Jim Clyburn has had it with Joe Manchin's Shit

[wellst0nev0ter]

This shows he and his false pieties have squandered the patience of fellow moderates, at least when it comes to fighting against electoral power grabs by the goops.

This man either needs to get in line or get out.

Link to tweet

[ananda]

1. Manchin needs to Dem up and support democracy!

Period

[TwilightZone]

5. The same NRA that has been running ads against Manchin for years?

They bailed on him after he supported expanded background checks with Toomey (after Sandy Hook) in 2013.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/404963-nra-releases-add-targeting-sen-manchin

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/12/nra-runs-ad-against-manchin/

[agingdem]

7. but Manchin never delivered on his so called support of background checks...

"Hey NRA, I'll lead the fight for background checks because it makes me look like I care but, trust me, I've got your back and I'll make sure it goes away"...

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. Team Clyburn all the way!

[Elessar Zappa]

4. Clyburn speaks the truth.

Come to the right side, Joe!

[genxlib]

6. I think the target here is missed a little

Protecting your fellow Democrats isn't the issue

Protecting the voters is the issue.

The rest will take care of itself in a real democracy.

[BobTheSubgenius]

16. Ahhh....but the "real democracy" part is really the kicker here.

It remains to be seen just how democratic the US really is.

[WarGamer]

8. Just a reminder to the indignant... Manchin is ONE phonecall away from Mitch being Leader again.

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. A reminder to shrinking violets and obstructionist enablers:

Manchin voted to convict the orange monkey twice. He has no political future if he switches to the goops since the trumpanzees will primary him out in 2024.

His only path to maintaining power and relevancy is by sticking with the Democrats, and it is incumbent on us to remind him of that fact every waking hour

[ancianita]

10. +1

Well said. Thanks.

[NurseJackie]

12. Goops?

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. It's an ethnic slur, remember?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14669560

[NurseJackie]

18. Why use silly nicknames like that? It weakens whatever argument is being made.

It's an ethnic slur, remember?

It pleases me very much that anyone would bother to bookmark or "keep notes" on things I've said.

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. Tone policing doesn't solve anything

Cheers!

Edit: just want to add that I saved this post because it was a very hilarious reach that would embarrass me if I wrote it.

[NurseJackie]

22. It's unclear to me how juvenile nicknames "solve anything" ...

... it's all rather counter-productive. Is the object to discuss and find solutions? Or simply to insult, build walls, burn bridges, etc?

Cheers!

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. Yep, classic tone policing

The enemy is the goops, not people who don't communicate in your preferred style. Why is this concept beyond your comprehension?

[NurseJackie]

24. You've avoided answering my question. How does it solve or improve anything?

Is the object to discuss and find solutions? Or simply to insult, build walls, burn bridges, etc? There's "instant gratification" that comes from insults and taunts... but things like that only make Democrats and other liberals and progressives appear to be immature and petty. We're not. We're adults. We should act like it too. That's all I'm trying to say. I think everyone can agree with that.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. How does tone policing solve anything?

All it does is needlessly disrupts and distract from coalition building and grants space to the goops.

[NurseJackie]

27. Nobody is doing that.

How does tone policing solve anything?

Nobody is doing that.

All it does is needlessly disrupts and distract

Yes, the use juvenile nicknames does indeed have that effect.

[wellst0nev0ter]

30. I know you haven't been here on these forums

as long as I have, but we've been calling the other side "goops" or "goopers" since the beginning. It's not new.

There is only one type of people who would be bothered by that nomenclature.

[NurseJackie]

34. Nobody said it was.

but we've been calling the other side "goops" or "goopers" since the beginning

Behaving in a way makes liberal causes and liberal activists look foolish or petty does not help our cause. We're stronger and more effective when we can rise above that type of emotionally motivated "name-calling". That's what it is.

It's not new.

Nobody said it was. I've never made such a claim, so that's a strawman.

There is only one type of people who would be bothered by that nomenclature.

Yes, highly intelligent people tend to be "bothered by" silly name-calling and other forms of acting-out.

I guess that's why I will never take seriously anyone who calls us the "Democrat Party". It's done intentionally, it's another form of name-calling. People who do that reveal that they and their concerns cannot be taken seriously.

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. Yes, I know some people don't have the stomach to go in the gutter

Then they should step aside and do their own thing, instead of making enemies of the coalition.

Behaving in a way makes liberal causes and liberal activists look foolish or petty does not help our cause.

I sincerely want to know whom you are speaking for

[NurseJackie]

37. It has nothing to do with one's "stomach"...

Yes, I know some people don't have the stomach to go in the gutter

It has nothing to do with one's "stomach"... instead, it's about one's maturity. I assure you that wallowing in the gutter serves no good purpose (other than making a spectacle of one's self... and becoming an object of ridicule not to be take seriously... I think we can both agree that's not a good thing.)

I sincerely want to know whom you are speaking for

That would be mature individuals who are not self-indulgent and who put real achievements ABOVE their desire to "get even" or "name-call." If one wants to be taken seriously, then one must act seriously, that's all I'm trying to say.

The type of name-calling I see here and elsewhere is the equivalent of saying "ewww! Cooties!" It's just ridiculous and unnecessary.

[wellst0nev0ter]

38. I'll ask one more time

Whose sensitivities are you trying to protect?

[NurseJackie]

39. You continue to avoid my question: How does name-calling solve or improve anything?

Is the object to discuss and find solutions? Or simply to insult, build walls, burn bridges, etc? There's "instant gratification" that comes from insults and taunts... but things like that only make Democrats and other liberals and progressives appear to be immature and petty. We're not. We're adults. We should act like it too. That's all I'm trying to say. I think everyone can agree with that.

Whose sensitivities are you trying to protect?

That's the wrong way to look at it. As an adult, I have the ability to comprehend at the broader picture rather than being concerned about one individual's "sensitivities". I also have the ability to remain focused and not lose-the-plot to indulge my own vanities.

Name-calling is for people who view themselves as powerless victims. It's a child-like response that we should all avoid. It's a response that telegraphs a message of weakness to the opposition. It's "all bark and no bite" and our political opponents know it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

44. You're a "big picture" person

Yet here you are fixated on a single word.

I will ask you again, who is actually bothered by the word "goop" and why are you protecting their sensitivities?

[NurseJackie]

46. Again, you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick. It's more important to make progress...

Again, you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick. It's more important to make progress, and the mature objective would be to find solutions, rather than engaging in childish insults and bridge-burning. It's not a winning strategy.

For the weak-minded, I'm sure there is an "instant gratification" that comes from hurling insults and taunts at one's perceived enemy... but ultimately things like that only make Democrats and other liberals and progressives appear to be immature and petty. We're not. We're adults. We should act like it too. That's all I'm trying to say. I think everyone can agree with that.

I will ask you again, who is actually bothered by the word "goop" and why are you protecting their sensitivities?

And I will repeat, that's the wrong way to look at it. As an adult, I have the ability to comprehend at the broader picture rather than being concerned about one individual's "sensitivities". I also have the ability to remain focused and not lose-the-plot to indulge my own vanities.

Name-calling is for people who view themselves as powerless victims. It's an adolescent response that we should all avoid. It's a response that telegraphs a message of weakness to the opposition. It's "all bark and no bite" and our political opponents know it.

Yet here you are fixated on a single word.

No, I can most definitely state with a great deal of certainty that I'm not the one who's fixated on "a single word". My "fixation" is on finding ways to make progress and moving forward. The taunting and name-calling is something that should best be left in middle school or at the playground.

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. You refuse to name one person

Who is hurt by the word "goop," and instead you rely on baseless projecting to make whatever case you're making.

[NurseJackie]

51. We all are. Everyone. Including you.

Juvenile name calling does not help progressive causes. It indicates a position of weakness. Embracing the lowest common denominator is a losing and backward thinking strategy. It's a crutch and no substitute for intelligence. As Democrats we're better than that. That's all I'm trying to say.

[wellst0nev0ter]

52. "We all are" is not a name

What you are suggesting is that there are people out there who think "I would be a Democrat is not for those with the potty mouth."

The election of Trump put those false pieties and the rest of that nonsense to bed.

If you don't want to coalition with "juvenile name callers" that's on you, don't project onto others. The rest of us will focus on doing what needs to be done.

[NurseJackie]

53. Again, you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

What you are suggesting is that there are people out there who think "I would be a Democrat is not for those with the potty mouth."

No. I've suggested no such thing. I am, however, letting you know that this childish name-calling is a backward-thinking and regressive "strategy" that fails to persuade.

The election of Trump put those false pieties and the rest of that nonsense to bed.

I'm not talking about the behavior of Republicans. My concern is about how Democrats can project the best image... something we can all be proud of. I fail to understand why anyone would want to behave like Trump or Republicans and then claim to be a Democrat while doing those things.

If you don't want to coalition with "juvenile name callers" that's on you, don't project onto others.

Nobody is projecting. I'm merely observing and stating the obvious truth. Anyone who engages in a race to the bottom hurts us all. Anyone who excuses it or ignores it is equally at fault.

The rest of us will focus on doing what needs to be done.

Oh dear! That type of behavior is more harmful than good. Nobody "needs" that to be done.

Is the object to discuss and find solutions? Or simply to insult, build walls, burn bridges, etc? There's "instant gratification" that comes from insults and taunts... but things like that only make Democrats and other liberals and progressives appear to be immature and petty. We're not. We're adults. We should act like it too. I think everyone can agree with that.

Juvenile name calling does not help progressive causes. It's self-indulgent and it indicates a position of weakness. It's a crutch, it's an emotional response, but it's no substitute for intelligence. As Democrats we're better than that. That's all I'm trying to say. That's reasonable, wouldn't you say?

Think about it. In your heart, you know I'm correct. I understand that you won't publicly admit it here, and that's okay. Just be honest with yourself.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. Whose sensitivities are you shielding?

No. I've suggested no such thing. I am, however, letting you know that this childish name-calling is a backward-thinking and regressive "strategy" that fails to persuade.

You said two contradictory things, and you don't even know it. Who is going to be turned off by name calling. Name the people who will be turned off, or forever hold your peace.

[NurseJackie]

55. So, you still refuse to justify or explain how name-calling helps move progressive causes forward...

So, you still refuse to justify or explain how name-calling helps move progressive causes forward. Why? I must be completely honest with you and explain that childish name-calling is a backward-thinking and regressive "strategy" that fails to persuade. Name-calling and insults send a signal to our political opponents that tells them "we're immature" or that we "lack intelligence" or that we are "arguing from a position of weakness." Why engage in that type of behavior? Why put our side at a disadvantage?

These types of schoolyard taunts serve no good purpose. Rather, it stifles progress by alienating others and creating distrust. The immature insults only build walls and burn bridges and create a toxic atmosphere where no progress can ever be made. So why do it?

Now is your chance to explain to everyone how it is that someone's immature and emotional outbursts (ie: name-calling, insults, etc) help to advance a liberal agenda. Or, to look at it differently, I don't see how self-indulgent behavior is a worth the price of maintaining the status-quo. Do you have a different explanation on how to justify that?

Who is going to be turned off by name calling.

I have already answered that question multiple times. My response has always been consistent. Fact of the matter is this: it's bad for ALL of us. Everyone. You included. There's really no good reason to allow one's anger to stand in the way of progress.

I should probably let you know that my three children tried that tactic on me as well... and it failed for them also. If they didn't like my answer, they'd ask again and again, hoping for a different answer that never came. As they matured, they eventually grew out of it.

I did not indulge or spoil my children. I refused to allow them to become insufferable brats. They're fine upstanding... and very liberal... mature adults with families of their own. They've learned that if you want to accomplish something big, something important... actions speak louder than words. They've learned that they can't solve problems by shouting-at or insulting their opponents. Whether it's in the political world, or in the workplace, or in any other setting... they know that true progress cannot be achieved through bullying or taunting or name-calling. --- I'm very proud of them. I taught them well.

[wellst0nev0ter]

56. You have not produced any concrete evidence

That what you call "childish name calling" hurts causes.

It certainly didn't hurt 45 and the rest of the trumpanzees attain power. You yourself approve of the Lincoln Project, which often goes in the gutter in their ads against the goops.

Your double standards on tone and civility is noted.

[NurseJackie]

57. Yes I have.

You have not produced any concrete evidence

Yes I have. Many times. My answer will remain the same no matter how often the question is asked. The demands and accusations will no change my response. I've already told you that this repetitive whining "technique" doesn't work with me... my children learned that before they were 12.

Your inability to explain how name-calling helps to advance progressive causes indicates a clear position of weakness. Not even a hint of an explanation or rational justification is forthcoming.

Instead, the only excuse is "well Trump did it" and "it didn't hurt Trump". Well, that's where you're wrong, it did hurt Trump and it hurt the entire Republican party. No, the Lincoln Project did not engage in juvenile name calling. What an absurd thing to say.

Again, I must remind you that as a mother, I've heard this type of rationalization from my children (when they were children). "M-o-o-om! But Joe gets to stay out late. But Betty gets to wear makeup. But Chris has pierced ears. But everyone wears their hair like this." But, but, but... whine-whine-whine... " I've heard it all.

I think it's odd that any Democrat (or anyone who claims to be liberal or progressive) would want to intentionally do the ugly and unseemly things that Republicans are known for... and then try to rationalize their own actions by holding-up the Republicans as an excuse or justification for engaging in juvenile behavior like name-calling.

We are trying to differentiate ourselves from the Republicans, aren't we? We're trying to be BETTER than the Republicans, right?

[wellst0nev0ter]

58. Your biased, self-contained observations

clearly does not translate to larger politics, and your conclusions border on outright solipsism.

The Lincoln Project constantly mocks the trumpanzees (look at their twitter feed), and you yourself endorse the group.

Pulling punches against the goops does not work and to do so is toweringly foolish. Don't pretend otherwise.

[NurseJackie]

59. My teenage children figured out that they could not bully me, so don't even try.

The Lincoln Project points out the lies and hypocrisy. They sometimes do it in a humorous way... but that does not involve juvenile name-calling.

Pulling punches against the goops does not work and to do so is toweringly foolish.

Nobody is suggesting that you do "pull punches". Behaving in a thoughtful and mature manner is not "pulling punches". What I am saying, however, is that name-calling is "toweringly foolish" and not an effective way to make progress. It makes Democrats look petty and childish... it makes us look like immature bullies who have issues with controlling emotions. All I'm saying is that whatever anger and frustration you may be feeling could be channeled in better ways that actually benefit and advance progressive causes. I ask you do not pretend otherwise.

[wellst0nev0ter]

60. For the last time

The Lincoln project routinely uses the term "Moscow Mitch"

Link to tweet

calls the Trump campaign a criminal enterprise

Link to tweet

calls Ron Johnson a "useful idiot"

Link to tweet

and calls the orange monkey an "evil idiot."

Link to tweet

You cosigned all this, you're not allowed to take it back or act shocked over the level of tone in politics.

I could not be any less interested in how you interact with your children.

[NurseJackie]

61. I've done no such thing.

You cosigned it, you're not allowed to take it back or act shocked over the level of tone in politics.

I've done no such thing. What I am saying, however, is that as Democrats, we should strive to be better than Republicans. Behaving like bullies and engaging in juvenile name-calling does not elevate our party or advance our causes and agenda.

Sorry. I remain unconvinced. None of those examples sink to level of "ewww-cooties" type of juvenile name calling.

I could not be any less interested in how you interact with your children.

Actually, my "interaction" is not meant to be interesting to you. It's their childish behavior of days-gone-by that serves as comparison and a yardstick and something that everyone should avoid.

Fortunately, they outgrew that stage and let go of tantrums, pouting and inability to accept personal responsibility. They've all grown into thoughtful, caring, gentle (and very liberal) adults with families of their own. If they suddenly reverted to their abominable and selfish behavior that they had as adolescents, I'd wonder where I went wrong. But, I'm pleased to say that they are intelligent enough to channel their emotions and direct it toward positive and meaningful progress.

[wellst0nev0ter]

62. You can look up yourself the number of times you support the Lincoln Project

But since you have anointed yourself the final arbiter of what constitutes gutter-level name calling, their actions are perfectly acceptable while "goop" isn't.

And no, your interactions with your children are still not remotely relevant to this discussion.

[NurseJackie]

63. I never said "gutter level"... not once. I've been consistent...

You can look up yourself the number of times you support the Lincoln Project

I could. But why would I? It's irrelevant. The LP ads and tweets do not stoop to the "ewwww-cooties!" level of playground taunting and bullying. Nor are they pouting and having temper tantrums.

But since you have anointed yourself the final arbiter of what constitutes gutter-level name calling, their actions are perfectly acceptable while "goop" isn't.

I never said "gutter level"... not once. I've been consistent in my criticism by characterizing name-calling as childish and juvenile. I've also been consistent in pointing out "but-but-but Trump did it" is not justification for Democrats (or progressives) to behave the same way.

And no, your interactions with your children are still not remotely relevant to this discussion.

Yes it is. Contrast and compare.

[wellst0nev0ter]

64. So your red line is "ewww cooties"

Keep moving those goalposts.

I have consistently said there is no need to think about the sensitivities of the other side, given whom they have supported. If you have a problem with "name-calling," then that is a "you" problem that you need to sort out.

Your interactions with your children are still irrelevant and a red herring.

[NurseJackie]

65. No, I've been very consistent.

Keep moving those goalposts.

No, I've been very consistent.

I have consistently said there is no need to think about the sensitivities of the other side, given whom they have supported.

Nobody is doing that. This isn't about "the other side" and I've told you that. It's always been about how Democrats should strive to be BETTER than Republicans. We shouldn't try to be LIKE them (and them make excuses for it).

Why do things that debase and diminish us? Why say things that make it easier for people arrive at the conclusion that "both sides are the same". This is the type of thing that creates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

If you have a problem with "name-calling," then that is a "you" problem that you need to sort out.

I think that most mature and thoughtful adults agree that it's an unnecessary distraction that serves no useful purpose and which slows or prevents making actual progress on matters that are important to Democrats and progressives.

Your interactions with your children are still irrelevant and a red herring.

No, my experiences are useful in contrasting and comparing how mature adults behave vs childlike behavior. I also mention them to make clear that I'm not worn-down or easily persuaded by the "but-but-but" and other whining or repetitive ways that children engage in to make excuses for their behavior... and that such tactics do not work on me.

[wellst0nev0ter]

66. First you're against namecalling in general

Then you're against base, invidious namecalling, then you're against ewww cooties namecalling.

Pick a lane and stay on it.

We're not obligated to be polite to the other side. Pulling punches helps no one, all it does it weaken our side.

You're suggesting we should quiet our tone while the other side riles the base with red meat. good luck with that.

Your interaction with your children has no relevance to electoral politics. Accept it.

[NurseJackie]

68. If that's your interpretation, then you simply haven't been listening.

Pick a lane and stay on it.

I've been consistent from the beginning.

We're not obligated to be polite to the other side.

That's just another excuse... and a poor one too.

You're suggesting we should quiet our tone while the other side riles the base with red meat. good luck with that.

That's wrong. I've suggested no such thing. If that's your interpretation, then you simply haven't been listening. I remember when my own children tried to ignore me by sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la-la! I can't hear you!"

Your interaction with your children has no relevance to electoral politics. Accept it.

Why does it bother you that I speak of how my children behaved as adolescents? It's very relevant and it helps me to illustrate the type of behavior that's most rational adults consider to be socially unacceptable. It's also relevant in illustrating that I'm immune to whining and excuse-making and repetitive asking of the same question.

[wellst0nev0ter]

69. You were not consistent

You have been clear that you are fine with namecalling and negativity, as long as you approve of it.

Because mudslinging doesn't actually hurt a political party, the only things stopping it is tone policing.

Your children are irrelevant because we are talking about adult voters. Why is this hard to grasp?

[NurseJackie]

70. That's a ridiculous interpretation.

You were not consistent

You have been clear that you are fine with namecalling and negativity, as long as you approve of it.

Because mudslinging doesn't actually hurt a political party, the only things stopping it is tone policing.

That's a ridiculous interpretation.

Your children are irrelevant because we are talking about adult voters. Why is this hard to grasp?

No, discussing my experiences and being able to make first-hand comparisons between child-like behavior and the similarities to child-like name-calling; whining; repetitiveness; and "but-Donny-does-it" excuse-making; and bullying is all entirely relevant. It helps to illustrate my points and it strengthens my argument and my position.

[wellst0nev0ter]

71. If it's not ridiculous

You would disavow your support of the Lincoln Project.

But you won't, because your outrage is laughingly selective. And your children still have no relevance on electoral politics since you're not even in apples and oranges territory anymore.

[NurseJackie]

72. Another ridiculous interpretation.

If it's not ridiculous

Yes it is. It's absurd.

You would disavow your support of the Lincoln Project. But you won't, because your outrage is laughingly selective.

Why should I? They do not engage is juvenile name-calling.

And your children still have no relevance on electoral politics since you're not even in apples and oranges territory anymore.

I can see why someone who's lost the argument would want to describe it that way. Ignoring the obvious and making wild accusations and absurd interpretations indicates that someone is arguing from a position of weakness.

It's just plain silly.

[wellst0nev0ter]

73. I showed you incendiary name calling

By the Lincoln Project, and your only response is to recycle the same debating tactics once adopted by your teenaged children and move the goalposts.

And speaking of your kids, it's clear you are blinded by the same fallacies that drives people to advocate running government "like a business." One is not like the other, and it is bad-faith evasiveness and bait-switching to suggest otherwise.



Only the greatest fools pull their punches.

[NurseJackie]

74. It's nothing of the sort.

I showed you incendiary name calling

It's nothing of the sort.

And speaking of your kids, it's clear you are blinded by the same fallacies that drives people to advocate running government "like a business."

No, I've always been clear and consistent.

Only the greatest fools pull their punches.

No, that characterization is reserved for anyone who believes that behaving like a juvenile and having a public temper tantrum (ie: name calling) is useful in promoting Democratic causes and a liberal agenda.

I've seen no "concrete evidence" that using juvenile nicknames and insults does anything useful. It was, and will always be an indulgence of vanity and anger that accomplishes nothing. Schoolyard and playground taunts are not productive.

[WarGamer]

45. I admire your ability to continue to "attempt" debate with those who aren't open to debate.

[LanternWaste]

49. Ten bucks says you fail to see the irony in your having said that.

[WarGamer]

31. Manchin's not running in 24.

Rumors are he's going home. Maybe running for Gov again. He's done with DC.

And if HR/S1 gets to the Senate floor, prepare for a full court press in West Virginia from the GOP and talk radio to flood Manchin's office with their thoughts...

Don't forget, the State went Trump by 70%

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. Are these rumors substantiated?

If not, then they are just rumors.

[WarGamer]

35. just rumors at this point.

I know at least one PAC has announced that Manchin will be primaried... if he runs

[joetheman]

48. Please remind him of that.

[Jay25]

13. If Congress doesn't pass a voting rights act, Congressional Democrats may very well never

see majority leadership again. These republican governors are making sure that republicans will not lose again. If nothing is done, the 2022 midterms may be the final nail in the coffin of our democracy.

[Hortensis]

40. All too correct, WarGamer. R51 - D49.

Willful stupidity or will to defeat?

[Joinfortmill]

11. Yes, yes and yes.

[zaj]

14. I really don't see this as productive.

I respect that Clyburn is both speaking out for his constituents and speaking from his heart.

But he framed it in 2 ways that won't help him in his mission.

1) The voting rights of all Americans are threatened by attacks on democracy.

2) HR1 is designed to protect 250 years of American democracy from being destroyed and being rigged by a few billionaires. It's an aanti-oligarchy bill.

3) If you want to pressure Manchin and the other GOPers, you don't frame this as a party-loyalty issue. It needs to be an "All American" issue. GOP voters need to be pissed that their senators aren't supporting it.

4) For the same reason, it also doesn't help to frame this as a minority-rights issue. While it might be exact that, this approach makes it seem like it's "special rights". That won't Manchin voters in West Virginia or the 10 GOP senators that Manchin is trying to work with.

5) Red meat to the base Dem voters won't move the needle on this for Dems. It might make it even worse.

[Deminpenn]

15. The heavy lifting here should be left to Biden, Schumer, Coons

and other senators close to Manchin.

[Hortensis]

41. Fortunately, it is their job. I'd like to know who's behind this social media

hate campaign against WV's Democratic senator. It's sure not our party.

Manchin is the ONLY Democratic representative WV voters sent to DC, and of course the Republicans are dong their dirtiest to get him out.

[NurseJackie]

20. You're correct. Thanks for explaining things so clearly.

The "red meat" observation is one of the most aggravating things about all of this. It's the one that is rooted in emotions, anger, and irrational rage. Those who succumb to such intense emotional things typically fail to think through the consequences of their actions, or of the path (or revenge) that's being proposed. It's all very tribal and generally, IMHO, not at all helpful.

[dlk]

28. Your valid points not withstanding

It appears Clyburn was addressing the racism piece of Manchin’s objections to the bill.

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. ...

1.) Clyburn knows very well that the voting rights rollbacks are an attack on democracy

2.) Clyburn knows very well that HR1 is designed to protect American democracy and push back against oligarchs.

3.) Do NOT reach out to the goops and treat them as good faith partners. If you do that, you will lose, and you DESERVE to lose.

4.) I hate to break this to you, but the majority of whites support these rollbacks of voting right either actively or by not making it a dealbreaker. If not, these wouldn't even be up for debate. Don't blame Clyburn for seeing this thing for what it is and telling Manchin that he is on the wrong side of history for resisting the resistance.

5.) 67% of Americans support HR1. By resisting the bill, Manchin is out of step with the majority.

[Hortensis]

42. Mostly agree. The Democratic BASE vote reliably Democrat

to further equality, and almost all because we believe in liberal and progressive government.

Our base has been remarkably stable for over 70 years. Blood has never been the motivation, and it's very obvious that the Democratic base is not behind this hate campaign against Manchin.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

67. On the other hand, some WV voters may be happy to see Manchin annoy the Dem base.

[Patterson]

29. Letting Manchin get out is not an option. Sorry.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

43. Nothing says "I support the creation of a fascist dictatorship in the US"

quite like blocking H 1 from being passed.

[triron]

47. Exactly. If Manchin can't see this, he is a moron.