HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Democratic senator raises...

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:32 PM

Democratic senator raises concerns over Biden's agenda

"Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he is concerned by the amount of potential spending involved with President Joe Biden's sweeping progressive agenda."

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/04/29/senator-joe-manchin-joe-biden-progressive-agenda-raju-ath-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

Video in link.

50 replies, 1431 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democratic senator raises concerns over Biden's agenda (Original post)
Polybius Apr 30 OP
JohnSJ Apr 30 #1
regnaD kciN Apr 30 #3
JohnSJ Saturday #17
former9thward Saturday #18
Amishman Saturday #23
regnaD kciN Apr 30 #2
CaliforniaPeggy Saturday #7
Jose Garcia Saturday #10
BGBD Saturday #13
Hassin Bin Sober Saturday #16
BGBD Saturday #25
Celerity Saturday #40
BGBD Sunday #42
Celerity Sunday #48
Bettie Sunday #50
SheilaAnn Saturday #32
SheilaAnn Saturday #33
NewHendoLib Apr 30 #4
OhioChick Apr 30 #5
BGBD Saturday #12
Skittles Saturday #21
OhioChick Saturday #22
vercetti2021 Apr 30 #6
BGBD Saturday #11
vercetti2021 Saturday #20
BGBD Saturday #26
Fiendish Thingy Saturday #8
BGBD Saturday #9
Fiendish Thingy Saturday #19
BGBD Saturday #27
Fiendish Thingy Saturday #31
BGBD Saturday #34
Fiendish Thingy Saturday #35
BGBD Saturday #36
Fiendish Thingy Saturday #38
BGBD Sunday #44
Fiendish Thingy Sunday #47
Polybius Saturday #37
BGBD Sunday #45
Polybius Sunday #49
Demsrule86 Saturday #24
Fiendish Thingy Saturday #28
Hortensis Saturday #39
Cha Saturday #14
subterranean Saturday #15
Mad_Machine76 Saturday #29
DFW Saturday #30
Crunchy Frog Saturday #41
uponit7771 Sunday #43
Nanjeanne Sunday #46

Response to Polybius (Original post)

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:39 PM

1. Of course he is. That is why it is imperative that we gain seats in the Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:47 PM

3. Unfortunately, we can't do that until 2022...

...and, given the historical tendency of the opposition to gain seats in midterms during peacetime (plus the reapportionment of seats to red states due to the census), I think it very unlikely that we will be able to hold the House in two year's time, even if we pick up Senate seats. In short, I think Biden needs to grab whatever he can between now and 2022, because I'm guessing we'll be in for sheer gridlock thereafter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #3)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:26 AM

17. The odds were against us in 2020 and we did better than the predictions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Reply #17)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:31 AM

18. No, the predictions were that Democrats would win the Senate (no matter the VP)

Up to 55 seats.

Democrats are favored to win the Senate

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/senate/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Reply #17)

Sat May 1, 2021, 08:03 AM

23. We underperformed expectations, and lucked out in the GA runoffs

I am convinced we wouldn't have carried both seats if it wasn't for Trump, Giuliani, and Wood jumping the shark over fraud nonsense. Wood was even telling the loons to stay home and not vote, I can't think of what more he could have done to help us if he tried.

The Pubs smashed expectations in the house and betting markets are heavily favoring the Pubs to take the house in 2022. PredictIt has our keeping it at just 32/100. (I think that is a bit low, and just threw some money at it, but it still doesn't paint a rosey picture).

All it would take is another round of rioting next summer and we could find ourselves losing congress completely. Our current advantage is far more precarious than most here seem to realize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:44 PM

2. Can we start putting "Democratic" in quotes when it comes to WVJoe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:05 AM

7. Sounds damn good to me!

Good to see you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:10 AM

10. He beat a self-described progressive by a 2-1 margin in his last primary

Perhaps WV Democratic voters aren't Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Reply #10)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:12 AM

13. Yet

He's voted with Biden on every vote taken. More then can be said for a lot of the "progressives"


/photo/2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #13)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:17 AM

16. What about votes not taken because he withholds support?

Donít pretend like ďvotes takenĒ is the only metric in this razor thin Senate control by Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #16)

Sat May 1, 2021, 09:41 AM

25. What about

Things that never happened? Why can't progressives always support Biden on actual things that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #25)

Sat May 1, 2021, 04:42 PM

40. Manchin will likely inflict damage orders of magnitude greater, at the end of the day, than

the progs whom you and others constantly attack, ever do with their non impactful protest votes.

If Manchin and Sinema do not cave and back meaningful filibuster modifications that actual allow for cloture to be achieved, then all of our non-reconciliation-eligible bills are dead in the ditch, including all of the voter rights bills, which very likely seals our doom more than likely in 2022, 2024 ,and beyond.

In addition, there is a real chance Manchin and Sinema go full shenanigans on the 2 reconciliation packages as well, and end up slicing 1, 2, even 2.5 trillion off the 4 trillion total Biden is trying to pass.

Manchin also just shut down any chance we had to make DC a state, and used a falsehood (falsely claiming a constitutional amendment is needed) to justify his sabotage of yet another massive part of our Party's agenda.

If Sanders or a bloc of House progs were doing one tenth, one twentieth, of what Manchin and Sinema have done, are threatening to do, and likely will do, I would hear the howls of rage emanating from certian corners from across the Atlantic, all the way to here in Stockholm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #40)

Sun May 2, 2021, 12:21 PM

42. You think there isnt

A political price to pay for ending the filibuster? You think ANY of the changes you makes won't just be reversed immediately with the same procedures the moment Republicans regain power, which they inevitably will.

If ending the filibuster is so important...why hasn't anyone done it in 250 years? Republicans didn't do in from 2017 to 2018 when it was the Democrats only tool to restrain Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #42)

Sun May 2, 2021, 05:36 PM

48. I did not even speak of binning it in its entirety, I spoke of modifications only

I personally think it should be binned in its entirety, as it almost always fucks us, not the Rethugs, but I was only speaking of modifications in regards to Manchin and Sinema.

Manchin has so far ruled out every potential meaningful, impactful modifications. Sinema wants (madness) a 60 vote threshold on ALL Senate action, and the two mini-mike exceptions repealed, which would mean a Dem POTUS would never get even a vote on most judges (SCOTUS for sure) and most appointments ever again in a Rethug-controlled Senate.

Without any modifications (let alone full binning of it), all non reconciliation-eligible parts of our agenda are dead in water, which is going to be disastrous for us, for the nation, and for democracy in general, as the Rethugs are steamrollering though hundreds of voter suppression bills and regulation at state and smaller levels across the fruited plain, as we speak.

Almost all the rest of the Dems (Sinema aside) are well aware that we have to get these bills passed. You are taking a stance that is against the will of almost all of our Party now.

If ending the filibuster is so important...why hasn't anyone done it in 250 years?


250 years? The constitution is only 232 years old, AND the action (the removal of the previous motion question) that made the filibuster possible was not done (and then was done by mistake) until 1806. One of the biggest myths out there is that the founding fathers intended the Senate to NOT be a majoritarian body at the end of the day. That is simply false, as evidenced by the way it was constituted from the beginning. They simply wanted it to be more deliberative than the House, not to cut off the will of the majority in its entirety.

Republicans didn't do in from 2017 to 2018 when it was the Democrats only tool to restrain Trump.


Of course they did not remove it, as it blocks us, not them, in terms of what what each party actually does.


The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats -- and Mitch McConnell knows that. The numbers don't lie.

My own add - Sinema (as I already stated above) wants a 60 vote threshold on EVERY Senate action. Not joking.



https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/filibuster-hurts-only-senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-knows-n1255787

snip

Cutting off debate in the Senate so legislation can be voted on is done through a procedure called "cloture," which requires three-fifths of the Senate ó or 60 votes ó to pass. I went through the Senate's cloture votes for the last dozen years from the 109th Congress until now, tracking how many of them failed because they didn't hit 60 votes. It's not a perfect method of tracking filibusters, but it's as close as we can get. It's clear that Republicans have been much more willing ó and able ó to tangle up the Senate's proceedings than Democrats. More important, the filibuster was almost no impediment to Republican goals in the Senate during the Trump administration. Until 2007, the number of cloture votes taken every year was relatively low, as the Senate's use of unanimous consent agreements skipped the need to round up supporters. While a lot of the cloture motions did fail, it was still rare to jump that hurdle at all ó and even then, a lot of the motions were still agreed to through unanimous consent. That changed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and McConnell first became minority leader. The number of cloture motions filed doubled compared to the previous year, from 68 to 139.

Things only got more dire as the Obama administration kicked off in 2009, with Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Of the 91 cloture votes taken during the first two years of President Barack Obama's first term, 28 ó or 30 percent ó failed. All but three failed despite having majority support. The next Congress was much worse after the GOP took control of the House: McConnell's minority blocked 43 percent of all cloture votes taken from passing. Things were looking to be on the same course at the start of Obama's second term. By November 2013, 27 percent of cloture votes had failed even though they had majority support. After months of simmering outrage over blocked nominees grew, Senate Democrats triggered the so-called nuclear option, dropping the number of votes needed for cloture to a majority for most presidential nominees, including Cabinet positions and judgeships. The next year, Republicans took over the Senate with Obama still in office. By pure numbers, the use of the filibuster rules skyrocketed under the Democratic minority: 63 of 123 cloture votes failed, or 51 percent. But there's a catch: Nothing that was being voted on was covered by the new filibuster rules. McConnell had almost entirely stopped bringing Obama's judicial nominees to the floor, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

McConnell defended the filibuster on the Senate floor last week, reminding his counterparts of their dependence on it during President Donald Trump's term. "Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to," he said. "They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every measure or bill I took up." Except, if anything, use of the filibuster plummeted those four years. There are two main reasons: First, and foremost, the amount of in-party squabbling during the Trump years prevented any sort of coordinated legislative push from materializing. Second, there wasn't actually all that much the Republicans wanted that needed to get past the filibuster in its reduced state after the 2013 rule change. McConnell's strategy of withholding federal judgeships from Obama nominees paid off in spades, letting him spend four years stuffing the courts with conservatives. And when Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was filibustered, McConnell didn't hesitate to change the rules again. Trump's more controversial nominees also sailed to confirmation without any Democratic votes. Legislatively, there were only two things Republicans really wanted: tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. The Trump tax cuts they managed through budget reconciliation, a process that allows budget bills to pass through the Senate with just a majority vote.

Republicans tried to do the same for health care in 2017 to avoid the filibuster, failing only during the final vote, when Sen. John McCain's "no" vote denied them a majority. The repeal wouldn't have gone through even if the filibuster had already been in the grave. As a result, the number of successful filibusters plummeted: Over the last four years, an average of 7 percent of all cloture motions failed. In the last Congress, 298 cloture votes were taken, a record. Only 26 failed. Almost all of the votes that passed were on nominees to the federal bench or the executive branch. In fact, if you stripped out the nominations considered in the first two years of Trump's term, the rate of failure would be closer to 15 percent ó but on only 70 total votes. There just wasn't all that much for Democrats to get in the way of with the filibuster, which is why we didn't hear much complaining from Republicans. Today's Democrats aren't in the same boat. Almost all of the big-ticket items President Joe Biden wants to move forward require both houses of Congress to agree. And given McConnell's previous success in smothering Obama's agenda for political gain, his warnings about the lack of "concern and comity" that Democrats are trying to usher in ring hollow. In actuality, his warnings of "wait until you're in the minority again" shouldn't inspire concern from Democrats. So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon. There's nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it ó aside from its eventual demise.

snip



Senate Filibuster Was Created By Mistake (in 1805/1806)

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/20/senate-filibuster-was-created-by-mistake/

In 2010, Brookings Senior Fellow Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and congressional history, testified to the Senate that ďthe filibuster was created by mistake.Ē We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathersí constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framersí Senate.

However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain. The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the ďprevious questionĒ motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.

What happened to the Senateís rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didnít think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to. Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.

snip





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #42)

Sun May 2, 2021, 10:37 PM

50. When have Democrats used it in

recent memory?

Successfully.

The fact is, Moscow Mitch didn't bring anything to the floor that might result in one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)

Sat May 1, 2021, 11:21 AM

32. Absolutely YES. He's getting on my very last nerve. Let's make DC a State, please. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:47 PM

4. oh shit - concern. very collinsean of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:50 PM

5. He's such a DINO....

Might as well put on "R" next to his name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:11 AM

12. Really?


/photo/2

Doesn't look that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #12)

Sat May 1, 2021, 02:46 AM

21. Manchin is on a power trip

that would always be sickening but it is ESPECIALLY SICKENING right now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #12)

Sat May 1, 2021, 07:24 AM

22. Looks that way here....

Senator Manchin has voted with the Trump Administration 74% of the time and shares many of the Presidentís priorities when it comes to promoting fair trade, repealing Obama-era regulations, and protecting our national security:

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/about/bipartisanship/legislation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Fri Apr 30, 2021, 11:52 PM

6. Fuck off Manchin

I'm absolutely sick of his dick swinging power. I wish Biden would pull him in for a fireside chat and figure out what the hell Manchin wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vercetti2021 (Reply #6)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:10 AM

11. Why?

He's voted with Biden on every vote taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #11)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:42 AM

20. Really?

Cuz he seems hell bent on preventing any progress. No voting rights, no DC statehood, not even fucking infrastructure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vercetti2021 (Reply #20)

Sat May 1, 2021, 09:41 AM

26. Yes, really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:05 AM

8. Fuck. That. Guy. Jim Crow Joe has got to go! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #8)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:09 AM

9. He's voted for Bidens agenda

more than Warren has.


/photo/2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #9)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:32 AM

19. Misleading Graph- there have only been two major senate bills voted on since January 20

The American Rescue Plan and the anti-hate crime bill.

So what do all the other dots on the graph represent? Nominees? Manchin opposed one, donít know about Warren.

Itís ludicrous to suggest Manchin supports Bidenís agenda more strongly than Warren does, since Bidenís agenda is more closely aligned with her own primary platform than Manchinís positions.

There are dozens of bills that have passed congress that are stalled in the senate because of the filibuster, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and DC statehood, and not yet including the American Jobs bill and American Familes Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_in_the_117th_United_States_Congress

They are all stalled because of the obstruction by Joe-Fuckin-Jim-Crow Manchin.

Manchin gets 100% in the 538 graph because all the parts of Bidenís agenda he opposes are blocked from coming to the floor for a vote, so thereís no record of him opposing Bidenís agenda.

If the stalled bills were allowed to come to an up or down floor vote in the senate, then weíd see who really supports Bidenís agenda. Manchin is using the filibuster to avoid accountability to his constituents, and more importantly, his donors, just like Republicans do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #19)

Sat May 1, 2021, 10:03 AM

27. Then why doesnt Warren support it all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #27)

Sat May 1, 2021, 10:56 AM

31. Faulty premise- the proper question is why won't Manchin allow passage of Biden's agenda?

Focusing on Warren is a diversion that ignores the critical legislation pending in the senate. (exactly what did she oppose? Nothing of substance according to my source linked to previously)

Warren supports HR1
Warren supports the American Jobs Act (but would likely propose amendments to make it bigger and include her wealth tax) and supports using reconciliation to pass the bill.
Warren supports the American Families Act (but would likely propose amendments making it bigger)
Warren supports DC statehood.
Warren support abolishing the filibuster.

Manchin opposes ALL OF THOSE, With the possible exception of the American Families Act, which I donít believe he has taken a public position on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #31)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:03 PM

34. But she

Doesn't support all agenda items that come to vote.

So, stop bashing the Democrat that does or start criticizing her for voting against Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #34)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:16 PM

35. Show your proof that Warren has opposed Biden on anything significant- you can't

She voted for the American Rescue Plan and for the anti-hate crime bill. NOTHING ELSE OF SIGNIFICANCE HAS COME TO THE SENATE FLOOR FOR A VOTE IN 2021.

The 538 graph is worthless without supporting data.

We know Warren supports Bidenís agenda.

We also know that Jim Crow Joe Manchin opposes Bidenís agenda and is blocking legislation from coming to a vote so there will be no record of his opposition in the form of ďnoĒ votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #35)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:31 PM

36. Can you read the chart?

If she's under 100 then she has voted against Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #36)

Sat May 1, 2021, 01:08 PM

38. So you got nothing- no proof, just a meaningless chart with no data to support it

If you could prove your assertion, you would link to votes where Warren actually opposed Bidenís legislative agenda, and Manchin supported it. Name the bill, and the date she voted against it. You canít do it, because it doesnít exist.

You go ahead and keep on supporting Jim Crow Joeís obstruction, with his on-the-record statements opposing all of Bidenís pending legislative agenda, and Iíll keep supporting Warren and Bidenís actual legislative agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #38)

Sun May 2, 2021, 12:40 PM

44. Jim Crow Joe?

Is it Jim Crow Obama as well? I don't recall any new states being added during those years.

I'll also take that post as confirmation that you didn't read the chart because if you go to the link all of the data is available to you.

Joe Manchin didn't try to block a waiver to allow a vote on the first African American Secretary of Defense.... more than can be said about some people.

Manchin also has the highest Biden + score, which measures votes in support vsargin of victory in district, and by a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #44)

Sun May 2, 2021, 02:26 PM

47. Anyone who opposes or blocks passage of HR1 supports Jim Crow 2.0.

You continue to justify your support for Jim Crow Joe Manchin by hiding behind the semantics of his ď100% pro-Biden voting recordĒ, when, in reality, he is blocking passage of the following:

American Jobs Act
American Familes Plan
HR1/S1 voting rights bill
HR4 the John Lewis voting rights act
DC statehood

Sure, none of those have come to the floor for a vote in the senate because of Manchinís obstruction, but you keep telling yourself he is a stronger supporter of Bidenís agenda than Warren.

I donít believe that to be the truth.

...and some people still believe the election was stolen and that QAnon is real.

But I donít.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #9)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:55 PM

37. True, but that doesn't tell the while story

Who cares if he votes for the actual bill? He waters down other bills like enhanced unemployment (was supposed to be $400 until October), stopped one nominee (Neera Tanden), and said he won't change the filibuster rules.

As if that wasn't enough, he's now said the infrastructure bill goes too far and yesterday he came out against DC statehood.

I'm not a Manchin hater at all, I get why we need him. He's the best we can do in WV. But lately he's been hard to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #37)

Sun May 2, 2021, 12:41 PM

45. You think

He was the only senator who wasn't going to vote for Tanden? Not even close. If it were 49-50 he'd have voted to confirm her.

There were many others, including Sanders who were dead set against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BGBD (Reply #45)

Sun May 2, 2021, 10:29 PM

49. Doesn't matter, he announced it and no one else did

He's derailed bills/nominees by himself this year. Sanders hasn't. Plus coming out against $400 a week till October for enhanced unemployment, not to mention against DC statehood, only his relatives or Republicans can still defend him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #8)

Sat May 1, 2021, 08:05 AM

24. Joe Manchin is a Democrat, and you should delete. It is thanks to Joe Manchin that we still have

the ACA and a narrow majority. I am not always pleased with some of his words but thus far he has voted for us when it counted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #24)

Sat May 1, 2021, 10:47 AM

28. The Manchin of the past is irrelevant to the Jim Crow Joe of today.

Americans voted for and support substantive change, and Manchin is obstructing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #24)

Sat May 1, 2021, 03:57 PM

39. +1000. We just passed the American Rescue Plan with little change

with Manchin's vote.

Far worse, if WV had ditched Manchin in 2018, insurrectionist Republicans would be in charge of the senate right now. NOTHING we wanted would pass.

Instead, infuriating as he and others of his sort in our caucus are, we're going to accomplish a great deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:12 AM

14. Hmmm.. is he aware of

any "concern over his agenda"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sat May 1, 2021, 12:17 AM

15. Hopefully he's concerned in the way Susan Collins is always "concerned."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sat May 1, 2021, 10:50 AM

29. I knew who this was without him even being officially named in the headline

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sat May 1, 2021, 10:50 AM

30. The only thing that concerns me more than spending that kind of money now would be

NOT spending it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sat May 1, 2021, 04:48 PM

41. So now Manchin is Susan Collins? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #41)

Sun May 2, 2021, 12:28 PM

43. hopefully, Collins votes with republicans 95% of the time but is the first to express "concern" with

... something that she knows she's going to vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Sun May 2, 2021, 12:55 PM

46. Democratic Senator? That in itself is a misrepresentation of Joe Manchin. I think he runs as a Dem

because as a Republican, if he were to even win, he would just be one of many useless Republicans. As a "Democrat" but not supporting Democratic platform in the current Senate makeup - he wields so much power. It's his ego and nothing else. He does not represent the people of West Virginia who are desperately in need of the Biden agenda. I also think he doesn't want DC statehood because if there were 2 more Dem Senators, he would lose power and become a footnote to the Democrats. His only principle is his self-centered need for power. I wish Democrats when asked about Manchin - would ignore him and speak instead of West Virginia and how badly they are in need of the very policies he is standing against. Currently WVa ranks (out of 50 states) #47 on Healthcare; #45 on Education; #48 on Education; #50 on INFRASTRUCTURE. Every time I hear Democrats talking about bipartisanship on bills I scream at the TV . . . bipartisanship on bills isn't having 1 R Senator vote with you . . . it's having a good percentage of Republican citizens support the policies Dems want to pass. And with that as the criteria - the bills passed by the House and sitting in the Senate ARE bipartisan bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread