Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 375: Joe Bidin' his time

(+) Yeah! (+)

lets keep it goin

---

Based on those dates, he was saying hed work with Mitch when it looked like hed have to work with Mitch because it looked like Mitch was gonna be majority leader. When he didnt have to, he didnt.

---

Also I've noticed for the first time my phone autocorrects gotcha as gacha

What has my life become

---

Tony, it's cute that you think someone not understanding what you want in a particular situation is anyone's problem but yours is adorable.

I mean besides bitching for bitching's sake.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Also I've noticed for the first time my phone autocorrects gotcha as gacha

What has my life become

You WILL insert the coin
You WILL pull the lever

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Based on those dates, he was saying hed work with Mitch when it looked like hed have to work with Mitch because it looked like Mitch was gonna be majority leader. When he didnt have to, he didnt.

If he doesnt have to then wheres the agenda?

Im not sure what your argument is here.

Joe isnt trying to work with Mitch, hes finally learned hes wrong and his resolution is to just throw up his hands?


---

Yeah I guess my interpretation of events wasn't that "look Biden isn't talking to McConnell so he doesn't care about working together he just says that and doesn't want to get his agenda passed" but rather "Biden isn't talking to McConnell because he isn't a naive moron and knows McConnell is a useless sack of flour and there is literally no point to talking to him".

Him saying so before wasn't him trying to reach out to Republicans, but just an empty campaign platitude about how bipartisanship is really important guys, seriously. I dunno, the fact that he isn't bothering to talk to McConnell is a good thing imho.

---

kevwaffles posted...

Tony, it's cute that you think someone not understanding what you want in a particular situation is anyone's problem but yours is adorable.

I mean besides bitching for bitching's sake.

The reality is that you DO understand my complaint (tl;dr the Democrats should do more, or at the very least TRY more), but instead of just agreeing or disagreeing with it youd rather dowhatever it is you do.

I get it, youre ok with the status quo, with at least its not Trump, but Im not.

I genuinely dont see WHY this POV makes you so madlike be honest, with everything as it is, do you think the Democrats are working as hard as they could be for you?


---

HashtagSEP posted...

Based on those dates, he was saying hed work with Mitch when it looked like hed have to work with Mitch because it looked like Mitch was gonna be majority leader. When he didnt have to, he didnt.

uh, didn't you say in the last topic that biden was never seriously planning on working with mcconnell and that him saying he would was just "lip service"?

if you want to defend biden on this one, fine, but at least keep your argument consistent.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, didn't you say in the last topic that biden was never seriously planning on working with mcconnell and that him saying he would was just "lip service"?

if you want to defend biden on this one, fine, but at least keep your argument consistent.

I said that when I was under the impression it was more recent than it was, but even then, it's not inconsistent at all. He was clearly not serious about working with McConnell in the case he didn't have to or else he'd be doing it. It still ended up being lip service because once it became clear McConnell wasn't majority leader, he didn't. The only way my argument becomes inconsistent is if he tried anyway and failed, which doesn't appear to be the case.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Tony, it's cute that you think someone not understanding what you want in a particular situation is anyone's problem but yours is adorable.

I mean besides bitching for bitching's sake.

The reality is that you DO understand my complaint (tl;dr the Democrats should do more, or at the very least TRY more), but instead of just agreeing or disagreeing with it youd rather dowhatever it is you do.

I get it, youre ok with the status quo, with at least its not Trump, but Im not.

I genuinely dont see WHY this POV makes you so madlike be honest, with everything as it is, do you think the Democrats are working as hard as they could be for you?

1) I'm not sure where you think I got mad.

2) Until post #6, no, you didn't make your point here clear at all. It's still a weird jump from one point to another based on nothing aside from your overall stance, but at least it's a point.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

He was clearly not serious about working with McConnell in the case he didn't have to or else he'd be doing it.

Its weird how he spent his whole career working with and talking about how good it is to work with Republicans until now, no? I wouldnt be surprised if I could find a much more recent quote of his extolling the virtues of working together tbh <_<

kevwaffles posted...

1) I'm not sure where you think I got mad.

2) Until post #6, no, you didn't make your point here clear at all. It's still a weird jump from one point to another based on nothing aside from your overall stance, but at least it's a point.

Anger and pointless hostility are two sides of the same coin.

And again, its insane to me you dont realize that is literally always my point. There are 20 people (and Im one of them) who post about how bad Republicans suck, but when I say Dems do too (but for a totally different reason), the response is hostile instead of Yeah dude, why DONT they do more?

---

Are you literally arguing that I should treat you like a broken record?
---

Also, accusing someone of "pointless hostility" after you say shit like "somehow you don't understand me" is, once again, adorable.

That's not hostility. That like smiling when a five pound dog bares it's teeth at me for no reason.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Are you literally arguing that I should treat you like a broken record?

Are we not doing that already?

kevwaffles posted...

Also, accusing someone of "pointless hostility" after you say shit like "somehow you don't understand me" is, once again, adorable.

That's not hostility. That like smiling when a five pound dog bares it's teeth at me for no reason.

You realize youre the dog in this situation, right? People whove ever once engaged me in good faith understand what my goals are, Im entitled to smile at you growling for no reason because you didnt understand yet again.

Lets try something different next time.

---

I mean yeah, I think its basically what SEP said. He was willing to try and work with McConnell if it was literally his only option (i.e. if Mitch was the majority leader), but with that not being the case he has better (though still not great) options for pursuing his agenda

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

There are 20 people (and Im one of them) who post about how bad Republicans suck, but when I say Dems do too (but for a totally different reason), the response is hostile instead of Yeah dude, why DONT they do more?

Obviously I can't speak for everyone else here, but I don't mind that you post about Dems doing bad things. What I don't like is that you seem to expect everybody to be as about the Dems' actions now as we were at the Trump administration. It comes off like a weird "both sides are equally bad" thing, especially since a lot of the stuff you complain about isn't all that bad to begin with.
---

You can definitely drag Biden without it being a both sides thing, and it's definitely fair to point out that no matter what your take is, Biden has been full of shit on his agenda. Politicians lie and go back on campaign promises as usual but it just feels especially bad when we all know Dems are fucked in 2022 if they don't pick up the pace and get good things done more quickly.

---

Whether you want to admit it or not, Dems have been DOA for 2022 ever since the $1400 snafu. Everything from there has just been a measure of "how bad."

---

Xeybozn posted...

What I don't like is that you seem to expect everybody to be as about the Dems' actions now as we were at the Trump administration. It comes off like a weird "both sides are equally bad" thing, especially since a lot of the stuff you complain about isn't all that bad to begin with.

I guess I just see the Dems not excelling and feel more of a sense of urgency than most. Complacency is how we got 2016, and theres this pervasive feeling from some Libs that Biden being elected was the end, when really its just setting us up for worse. If and when the GOP takes total control, they have literally admitted they will change the rules so Dems can never win againand the rules are already in their favor!

Also I dont really see what I do as both sides at all, Ive never once said the Republicans are even capable of good things, and I get at Dems for pettier shit because I hold them to a much higher standard of what can please me, and Ive never hid that fact.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Are you literally arguing that I should treat you like a broken record?

Are we not doing that already?

kevwaffles posted...

Also, accusing someone of "pointless hostility" after you say shit like "somehow you don't understand me" is, once again, adorable.

That's not hostility. That like smiling when a five pound dog bares it's teeth at me for no reason.

You realize youre the dog in this situation, right? People whove ever once engaged me in good faith understand what my goals are, Im entitled to smile at you growling for no reason because you didnt understand yet again.

Lets try something different next time.

"I'm rubber you're glue!"

Congratulations, you've officially convinced me I've been giving you too much credit up until now.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lets try something different next time.

So the answer is no, then.

Yawn.

---

I don't know, seems you made it pretty different to me. Usually you're falsely bitching that people are putting words in your mouth. Now you're mad at me for not doing that instead.
---

FFDragon posted...

Whether you want to admit it or not, Dems have been DOA for 2022 ever since the $1400 snafu. Everything from there has just been a measure of "how bad."

I don't think that's nearly a DOA thing. It only seems that way because Dems have bad PR. If they were any good at their jobs that would be totally recoverable! Do enough other shit that people forget about it!

---

Plus, "not giving out money" as a general concept doesn't seem to be a preferred method of attack for Republicans in the first place.
---

Regarding Biden and "bipartisanship" I think it's the unfortunate reality of the current Senate (i.e. Manchin, probably Sinema, etc.) Any agenda that requires Congressional action must meet their approval and they are just completely willing to die on this hill for whatever asinine reason. Their stated reasons about the filibuster are bullshit and just factually incorrect but their votes are literally necessary so they have to cater to them.

This is admittedly an opinion piece, but I think it's a bit instructive as to the current situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/14/why-bernie-sanders-is-taking-quieter-approach-biden/

Particularly this section here:

Washington Post

Part of this is that Sanders surely knows Biden is pursuing this deal with Republicans in part to get Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) to support a reconciliation bill later. In this pantomime, if Biden can reach a bipartisan deal on a roads-and-bridges infrastructure package, that second bill will be loaded up with many progressive policies, with Manchin's blessing.

Sanders knows that what Manchin will or won't support in the end will play a huge role in how big a package gets done. Though Sanders finds this frustrating, allowing Biden the space to do what's necessary to get Manchin to a good place might ensure a better outcome.

Another part of this is that the left is being brought into these process discussions. Remember, way back in March, progressives worked out an arrangement with White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, in which Biden would try to seek a deal on one package with Republicans, on the understanding that exactly this two-track process would be pursued.

Ultimately, according to Sanders aides, what all this really reflects is his confidence that a reconciliation deal will ultimately get done. It won't be everything that he or progressives want, but he believes it will be historically ambitious.

Essentially the farce is that because Manchin is obsessed with bipartisanship, the plan is to seek a "bipartisan" deal on the assumption that it's going to fail because it can't get 60 votes. Once it blows up like that, Manchin will finally be willing to go for reconciliation.

FWIW, when asked the other day, Manchin said he wasn't a no on a reconciliation path for infrastructure IF they "gave the bipartisan bill a real look."

So, yeah, it is unbelievably frustrating that this entire country is subject to the whims of Manchin's fantasy world but that's what happens when you literally need every last vote in the Senate.

---

Even the topic title

---

masterplum posted...

Even the topic title

what about it

Also before anyone points this out, Im pretty sure we had Joe Biden his time as a topic before, so I spelled it the other way lol.

---

Airstrikes in Gaza again so not looking great that the new government might change course significantly.

---

It's cool, people in Gaza launched incendiary balloons first. Whatever the fuck that means!

/s in case that's not abundantly clear
---

https://twitter.com/mikepompeo/status/1404836432368312324?s=21

uh, what

---

Pipehit for midterms!

---

love hittin' that pipe

---

lmao wtf

pompeo hitting the pipe a bit too much i think

---

Legalize to own the libs!

---

I was waiting for someone else to post this, but

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1405219989712424966?s=21

lol

---

Does violently overthrowing a democratically elected leader and replacing them with a far- right stooge really count as interfering in an election? Let's go live to our panel of imperialists to find out

---

Kenri posted...

Does violently overthrowing a democratically elected leader and replacing them with a far- right stooge really count as interfering in an election? Let's go live to our panel of imperialists to find out

Thats clearly AFTER the election occurs DUH. We would never do something so gauche as interfere during an election.

---

https://twitter.com/KnowNothingTV/status/1405345359703035905

what in the absolute fuck Yang

this is one of those statements where you really go holy hell I need to see the full clip because nobody could make a statement that terrible I need to see the context, so here it is starting with the question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4dfdOtTZCE&t=5644s

(Yang is 5th to answer, starting at 1:40:06)

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

this is one of those statements where you really go holy hell I need to see the full clip because nobody could make a statement that terrible I need to see the context

Nah, I've seen so many terrible statements I can believe any-

*looks*

-...what the fuck.

---

Anyway, on the Manchin front, a call of him with donors leaked and the two most interesting things on it were that he tried to get them to persuade the GOP (he names Blunt in particular) to vote for the 1/6 Commission in order to weaken the push to remove the filibuster. Obviously this failed, and when asked about it Blunt maintained his opposition.

Second was that despite his public hardline on the filibuster of not even reforming it, on the call he was open to reform and even sounded like he wanted to make it so that the opposition would need to maintain 41 no votes on the floor instead of the current framework where the burden is on the majority to come up with 60 votes to overcome it while the opposition needs do nothing. He also talked about maybe lowering it to 55 votes. Now I've made no secret that I think forcing the opposition to maintain the votes on the floor would be one of the better reforms if you're not going to just outright kill the filibuster so that's... kinda encouraging? Lowering the threshold to 55 would be useless though because the GOP would still block anything of significance like Voting Rights.

I mean, it's pretty damning that it takes a leaked call with donors to get a more candid look into Manchin's thinking but I don't think any of us are surprised by that so I'm just looking at what he said instead.

---

even the absolutely toothless, in no way meaningful progress, wouldnt have prevented george floyds death but cynically uses his name, weak ass police reform bill that actually increases funding touted by the Biden administration doesnt have the votes and yet Biden has gone back on his promises and signaled they only will pursue this electorally even knowing thats a complete failure of a route. We are past the point of accepting nothing will fundamentally change, we wont even see symbolic change. Anyway surely the technocrats telling us we just cant do anything and addressing no issues or problems with society wont lead to a right wing populist liar again or anything!!!

In other Manchin news:

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1405214528456044545?s=21

This is in parallel with more research indicating that voter ID doesnt really seem to do much of anything (despite, yes, the intention clearly being to suppress Dem votes), so itd probably be a worthwhile trade if Rs actually bit.

(Whatever bill the Dems go for, though, they need to add something to counter all of these post-January 6th R efforts to try and give themselves the power to overturn election results, prosecute honest election workers for bullshit reasons, etc)

---

Yeah, he also released his thoughts on voting reform but the real yikes there is "more flexibility to remove voters from the rolls" bit. More? Let's... not.

Not big on the Voter ID bit either of course, but if it could be used to create a nationwide standard and stop a lot of the BS GOP legislatures like to use (like college ID doesn't count but weapon permits do) by creating a standard which states can't drop below... well it could be worse.

That said I don't think the GOP bites but if this is the price that you need to pay to get Manchin to reform/kill the filibuster I think you do it as distasteful as it is.

---

So by "Manchin asks his donors to convince a GOP senator to support a thing he wants," what that really means is "Manchin asks the people who are bribing him to bribe other politicians for him."

So...why is bribing Manchin to do something we want not on the table

---

I feel like it is, it just hasn't been enough yet.

Manchin's wife was appointed federal co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So by "Manchin asks his donors to convince a GOP senator to support a thing he wants," what that really means is "Manchin asks the people who are bribing him to bribe other politicians for him."

So...why is bribing Manchin to do something we want not on the table

Do you have a couple million dollars to spend buying an asshole senator? Because I sure don't.

---

Affordable care act survives yet again! 7-2 this time with only Alito and Gorsuch dissenting.

---

I like how it is like "look we're evil but we're still judges"

---

In less good Supreme Court news

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/supreme-court-fulton/index.html

I havent read arguments for this one but I have no clue how it was unanimous

---