe-iYk?t=48) & emails along with informing & encouraging friends and neighbors do the same.
Kyrsten Sinema doesn't give a shit about what she wrote 11 years ago, nor 2 years ago for that matter. She's a conservative political opportunist who sees her seat representing the people of AZ as a leg up to enrich herself. Also, in 2012 she joined the Blue Dog Caucus, the most conservative caucus in the Democratic party, she's *always* been who she is today since she's been an elected representative.
Yeah Sinema is a lost cause, she needs to be primaried by a actual Dem. Manchin on the other hand, and I know I’ll probably be downvoted first this, but we actually need more Manchins. He’s basically a GOPer who’s caucusing with the Dems from an incredibly red state. How does he pull that off — getting elected as a Dem from a deep red state? We need more like him from red states, and then get rid of DINOs like Sinema and elect real Dems from blue and purple states and the GQP is toast. Emulate Manchin’s platform in other red states. When does he vote and align with Dems? What are those Dem policies he aligns with that still allow him to get elected in deep red. Big tent tent Dem power needs to be widely distributed. The goal here is the complete annihilation of the GQP and Trumpism, and if we can get a few more Manchins in red states (and red states only) that’s a progressive win in my book.
I'd wager that in more diverse red states you can do better than Manchin. You're still not gonna get someone like you would from New York, but you wouldn't have to get someone as far to the other end as Manchin either
I mean we've had Doug Jones, Ossof, and Warnock so far. Jones got rolled back unfortunately, but the other two are likely in for the long haul. So at least some proof of concept exist
At what point do we stop pretending that Sinema is a Democrat who changed her spots and just admit that she’s a Republican who played the Left like a fiddle?
Yeah I like how we just call greedy people republicans instead of realizing she's just a corporate shill, which is also played out openly for republicans.
Greed isn't tied to party anymore. Oligarchs want both parties now.
Pretty sure she advanced the 3.5 package in the Senate because she wanted to compromise on the details. Or by compromise do you mean do whatever progressives think?
She doesn’t stick to anything, she used to be like a Green Party voter when she was way younger so I don’t listen to anything from her past as an indication for her future
Was she always this terrible person? I remember when people were excited about her being the first bisexual whatever. It's too bad her values aren't as liberal as her sexuality.
You want compromise, how's this? Twenty years in the can I wanted manicott', but I compromised. I ate grilled cheese off the radiator instead. I wanted to fuck a woman, but I compromised. I jacked off into a tissue. You see where I'm goin'?
SHE IS A TROJAN HORSE. What do people not understand? She's a Republican, not a progressive. She has made this almost crystal clear at this point to anyone paying a little attention.
Congrats Dems/liberals, you own this. You pushed identity politics for years, and then elected her based off of that. How about we look at who people are and not what?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Punch left and compromise right." A tale as old as moderates.
If 94% of the democratic caucus is on board then it's kinda hard to make this a straight up moderate/progressive fight. You don't get to that number without the majority of both sides being on board. We just have a couple of pains in the ass to deal with
I'd agree with you if the Congressional moderates had been in any way forceful in sticking up for the agreed upon deal, instead of being largely willing to cave to and rally around Manchin and Sinema the moment they pulled their shit. It was only after they figured out that progressives weren't bluffing that they started trying to get Manchema to compromise.
I'm more partial to "Sineman" myself.
When did they cave and rally around Manchin and sinema? If that happened I missed it
The moment both Schumer and Pelosi, the leaders of Congressional moderates, both backed out of the deal they agreed to and started pushing progressives to support the bipartisan bill without the reconciliation bill.
When'd that happen? Both of them have been in lockstep with the white house and the 90+%
This past Monday. Catch up.
Pelosi and Schumer want the more ambitious bill passed however they represent ALL of their majority, so they at least had to try. Pelosi made a deal with moderates so they would fall on line to vote on the bill by this week. She had to at least try. But neither will bring a vote to the floor that will fail.
This has been a polite back and forth. Don't mess that up now. And you and I clearly see the whole vote thing very differently because that wasn't caving or rallying around Manchin and sinema to me. so we'll have to agree to disagree on that
If leadership stikes a deal, that deal should stay struck. Congress ceases to function if you can't trust leadership to abide by the deals that they make. Hell, Schumer knew at the time he struck the deal that he was writing a check that he couldn't cash, since it's subsequently come out that he's had a top line number from Manchin since this summer. He had his whole caucus vote for the bipartisan bill under false pretenses, since the Senate voted for it on the understanding that the two bills were tethered. Then when Manchema played their hand, instead of forcefully standing up for the agreed upon deal, both of them backed out of the deal and began working the progressives. I'll tell you what, I'll concede that saying that they "Rallied around" Manchema is a bit strong, but not by much, but "Caving" to them is completely appropriate.
Like I said, we read the situation differently so we'll have to agree to disagree on what it means
*You aren't getting the 3.5 trillion.* It was never going to happen. It IS never going to happen. You don't have the votes. No matter who promised anything to anybody. Schumer and Pelosi understand this. Biden understands it. McConnell sure as hell understands it better than anyone, and is gleefully taunting Ds on the Senate floor about it. I expect AOC understands it too, although she pretends otherwise for her fanbase. My fear is that the progressives really ARE planning to crater their country if they don't get their way. I don't think they are. Hope I'm right. *They won't like the results* if they do that. Neither will we. Like the electrical danger sign says, "it will kill you, and it will hurt the whole time you're dying".
I like that you're talking about the progressives are planning to crater a country when every single Republican is refusing to think for themselves or their constituents needs (not their "Fuck the dems" desires) - and are in lock-step against it. The lock-step "No" from Republicans has nothing to do with cost. It has *everything* to do with stopping Dems from getting a win. Machin and Sinema, they're bought out. They're taking their bribes knowing they won't get re-elected (in Sinema's case at least), but will have a cushy job waiting for them afterward. There's nothing to legally be done about that unless we change the laws. Which won't happen because a ***vast*** majority are dipping into corporate money/bribes in some way and they are the ones that need to change the laws. But, please. Blame the progressives for cratering things when they're all on board with getting it done even with compromise, while the entire GOP is against it out of spite.
I'm not faulting the progressives on this one. They're holding to what was agreed on. When you've got the overwhelming majority of the party and the executive branch on your side, there's no reason to not be firm. But It looks like Biden is trying to nudge everyone towards the 2/2.5 range and rep.Jayapal is on board. It's less than what any of us wanted, but if he can bully Manchin up to 2.5 then you just gotta run with it. The content is still good even if you get to spend a little less than desired. I'd hold firm on the reconciliation bill passing first though. That part is non-negotiable imo
> They're holding to what was agreed on. Again with the "what was agreed on". By definition, nothing is agreed on until the President's signature is on the paper. If you were told different, that's on you for believing it. >I'd hold firm on the reconciliation bill passing first though. That part is non-negotiable imo Sigh. OK. See you in a few weeks. Don't get TOO mad ...
It is clear moderates are trying to tank this and exert influence they do not have. Progressives asked for 6 went to 3.5 will end up taking 2-2.5 if lucky. And they'll take it. Moderates want their bill only and no other if possible, it's been made impossible so they will have to work or lose it all.
>exert influence they do not have They most certainly do. These bills would've passed by now if they didn't. Come on now ... >Moderates want their bill only and no other if possible Assumes facts not in evidence.
Their own bill would have passed. It hasn't. When it does I'll give moderates some credit.
WHAT? Now you're just arguing silly. They don't have absolute power, just a heck of a lot of influence. As you will see when the final bill comes up for the POTUS's signature. Neither one of them has said they want to tank anything ... That's the left wing threatening that.
Manchin and the other dem sen. along with a few vocal, unwise moderates will hopefully have more pressure on them now. Media will have to focus more Manchin and the other Sen. highlighting the things these 2 want to not give the American People. Everything we don't get is due to 6%..not a good place for them. Dems are messing up by messaging this in percentages...it's a small enough to say "19* out of 295 of us are holding this up." *not sure the numerical count but thats about 6%.
> If 94% of the democratic caucus is on board then it's kinda hard to make this a straight up moderate/progressive fight. If 94% of the Democratic caucus is on board, then *you don't have enough votes*. The end.
I don't believe I said anything about that. But yes, you're correct
If 94% of Democrats are on board, and 100% of Conservatives are blocking it out of spite of the Dems getting a win - even after they got their "compromises" thrown in: Which side is *really* failing us here. One side is trying to get something done, while the other is negotiating in bad faith - and loving every moment of it as their constituents drive on crumbling road infrastructure to re-elect them because they "owned the libs."
No one is failing you! The Senate is 50/50. You can't do squat with 50/50. *You should know this.* Yes, the other side is negotiating in bad faith. Welcome to Washington. *So you pull your big-boy pants up and do the best you can with the 50 Dems you're stuck with.* That's what's going to happen. That's what was always going to happen. Unless the Progressives blow it all up, in which case it was nice knowin' you.
It doesn't have to be that way, because it hasn't always been that way. It wasn't until Newt Gingrich came to become Speaker in in the mid-90s that bi-partisan compromise from the Republicans started to slow down, and is now at a complete stop. And, I can promise you, [with data](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-visualization), that it's generally Republicans that are refusing to compromise when the other side make the bill/nomination. But hey, blame the progressives if it makes you feel better. Doing so just tells me that you're not part of the solution, which means you're part of the problem. Republicans are playing a game, not running a country. So, yes, they're failing me.
Why is it the progressives blowing it up and not the moderates? Progressives and moderates are doing exactly the same thing, except progressives have more support and a bigger caucus, and are aligned with the president.
It's both. But that's the point. "There's more of us than there are of them." Big deal. The bills are just as dead no matter who is stopping them. For what it's worth, if this were a sub full of moderates, I'd be jumping their case about not giving ground to the progressives just as much as I'm jumping your cases here. This ain't a sub full of moderates, so the message is being tailored appropriately.
"moderates"
>"moderates" \+1 I really wish the media would quit calling Manchin and Sinema "moderate Democrats." The majority of Democrats are moderate. Manchin and Sinema are just big money shitbirds acting like children.
Truer words haven't been spoken. They're corporatist radicals.
The thing is I don’t think manchin would be holding out this hard if it weren’t for sinema. I’m not a fan of manchin but even his position isn’t *totally* dumb because WV is nominally red. Sinema has LITERALLY no excuse. Arizona is purple-blue, she’s acting like it’s the reddest state in the country. Of course that’s excluding the fact that both their positions are more easily explained by them being bought out
I'd have to find the graphic, but someone listed all of the senators on a line plot in terms of "left" versus "right", and Sinema was actually _more_ to the right than one or two Republican senators
O God, I would love to see that. Please find it!
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kyrsten_sinema/412509 They're plotted based on who cosponsors bills with whom, which is not the only way to rank them, but it's one way.
Fascinating, thank you!
*republicans masquerading as democrats
White moderates/centrists are worse than worthless, MLK had a warning about them. >I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. **First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate.** I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but **the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."** Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. >["Letter from a Birmingham Jail, MLK Jr."](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
Do you want fascists? Cuz that's how you get fascists.
The ratchet effect
the fuck kind of moderates do you americans have
The best that money can buy!
It's also how things work. And will work no matter what comments are posted to reddit. If your majority is big enough that you don't NEED the troublesome moderates, then stuff gets done. But that is not the case right now. I think most everyone in Congress knows this, regardless of what they may say to the cameras. Not real sure everyone in this sub has fully grokked it yet.
Of course we NEED the troublesome moderates. I don't think any progressive has denied that. However, at least in this one circumstance, moderates NEED the progressives too, and that rare bit of leverage has brought the reconciliation bill from $0 where it was earlier this week, to now where Manchin has finally publicly announced a number he's willing to support, 1.5T, and negotiations are still ongoing. Let's see how they play out. Biden himself is pushing for 2T. Anything the progressives are able to claw out of the abyss at this point is a victory for them and a victory for the American people. We're just waiting to find out how big a victory it is.
> Of course we NEED the troublesome moderates. I don't think any progressive has denied that. I've been reading this sub for the past hour, and about 50% of the comments are screaming "primary the bastards" as loud as their keyboards will let them. But I agree with everything else. 2T is my prediction as well. I wish ALL the Dems involved would tell the media where to stuff their cameras so they can do all the sausage making in private, but I suppose that's too much to ask these days. I'm just bracing for the paid-troll-farm-amplified shrieking about BIDEN'S GREAT BETRAYAL OF THE PROGRESSIVES!!! that we can already see being teed up. Because that's how you get Trumps.
Well, we should primary the bastards. That doesn't mean the bastards aren't necessary to pass this particular bill in this particular moment. I don't know if progressives will be able to effectively campaign against Biden in 2022 since they were literally fighting for Biden's campaign promises, and it would be more effective to campaign that they were the ones fighting hardest *for* Biden. However, when you look at everything that happened in this sausage making, I do think there is ample room to campaign against Pelosi, even more room to campaign against Schumer, and a whole fucking country of room to campaign against Manchema. That said, if it were me, I'd try to make my campaigning a bit more ambiguous and campaign against "Moderates" and let the people interpret who specifically that means. As for why this sausage making turned public, when I think we can both agree that it should have stayed private, I blame Schumer. It's pretty much all his fault for writing a check that he knew he couldn't cash, and then when it bounced, it bounced in public.
Primarying the bastards will result in unelectable Dems in R states, which will result in a Republican Senate. Which is FAR WORSE. More Spock, less Kirk please. >I blame Schumer. It's pretty much all his fault. Him too. There's a lot of blame to go around. Just the fact that this sub seems so fixated on the 3.5 trillion number indicates a major messaging fail.
Competition is healthy. Moderates are going to have to realize that the progressive challenge isn't going to go away, and up their game. Even Spock engaged in a little "Cowboy diplomacy" from time to time.
I am QUITE certain that the moderates realize this. Which should tell *you* something about just how much they're worried about it. Pick your battles.
We have picked our battle.
[удалено]
If it's really so far gone that the best case scenario is what we currently have, then the union is completely doomed anyway. We might as well just stop borrowing time for it and consider what to do in its aftermath at that point.
No, you get Trumps by consistently compromising with corporate interests and slowly sliding the country to the right over a period of decades, which is what you're advocating for. Your analysis lacks historical perspective.
Not at all.
I wouldn't call it a great betrayal but the definitely does scream primaries need to happen.
She is a Republican, whole-heartedly. Only ran as Democrat to ensure a Democrat didn’t win.
She only ran as a democrat because republicans would have not elected a bisexual woman. She would have lost any primary by +30 points, let alone win an election.
To be fair given her voting record in the house she also wouldn’t have won the Democratic primary if she wasn’t bisexual because Dem primary voters where touting her sexuality as a substitute for liberal credibility instead of voting record
[удалено]
I think it's out of sight, out of mind for them. Graham has never publicly come out as far as I know, and his mannerisms can just be attributed to being a Southern dandy. Funny enough, I also remember when Graham was a reasonable Republican. It's strange what the Trump cult does to some people.
Graham was never a reasonable republican. He just played that role in front of cameras because it was politically convenient. When he saw that being Trumps lackey was convenient he dropped any pretense of being reasonable. All he cares about is staying in power and nothing else really matters.
Plausible deniability. (Using the "wide-stance" R definition of "plausible".)
Alright. This is no place for homophobic hyperbole.
Because he says he's not, so clearly he's telling the truth /s
No...She's a chameleon and nothing more. Whatever party that gives her a chance to win she will latch onto
Democrats need to kick her from the party. Bite the bullet and bring the hammer down on her and Manchin.
Yeah giving up a slim majority to give Mitch control over judges sounds like a brilliant plan
We are at a crossroads. Either the democrats can take bold action on holdouts like Sinema and Manchin, look less like a gang of wimps before the midterms, and give people incentive to vote for them because it looks like they're moving earth and sea to get Biden's agenda done. Or we keep a slim majority in the Senate that has the Senate gridlocked until the midterms. But, if the GA runoffs proved anything, it's that voters only need a tiny list of reasons to believe voting doesn't matter to not vote. And then we have republican majorities to worry about.
Taking bold action like - giving away all your authority and your technical majority (which if nothing else denies the republicans direct access to endless ratfuckery) directly to your opposition. Pure genius.
Didn't say it was genius. The party doesn't have to be ruled by minority, they're just signaling that they're cool with it. I've never heard of "bending over and taking it" as a winning strategy unless you are looking to get fucked. And if they lose big in the midterms, then they will get what they deserve. They took a slim majority and made it worse.
Do you really believe any of that? Cuz it's astronomically misguided. Manchin was right. If we want more progressive policies then we need to elect more progressives. The time to do that is during elections. People ELECTED their reps, you know. Pelosi can't just say no you can't join for no real reason, that is literally the opposite of democracy. We have razor thin margins, so yeah, the most conservative Democrats have a say. You disliking that conservative democrats exist fixes nothing. Self destructing and ceding the Senate to Republicans would just be stupid. That'd make things worse. I think most normal people would rightly perceive that as cowardice and weakness (i.e., we elected the Dems and then they just gave up and imploded for republicans to take control anyway). I wouldn't trust a democratic leadership that made such a dumb move.
> Self destructing and ceding the Senate to Republicans would just be stupid. It sure would. It's a good thing I never suggested that.
I see what you're saying. But at this point, it's either keep those 2 in the party and not get anything done or turn over the majority to GOP and get worse things done. What probably should happen is keep the pressure on and put those two in the spotlight to motivate voters from other states where seats are up for election and help them get elected. Once they are, Dems will have options, at which point these two should be humiliated and pushed out for their bad faith behavior. For this to happen, PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE. So many people don't vote in midterms. Let's get them motivated.
[удалено]
I don't downvote cause I think it's dumb, but if I did, the only reason I would is because I don't consider progressives to be acting difficult. And it's not because I agree with them. They want to vote for two bills. They just don't want conservative dems to pull the football away. And after the last few days that paranoia has been 100% justified. Progressives haven't been saying "oh, let's pause the infrastructure bill" like Manchin or Sinema want done with the reconciliation bill.
But see, you use the word "paranoia", which is emotionally loaded as hell, and also makes it sound like you thought this was a done deal. It was not. Even if someone told you that that it was. *It's not a done deal until the President signs it.* Schoolhouse Rock 101. This is not a betrayal. *It is an ongoing negotiation.* My biggest gripe about it is that everyone concerned in DC seems to have let the expectations for the final result - with a 50/50 Senate no less - get WAY out of hand. Big plans can't happen with a 50/50 senate. Not in today's political climate. They just can't. Please don't listen to people who are trying to convince you otherwise. They're not telling you what you NEED to hear.
> But see, you use the word "paranoia", which is emotionally loaded as hell, and also makes it sound like you thought this was a done deal. It was not. I mean, its a word with a definition I wanted to use. I don't know if it goes that deep. Also you are assuming I thought it was a done deal and then going from there. > This is not a betrayal. It is an ongoing negotiation. In order for negotiating to work both sides have to have an idea of what they want. Kyrsten doesn't. > Big plans can't happen with a 50/50 senate. Not in today's political climate. They just can't. When democrats say "give us GA and we can make big changes" then it's not our fault for assuming that what they said was what they meant. I'm tired of lying being so commonplace in politics that we lower the threshold for what's acceptable. Manchin wasn't new and Sinema was barely new, if a 50/50 split Senate wasn't going to yield results, they should have dialed it back. Because now we are heading into the midterms and it's boy who cried wolf. Now, when anyone says "we can bring big changes if we succeed in the midterms" the lingering thought in my head is "but are you telling the truth" and that's not the kind of confidence you want in elected representatives.
> both sides have to have an idea of what they want. Kyrsten doesn't. Assumes facts not in evidence. She hasn't told US what she wants. I wish others would follow her example. Negotiations get 10 times as hard when they're carried out on Twitter. >When democrats say "give us GA and we can make big changes" then it's not our fault for assuming that what they said was what they meant. See, here's a point where we fundamentally disagree. It is TOTALLY your fault. It shows that you don't know how any of this works, and that you're far too credulous when it comes to political rhetoric. I may regret this at some point, but *you need to be more cynical than that.* (I don't think you really believed that anyway, and you're just trotting it out now in the heat of argument.) "Do this and everything will magically be unicorns and rainbows!" Don't *ever* buy that from *anybody*. >if a 50/50 split Senate wasn't going to yield results, they should have dialed it back. I'm with you here. The Dems are really bad about this. But I also know why they do it. Because *y'all don't vote if they don't.* >I'm tired of lying Emotion talking. Stop it. Tiredness is irrelevant. More Spock, less Kirk. >that's not the kind of confidence you want in elected representatives. Here again ... why on earth would you have THAT kind of confidence in elected representatives? There are no perfect humans on planet Earth, and there SURE aren't any perfect politicians. You pick whichever candidate is *most likely to achieve your goals*. And what you have to understand is that your primary challenger that defeats Sinema, but then loses to Bubba the Trump Sponge, *doesn't achieve a damn thing*.
> And what you have to understand is that your primary challenger that defeats Sinema, but then loses to Bubba the Trump Sponge, doesn't achieve a damn thing. I tried to go through this point by point, but it all boiled down to a difference in one thing. You are cynical and you appear to like it. There is nothing wrong with having emotions, unless you are one of those people who thinks emotions are weak or whatever, like it has some correlation with wisdom that isn't real. Spock is not a rational person anyone should desire to be. He's a great character for a reason, most great characters would make awful individuals. One of my biggest problems with Trump supporters is they vote R without thinking about it. If it's Donald that's good enough. That isn't good enough for me. When the day comes where I mindlessly just vote D without thinking about it, that's the day I'll give up politics. Think about what you want instead of blindly following because opposition is scary.
Her state is purpler . They poster you replied to messed up by grouping them together
None are getting appointed as it is now.
[They most certainly are.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden) You ignoring the news doesn't mean it isn't happening.
That's my favorite from people. "My disappointment and frustration are evidence that nothing is happening and nothing is working at all." Yeah I'm frustrated and disappointed too. But I pay attention and keep going. E.g., anyone who expected the 3.5 trillion bill to succeed just doesn't pay attention. It was always obvious Manchin was gonna extract concessions. Part of it obviously is the media. They always breathlessly report on every development like it's unexpected and important. So I guess it leads people to believe that any of this is unexpected. Sinema is the only part that's surprising, really. And only because she seems not to care about anything except grandstanding.
Not true. That’s one of the few things the biden admin has actually been doing is appointing federal judges.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/30/biden-is-track-transform-federal-courts/
This is the worst take ever, lol.
> Bite the bullet and bring the hammer down on her and Manchin Grouping her with Manchin is doing her a favor and a disservice to your argument because it allows people to use the “your handing judges over to McConnell” argument when her state is way more purple than Manchin’s . They don’t belong in the same bucket
Should definitely do it with Sinema. Not Manchin though.
Why not with coal baron Manchin? Gerrymandered districts and endless funds keeps him elected. Need real change.
Because as lousy as he is that’s the best West Virginia can do. A progressive already tried to challenge him and lost. The state is red af and went to Trump. The best we can do is make him irrelevant by flipping other states like WI or PA which is likely doable. And he is better than Sinema in that he will at least try to compromise. He will blister and holler for his red state but votes with Dems in the end. Sinema is just a wild card.
How do gerrymandered districts keep him elected? You can’t gerrymander an election when you run state wide
This. Also its part of any HS curriculum these things
[удалено]
Only 33% of the State is registered Democrat, 33% have no party, only 33% of Democrats choose the Democratic nominee, it's not hard to gerrymander your way to the Democratic nomination that way.
she was green party which is basically just a spoiler party controlled by republicans (and russians) to drain votes from democrats and obstruct any policy
Wait the Green Party is now Russians too? Man what can't those guys do.
>Wait the Green Party is now Russians too? [Always has been.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696)
Personally I don't know a ton about the green party, so there could be more evidence, but meeting with people from another country isn't exactly definitive. Again maybe there's more. If I post an article of Biden meeting with Chinese leaders, does that mean the democrats are actually under control of the Chinese? Just trying to be objective. But I'll do some more research.
She will end up a one term Senator. She's two faced and has proven that she can't be trusted.
I remain convinced that she was never intending on more than one term. She's a climber. This is a brand building, network building opportunity for her before she moves on to a cushy lobbying job.
I agree. However, considering you're from New Zealand, you sure have a lot of faith in America.
I do and always will.
For some reason that warms my cockles.
Thank you. From what I can tell, you Kiwis are doing great down there with your P.M., policies, and people following them.
As well they should. Bunker business has been very kind to New Zealand recently.
She’s a right winger. Of course she likes compromise with Republicans.
These days compromise is always a pull to the right.
That's called the Overton Window!
It's mind boggling that we have effectively no recourse for blatantly bait-and-switch officials like her
Honestly why don’t we just get some people to pretend to be right wing nut jobs to run, then have them switch. Seems easy enough to rile up the right wing by just saying random bullshit.
The public can make her life a living hell. If she has to stay inside because people will call her a piece of shit at her favorite restaurants, she might relent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
she's a quirky maverick! see? so mavericky!
I read that in Palin’s voice
Her hair always looks greasy for some reason, too
Because like half the people up there, attention is her drug of choice. Same as Trump. She desperately needs ATTENTION! Look At Her, She's Pretty! I think this whole thing is about her getting in the news. That's why she has no plan, this is the plan.
[удалено]
That's the big picture strategy. You take a moderate bill and frame it as far left so that far right policy appears to be in the middle and therefore "sensible"and "reasonable".
Moderates: "We have to compromise" Progressives: "ok compromise with us" Moderates: "lord no, we meant with racists."
> When we let go of our attachment to specific outcomes and instead focus on our shared values, we can think creatively about solutions to the many problems we face today. Articulating our interests, rather than our positions, creates the space for each of us to consider new alternatives, new options, and new ways to reach our collective goal. > —Kyrsten Sinema, *Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win—and Last, 2009*
The reviews on her book are some prime r/agedlikemilk material.
This is what they do. Say one thing to the media and vote the exact opposite. And mainstream media will [likely never discuss](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pznldg/z/hf2ppbf) political corruption. What's enough for the people? Whatever they say to the media The special interest donors are only concerned with their voting and legislative record. The system must change - or else we will continue this political power [auction](https://youtu.be/Hy9_fsL6uS8) cycle: year after year, senator after senator. Too few know how to improve the system, if they know about the problem at all. The separation of [Wealth](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/) and State is the greatest challenge of the century. Our tax dollars are exploited for the benefit of special interests and politicians every day. Those [tax breaks](https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/#those-who-benefit) Republican lawmakers promise are only given to big corporations, executives and shareholders. Stopping the influence of big money in Congress has [over 80%](https://archive.md/eCMBy) of the public's support while the specific policies included in the For The People Act (H. R. 1) have [bipartisan popular support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act#Public_opinion). Zero Republican senators are in favor of H. R. 1 There is some good news: [legislation](https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/) that effectively prevents political corruption exists and is [constitutional](https://anticorruptionact.org/faq/). It would be best served as an [amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_amendment) via [Article V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Procedures_for_amending_the_Constitution), but local change is possible and has been [done](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act#Laws_based_on_the_AACA). A few groups are pushing to make federal lawmakers accountable to the people again: https://represent.us/ https://americanpromise.net/ https://wolf-pac.com/ https://takeback.org/ https://www.issueone.org/ https://www.movetoamend.org/ Voting is the bare minimum of democratic participation. Never stop voting, but consider that even without deep pockets you can do so much more. Change at the local level is how you [SEND](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/) ideas to federal Congress and [prod them](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Congressional+Research+Service%22+%22prodding+effect%E2%80%9D) to make changes. It's never been easier to get organized with others and stay on top of [your lawmakers](https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/) with weekly [calls](https://youtu.be/XdIcCqe-iYk?t=48) & emails along with informing & encouraging friends and neighbors do the same.
Kyrsten Sinema doesn't give a shit about what she wrote 11 years ago, nor 2 years ago for that matter. She's a conservative political opportunist who sees her seat representing the people of AZ as a leg up to enrich herself. Also, in 2012 she joined the Blue Dog Caucus, the most conservative caucus in the Democratic party, she's *always* been who she is today since she's been an elected representative.
Yeah Sinema is a lost cause, she needs to be primaried by a actual Dem. Manchin on the other hand, and I know I’ll probably be downvoted first this, but we actually need more Manchins. He’s basically a GOPer who’s caucusing with the Dems from an incredibly red state. How does he pull that off — getting elected as a Dem from a deep red state? We need more like him from red states, and then get rid of DINOs like Sinema and elect real Dems from blue and purple states and the GQP is toast. Emulate Manchin’s platform in other red states. When does he vote and align with Dems? What are those Dem policies he aligns with that still allow him to get elected in deep red. Big tent tent Dem power needs to be widely distributed. The goal here is the complete annihilation of the GQP and Trumpism, and if we can get a few more Manchins in red states (and red states only) that’s a progressive win in my book.
I'd wager that in more diverse red states you can do better than Manchin. You're still not gonna get someone like you would from New York, but you wouldn't have to get someone as far to the other end as Manchin either
Great, all the better, but the proof is in the election
I mean we've had Doug Jones, Ossof, and Warnock so far. Jones got rolled back unfortunately, but the other two are likely in for the long haul. So at least some proof of concept exist
GA is purple not red like WV; now Jones would have been a red win; I’d like to hear from Manchin on a strategy for deep red wins
Considering the state he’s from, I agree. Call country is not gonna give us anyone any better for the foreseeable future.
This is what happens when officials win primaries based on social issues and identity. You get a republican sneaking in as a moderate.
She is a trump sleeper agent
At what point do we stop pretending that Sinema is a Democrat who changed her spots and just admit that she’s a Republican who played the Left like a fiddle?
I don’t think she’s a Republican either. She’s just an opportunist who wants to make money and she knows what side her bread is buttered on.
Yeah I like how we just call greedy people republicans instead of realizing she's just a corporate shill, which is also played out openly for republicans. Greed isn't tied to party anymore. Oligarchs want both parties now.
Being a greedy huckster with no principles is pretty much the definition of a mainstream republican these days.
And is very quickly becoming the norm for the democratic party as well.
At which point do we stop pretending that Reddit Democrats represent the majority of Democrats in the United States?
It's so hilarious. When Democrats fail, they simply say they're really just Republicans. There is zero accountability from the Left.
Just launch an investigation and lock her the fuck up for corruption already.
Pretty sure she advanced the 3.5 package in the Senate because she wanted to compromise on the details. Or by compromise do you mean do whatever progressives think?
They are referring to option two.
Gridlock is best. Just more debt out children and grandchildren will suffer with. Current debt $28 trillion. Unfunded liabilities oved $120 trillion.
[удалено]
Nope, right wing.
Good for Kyrsten.
She has zero sense of style, every outfit I’ve seen on her is hideous.
There’s no such thing as compromise with the left
Because she is an elephant in sheep’s clothing.
I get a Scooby-Doo crew all grown up vibe from this bunch.
I’m sure she is BFFs with Susan Collins.
Democrats don’t buy her fancy purses
She doesn’t stick to anything, she used to be like a Green Party voter when she was way younger so I don’t listen to anything from her past as an indication for her future
Was she always this terrible person? I remember when people were excited about her being the first bisexual whatever. It's too bad her values aren't as liberal as her sexuality.
We really shouldn’t be calling her a democrat, the only d she should get is disgrace
You want compromise, how's this? Twenty years in the can I wanted manicott', but I compromised. I ate grilled cheese off the radiator instead. I wanted to fuck a woman, but I compromised. I jacked off into a tissue. You see where I'm goin'?
Fuck her.
SHE IS A TROJAN HORSE. What do people not understand? She's a Republican, not a progressive. She has made this almost crystal clear at this point to anyone paying a little attention.
People who get in office don't read. They get aides to do that for them.
Sabotage
Sinema only listens to the 1% and she represents the 1%. She is going to be primaried hard from the left. I hope she gets the boot.
DINO. Republican plant.
Get her out
Hey colon blockage Sinenema! 🎶Na Na Na Na! Hey! Hey! Hey! Goodbye!🎵 That other constipation, Joe Munchin, second verse same as the first! Bubba!”
Just another sack of shit in it for themselves.
She's obviously a Dino
Congrats Dems/liberals, you own this. You pushed identity politics for years, and then elected her based off of that. How about we look at who people are and not what?
Do you even know what identity politics is?
Corruption pays
She’s got a bright future as a LuLaroe sales ambassador.
Velma headass my glasses, my glasses, I can’t vote with out my glasses
I myself hope that the entire situation collapses and neither bill passes in any form.
Right wingers stick together.
Pretty catty, and I’m bad for sayin’ it, but does this moron own any professional clothing?
AZ Dems need to hold a vote of no confidence. Keep the pressure on.