Beware of People Pretending to Be on Our Side

[MineralMan]

who are really fighting against us and trying to divide us through devious means.

They're out there and in every place where political issues are discussed. They always have been, and always will be.

Stand firm for positive, progressive change, even if all changes are not completed in a single pass.

Progress is not Revolution.

It is steady change toward the better.

That's what I have to say this morning.

[Autumn]

1. Thus it begins. The blaming of Progressives

[question everything]

4. All I have seen here is blaming the moderates including "corporate Democrats"

whatever that means.

[Autumn]

7. You might look a little harder.

whatever that means.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215989544

[bluewater]

74. +1000

[DiamondShark]

194. Don't need to look hard, I see Manchin and Sinema bashing here every day.

But it's a moot point, Ocasio-Cortez is against it now. Maybe Pelosi can lose a vote in the House. Schumer can't afford to lose one Democrat in the Senate.

[iemanja]

246. Yes, let's make sure we don't talk about candidates voting records

Or post about them. After all, favorite pols are more important than policy or legislation.

[lagomorph777]

92. We have some right-wing "moderates" who are sabotaging voting rights and BBB.

They are not moderates.

Progressives support President Biden's agenda. SineManchin are deliberately undermining it.

[KPN]

105. ....

[Violet_Crumble]

271. Here's what I think a corporate Democrat is..

Correct me if I've got anything wrong, as I'm watching from a distance and possibly have a different perspective than Americans...

There's a whole range of Democrats. They'd range from AOC to Joe Manchin.

AOC is someone I see who'd fit well into the moderate Left in any other country that's considered a peer of the US as she supports all the things (universal healthcare, paid parental leave etc) that's part of the fabric of society in most other countries.

Joe Manchin, on the other hand, is someone I'd call a Corporate Democrat. He opposes the things like expansion of medicare that the Biden administration and every sane person supports because lobby groups that have a finger in the pie and some influence in his wealth don't want the American people to have the same safety nets that other countries have.

So, Manchin doesn't work on behalf of his constituents. His top priority is working on behalf of the corporate interests that are in his ear. And the situation with the US Senate and the 50/50 split has given him power he shouldn't have.

[UCmeNdc]

5. I do not think this op is blaming progressives. Progressives are supporting the Biden agenda.

There are only two Democratic Senators holding up the Democratic Party agenda. These two Senators are not progressives. They are something else.

[themaguffin]

12. They are not "moderates" though, they are grifters

[OMGWTF]

58. IOW, rhymes with "corporate doors."

[bringthePaine]

99. yes, and posers

[onecaliberal]

108. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[MineralMan]

8. Who Mentioned Progressives?

Not me. My end goals are as progressive as anyone's. However getting nothing accomplishes none of those goals.

[Autumn]

11. Yeah we know. If we think incrementalism is what we need to go for while Democrats control the

House *and* Senate *and* the presidency, then we will get nothing. Picking the bone bare gets nothing they promised for the voters.

[MineralMan]

14. We do not "control" the Senate.

Not even close. We barely control the House, although we have a little more room for error.

Unless we can get 50 votes in the Senate, plus one from our VP, we can pass nothing right now. That's the fact. So, we have to work within the parameters that exist, rather than the ones we wish existed.

Unless, of course, you think we have the means to get a couple of Republicans to vote with us. I doubt that very much.

Manchin and Sinema are the roadblocks. We all know that. I know of no way to coerce them into voting in any particular way. Do you?

[gab13by13]

26. I like what you posted but,

I must add that 50 GQP Senators and Manchin and Sinema are roadblocks.

[Autumn]

29. Amazing how well Republicans can control and get what they want, while in the minority.

Drive through the fucking roadblocks The Republican wouldn't hesitate for one second to do it.

[MineralMan]

35. The Republicans are very good at blocking things, it's true.

However, they did not accomplish much at all when in power in the Senate.

We need more Democrats elected to the Senate. That should be the overriding goal.

Republicans are good at coercing members of their caucus in the Senate to vote for things. Democrats are not as effective at that. Nobody is going to coerce Manchin or Sinema into voting in any particular way. That's pretty obvious. The situation that exists is the one we have right now. We either deal with it or accomplish nothing. I'm in favor of accomplishing things.

[FoxNewsSucks]

106. Actually, republicons accomplished a lot

It's just that what they want isn't what is good for the country or the public. It's good for corporations, billionaires and keeping themselves in power.

To that end, they slashed taxes on the aforementioned corporations and billionaires, gutted and defunded regulatory agencies, packed the courts, and have nearly every state working on controlling elections so that Democrats will soon be a minority no matter how people vote (at least, those who will still able to vote).

Actually, they got everything they wanted. As always.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

176. Outside of tax breaks for the wealthy what did they accomplish?

They were going to bring us an infrastructure bill. There were even Democrats who might have assisted on this. It never happened.

They were going to replace Obamacare with something awesome. They voted to eliminate Obamacare but had no replacement standing by. Thankfully they were not successful.

[FoxNewsSucks]

183. I don't believe they ever intended to do any of those things,

that was just hot air for sound bites and bait for the campaign trail. It's like when MF45 use so many populist talking points in 2016. He even said he would raise taxes on billionaires & corps. The difference between them and when Clinton, Sanders or other Democrats say those things is that they have no intention of actually doing it, unlike Democrats.

They did accomplish what they wanted. The things I listed were their goals. They couldn't care less about the rest of us.

Also note, Moscow Mitch modified the filibuster so that republicons can get what they want done. Democratic goals require legislative action, and he left that part of the filibuster alone.

[Hortensis]

97. They sure wouldn't! Fascist strategy is tear down, burn up, and take over.

They're far more dangerous and powerful than you seem to realize, Autum.

They'd be delighted if we'd drve through even one llttle "road block." They'd then point to it as proof that WE are the fascists AND socialists (!) destroying the nation and must be stopped. And gullible people would refuse to vote Democratic.

Remember 2016? And all those who didn't learn a thing from their mistakes then? 2016 is still happening.

[Zeitghost]

103. Funny, I haven't seen one right wing bill passed...

While frustrating, them getting what they want and them preventing us from getting what we want are two vastly different things.

[Demsrule86]

159. The GOP has a 60 vote majority in the Senate when Trump was elected and they got very little...taxes

that is it...couldn't even get rid of the ACA or screw with Medicare which is what they really wanted... there was very little legislation passed during Trump's time...they got judges though which is why I will never forgive those who encouraged folks not to vote for Hillary like Greens, and Sarandon.

[betsuni]

161. +1

[FoxNewsSucks]

184. You assume they want to do things for the country .

They don't. They couldn't care less about passing legislation.

Tax cuts, regulations reduced, court packing. That's all they really cared about, and they did that.

Moscow Mitch changed the necessary parts of the filibuster to get it done.

[Demsrule86]

225. Oh they want to do things...like destroy the ACA and Medicare...social security...outlaw abortion...

consider this. They had a real 60 vote majority and they couldn't end the hated (by them)ACA or pass a draconian immigration bill. The GOP got basically nothing legislatively.

[FoxNewsSucks]

228. When they make it so that we can't ever vote them out,

that's when they'll go after those and other things. They know they can't do what they want and be able to get elected again.

Truthfully, that's why it scares me that voting rights are not being passed.

[DemocraticPatriot]

240. Yup. Beyond the things you mentioned, Republicans only want power to STOP

anything from changing.

[Celerity]

186. No they did not have a 60 vote majority in the Senate when Trump was elected. Not even close.

The GOP has a 60 vote majority in the Senate when Trump was elected and they got very little...taxes

that is it...couldn't even get rid of the ACA or screw with Medicare which is what they really wanted..

No.

They had a fluctuation of between 50 to 52 seats for the 115th Congress (which started on January 3, 2017, before Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress




then for the 116th Congress, starting on January 3, 2019, they had 52 to 53

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_United_States_Congress




They failed on ACA repeal via a fail on reconciliation, they had 52 Rethug Senators on that date, and 3 voted No:

Obamacare Repeal Fails: Three GOP Senators Rebel in 49-51 Vote

Senate Republicans failed to pass a pared-down version of an Obamacare repeal bill early Friday morning after years-long effort to undo the health law.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-gop-effort-repeal-obamacare-fails-n787311



WASHINGTON — Obamacare stays. For now. Senate Republicans failed to pass a pared-down Obamacare repeal bill early Friday on a vote of 49-51 that saw three of their own dramatically break ranks.

Three Republican senators — John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — and all Democrats voted against the bill, dealing a stinging defeat to Republicans and President Donald Trump who made repeal of Obamacare a cornerstone their campaigns. The late-night debate capped the GOP's months-long effort to fulfill a seven-year promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 28, 2017

[MerryBlooms]

191. Thank you for posting truth each day.

You slog on day after day, with facts, countering misinformation. Thank You! I have learned so much from your posts and saved your links. Keep up the amazing work. I appreciate all your effort.

[Celerity]

192. Thank you so much. I enjoy your posts as well.

Cheers!

Cel

[MichMan]

200. Very similar scenario to what is happening now.

[Demsrule86]

227. We need a bigger majority and so did they...but the bottom line for them is the stuff they want to

do is damned unpopular whereas what we want has appeal to many Americans.

[Demsrule86]

226. My apologies...but the point still stands...they got very little...couldn't even get rid of the ACA.

Those who claim McConnell is some mastermind are wrong...he totally blew it during both the Obama term and the Trump term...he could have compromised and got some stuff...like chained CPI...which was on the table during the Obama term( I almost had a convulsion when I heard this) and they got nothing but taxes. Schumer is much better than McConnell ever was.

[Scrivener7]

249. Yes. They do that through incrementalism.

[lagomorph777]

96. Specific combination of pork, bribes, and political extortion:

The Pork:

For Manchin, offer fossil fuel companies big subsidies to convert to green energy (e.g. build wind/solar on mountaintops flattened by coal mining; use old mine shafts for gravity storage systems).

For the Pharma friends of SineManchin, offer to buy shiploads of vaccines and ship them to every country on Earth. Offer big subsidies for development of new antivirals of every description. In exchange, we get to open our drug markets and negotiate prices for Medicare Part D etc.

The Bribe:

SineManchin will, of course, take their cuts of Pork.

The Extortion:

Massive ad campaigns and rallies in AZ and WV to explain what SineManchin are keeping away from their voters (lump in Capito here, to make it fair).

[uponit7771]

243. Yes we do, we just don't control messages well and do shit that loses votes such as

... making sausage in public vs coming to quick resolutions

[MineralMan]

247. No, we don't. We have no surplus members in our caucus.

That means that a couple of weird Democratic Senators from Red states can hold up anything they want to get concessions. We need a genuine consensus majority in the Senate. Until we get that, Senators like Manchin and Sinema hold way too many cards.

We have to fix that before we really have control of Congress. We could use 10 or 12 more House members, as well, to give the most progressive House members less power to push past sensibility and force compromises in the other direction, especially when those can't get through the Senate.

We have the slimmest possible majority. We need a better majority before we are actually in control. Then, the leadership can lead effectively. The Republicans in the Senate are a unified bloc, so everything that passes has to have every Democratic vote. That's not a good recipe for controlling the Senate.

That is where we need to focus, at the same time we try to get done what can be done. We aren't going to get the ideal measures passed as it is. But, we can get something passed if we stop insisting on perfection.

It is that freaking simple. It is reality.

[uponit7771]

262. Surplus of members does NOT define control of congress. Dems CONSTITUTIONALLY have control of ...

... congress and explaining the couple of "weird" democrats is losing seeing we told voters we could get shit done with what we got ... Not wait till 22 till we can get more senators that are less weird.

[Demsrule86]

20. Really, we would get something...your ideas leave us with nothing at all.

We have a 50 50 majority. You want great progressive policy...elect more Democrats to the Senate. It is that simple.

[Autumn]

31. We did just that. If we had more we would still be short.

You know. Giving cover

[d_b]

57. Dems always need 73 senators and a genie

To get anything done — it’s a fucking joke. We’re going to be wiped out next year.

[Celerity]

95. this made me (bitterly) LOL

Dems always need 73 senators and a genie

To get anything done

as it currently stands:

Paid Family/Medical Leave - Gone

Prescription Drug Price Savings - Gone

Tuition Free Community College - Gone

Dental and Optical Medicare Coverage - Gone

Billionaire and Wealth Taxes- Gone

Clean Electricity Performance Program - Gone ($150 billion, so a very large part)

Child Tax Credits - Slashed via lower caps and reduced to only ONE year

Immigration Reform spending (multiple reports directly from live interviews with Senators and Representatives today that the Senate Parliamentarian is going to disallow a lot of it)

Student Loan Relief - Long Gone and it looks like Biden is leaning towards not even doing an EO for the vastly reduced $10K amount

Major parts of the tax increases - Gone (or never in it for months)

Medicare/Medicare Expansion - looking very shaky at the moment, 2 minutes ago Jayapal said Biden told her and the other leaders that he cannot guarantee that Manchin and Sinema are on board as of this moment

Vast parts of multiple other pieces of BBB dramatically slashed, example being child care expense relief, slashed by almost 70%, plus major parts of the green/renewable energy/environmental programmes slashed (almost all of the programmes in the BIF for this are gone)


finally (and this was already done):

The Bi-partisan Infrastructure Bill new spend was gutted by almost 80%. What remains are long term projects that will have little impact before the 2022 mid-terms. The total per year new spend ($55 billion per annum) is less than ONE per cent of the money spent in 2020 fiscal year budget.

[Autumn]

166. 73 senators, a genie and a partridge a pear tree. It's like some who pretend to be on our side

can't wait to have the puke party in power again.

[Demsrule86]

165. We have a 5050 senate. That is what we have...and we need more senators...bottom line.

[mcar]

38. With Democratic "control" of the Senate as it stands now,

please explain how a broader bill could have gotten passed.

This bill is far from nothing or bare bones. It is a huge investment in the middle and working class and includes billions to fight climate change.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

94. Blah blah blah Bully Pulpit

That was the chorus during Obama's presidency.

[mcar]

107. Yep. "Bully pulpit" "LBJ" "FDR"

Remember when they'd scream about how Obama should use the bully pulpit to address x, y or z. Then he'd give an amazing speech on that very issue?

They'd sniff and say "talk is cheap."

Sometimes I think certain people on the internet who call themselves progressive don't really want progress at all.

[betsuni]

160. +1

[George II]

174. Bazinga!

[Tarheel_Dem]

203. Nailed it!

"Sometimes I think certain people on the internet who call themselves progressive don't really want progress at all."

[sheshe2]

255. +1 Last line.

[Scrivener7]

248. I don't get what other bill people think could have been passed. This is the one we were

able to pass. It's got a lot in it.

Did they wish we stamped our feet instead of going through this process, in which case we would have not gotten a bill at all?

[sheshe2]

256. Snap!

[Scrivener7]

257. Hey, sheshe2! Hope your weekend is a good one.

[sheshe2]

258. Hey, Scrivener.

Got to see my niece and family for a bit, hadn't seen them for awhile.

She will be sending pics of the halloween costumes later tonight!

Happy Halloween!

[CrackityJones75]

140. Have you paid any attention to how the GOP operates?

Have you paid any attention to how the GOP operates? Or how when we try to grab the brass ring it has eluded us time and time again? Like it or not incrementalism works!

[Voltaire2]

13. Cute.

[MineralMan]

17. Cute? I many be many things, but cute is not one of them.

[Voltaire2]

19. Your post, not you.

[MineralMan]

21. My post represents my opinion.

You can state some other opinion if you wish, no?

"Cute" is just dismissive, but provides no actual information. That's fine, but accomplishes nothing in a discussion.

[Voltaire2]

27. Your post avoids identifying your witches.

But the witch hunt is obvious.

[bluewater]

75. +1000

[gab13by13]

37. I agree with your post MM,

and I am a 10 out of 10 progressive Democrat but I am a realist. As I see it now, which is different from 2 months ago, we should get what we can get and quickly move on to passing S1 and the John Lewis voting rights bills. I don't believe we are going to do better with the obstructionists we have. We need to gain seats in the Senate so that Manchin and Sinema will be moot.

Iowa votes on March 1st.

[MineralMan]

45. Thanks!

We can get what we want, but only if we keep winning seats in Congress. If this Congress does nothing to advance progressive goals, we will not win the additional seats we need. In fact, we will lose seats and our paper-thing majority altogether.

I find it almost incredible that some people do not understand that equation.

[George II]

261. I keep reminding people that the root of the word "progressive" is "progress". One can't be a....

....progressive without showing any progress.

[MineralMan]

263. Yes. Exactly.

[progressoid]

30. This...

[calimary]

41. I'm blaming them ALL.

ANYBODY who decides to refuse to help at this point - progressives and moderates both.

What they don’t seem to understand is that going to the voters next year with NOTHING is a guarantee of Democrats losing the House. And having to accept “Speaker Kevin McCarthy.”

[Autumn]

52. I'm blaming the ones that are doing the damage. We know who they are, and why they are doing it

[sheshe2]

259. We do, yes.

[azureblue]

85. nope

And you are deflecting against the warnings of trolls, infiltrators, bad actors, etc. that are all over the internet.
Fortunately they are easy to spot, because they deflect, the what about, they make a true response then follow it with a half truth, the throw FUD. And when confronted, they will deny and resort to personal attacks, rather than supporting their contention with facts

[Autumn]

91. No, not at all. I'm commenting on Dems blaming progressives. Don't comment on what I didn't say.

Thanks.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

282. Truest statement have seen all morning

[AZSkiffyGeek]

93. Wow, quick to get defensive there....

[grantcart]

131. Revealing isn't it

[progressoid]

154. It's pretty much on display in the OP.

[Autumn]

279. You think? Talk about defensive there skiffy, it's interesting how defensive people get when you

not responding to them.

[berni_mccoy]

98. Yup

[11 Bravo]

171. If the shoe fits.

Signed,
Ralph Nader
Susan Sarandon
Jill Stein

[Autumn]

172. Yeah blame them for voting lfor their own choice of a politician.

[C Moon]

190. He's talking about MAGAs pretending to be liberal or progressive

…I don’t know if the smirk was a sarcastic mark or not.

[UCmeNdc]

2. K&R

[CentralMass]

3. Beware of people pointing fingers at others.

[bluewater]

76. +1000

[Scrivener7]

250. Yes. The OP very carefully avoids saying who the finger points to, which pretty much guarantees

a divisive conversation.

[hamsterjill]

6. There's an alternative point to that.

I am very wary of those who constantly insist that we should settle for half of what was promised because getting something is better than nothing

There are two sides to this coin.

[Voltaire2]

9. We're down to 1/6th.

Before this is over the Manchin-Sinema Bullshit Bill will be a total of 100B all for new weapon systems for cops.

[hamsterjill]

23. Probably.

And the 100B for those weapon systems will probably go to Blackwater.

I’m really tired of being told that crap is as good as we can get.

[progressoid]

28. yep. n/t

[MineralMan]

10. Progress is a direction.

Movement in that direction is always valuable. Doing nothing at all is not progress at all.

[hamsterjill]

16. I disagree.

Settling for shit just gets you shit. Insisting on better gets you better.

Dems need to fight harder and do whatever it takes to being Manchin and Sinema in line. Or else they can explain to the seniors with rotting teeth why they can’t get pain relief while Elon, et al make another billion in a day.

Democracy is at stake. If Dems don’t get a decent bill passed the midterms will not be kind to us. Beyond the midterm election, if Republicans take control again, I fully believe there will be no more elections that mean anything. Republicans are putting into place ways and means of “picking” winners and they won’t be picking any Democrats.

[MineralMan]

18. Some disagree with me. I can live with that.

My opinion stands as my opinion.

[hamsterjill]

24. As does mine.

And my opinion isn’t likely to change nor am I likely to stop expressing it.



Peace.

[Tarheel_Dem]

205. You make it sound like an all or nothing proposition, which would be disastrous IMHO. Dems could...

pass the legislation in its entirety, and still lose the midterms. I remember the progressive voices who insisted that if Obama didn't get the ACA passed, we would go down to defeat in the 2010 midterms. Well, guess what? ACA got passed and signed into law, and we still got slaughtered in the midterms. Those same progressives who seemed so sure that midterms hinged on ACA moved the goalposts. ACA was now crap because it didn't contain enough bells & whistles. The argument is disingenuous at best.

[Demsrule86]

25. It is called compromise...and you want better policy help elect more Democrats...

We have a 50 50 majority...

[hamsterjill]

36. It's called action

Voters want action. They want what they were promised during the campaign; not some watered down garbage being sold as success.

If Dems don’t get something passed, we will not do well in the midterms. If Republicans regain power, there will be no more fair elections.

This. Is. It. Make or break.

[gab13by13]

46. If you truly believe that Democrats can get more,

what is your strategy for bringing Manchin and Sinema along. You are preaching to a choir here who agree with you. What would you say to Manchin and Sinema that will change their minds. I am most likely one of the most progressive Democrats here, but I am also a realist. I don't see Manchin and Sinema budging and that is not the fault of Democrats.

[hamsterjill]

54. If it were up to me?

Change their minds? No way.

Force their hand. Use whatever means necessary including those things that might run into a “gray” area.

Has Joe Manchin been involved in a sexual harassment situation? I don’t know…

Is Sinema mentally unstable based on some of her actions of late? I don’t know..

Any campaign contributions that might look a little suspicious? I don’t know that either.

What do you think McConnell would do if the situation was ongoing on his side of the aisle?

Desperate times call for desperate measures and I’m tired of two assholes keeping old people from getting hearing aids.

[gab13by13]

60. Wow, so do things that the GQP does,

lie about people.

I have been on Medicare for 11 years and have paid out 11 thousand dollars for dental work over the years, yeah sure I wish it were covered but it's money in politics that keeps that from happening. Every Medicare Advantage Scam plan would fold up.

You are going to have to come up with a legal way to make Manchin and Sinema to change their minds before I get on board.

[hamsterjill]

63. Can't take a knife to a gun fight.

In my opinion, enough is at stake to take whatever action is necessary. If that offends you, please feel free to put me on ignore. I’m weary of people telling me that Manchin and Sinema are dictators and there’s nothing that can be done.

There is always something that can be done.

[hadEnuf]

100. Time to start fighting fire with fire.

We are the good guys. They are not. It's quickly getting to the point where that is the only thing that matters.

[hamsterjill]

102. Thank you.

Thank you for your reply.

I’m just sick of being told that Joe Manchin is the freaking king and we can’t do anything about him. There is always something that can be done.

[XanaDUer2]

115. I agree

Whatever it takes. It's time. I'm sick of this shit. I need lower Rx prices now.

[hamsterjill]

118. Thank you.

I have no particular need myself, but I know others who do. I know people older than me who are hurting badly because of lack of healthcare.

It astounds me that some on DU are so quick to discount anything healthcare related. No one in this country should be suffering and not be able to get help. It’s ludicrous, and it should be the fundamental starting point. Not the end thought.

[XanaDUer2]

122. I really need Medicare age lowered

I'm so sick of sinema and Manchin. We're stuck with them. I'm at the point of pay them off in pork or something. But I don't think they care.

[hamsterjill]

124. I want dirt on them.

There got to be something. In all seriousness. Look how fast Andrew Cuomo was taken down.

[XanaDUer2]

126. I'm fine with that too nt

[hadEnuf]

148. How about making Manchin & Sinema pay dearly for their treachery?

Will it help the current situation? Probably not, but it would send a hell of a message to those who may be thinking of pulling this same shit again. And worse than savaging the BBB, Manchin & Sinema are dividing the party and the GOP is loving it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

206. You're right. Some seem intent on officially pushing Manchin into the arms of the GOP. That....

means only one thing....."Majority Leader McConnell". If Dems pull some underhanded Trump type crap on Manchin & Sinema, we'll get we deserve, and it will only hurt the country further. What many internet warriors don't understand is that W. Virginians don't care if Manchin is Dem or Repuke, they'll vote for him anyway. Trump won WV by nearly 40 points. The only choice we have for the immediate future is to compromise with Manchin, and try to elect enough Dems in 2022 to make him & Sinema irrelevant.

[Scrivener7]

253. That just isn't going to happen. They have lots of power and lots of attention as long as

they are Democrats. If they change parties, that all goes away.

But you are right. We need to make them irrelevant by electing more Democrats.

[Scrivener7]

251. You and I usually agree, but I would have no problem using their dirt against them.

But we won't.

[brooklynite]

149. Not sure what's worse...

Jumping to the conclusion that they have dirty laundry (that hasn't been found already by the IRS or the media), the willingness to blackmail them, or letting "get away with it" as long as they vote the right way.

[hamsterjill]

150. Oh my!!!

Have I offended your sensitivities here? I guess I’ll just have to live with that, won’t I?

[Demsrule86]

163. That seems like a movie...none of that would work.

[hamsterjill]

178. Sure.

Nothing like that has ever been done before in politics, right?

Sheesh… the naïveté.

[Bev54]

32. That is how it starts, remember the ACA

did not get it completely and still working on making it better, if dems would vote each and every election. It is time to fight for every bit, but at least get it started, once the population gets a taste, they won't go back. I wish there was a more dems in the senate to nullify Sinema and Manchin, but reality is there is not right now. Take something and make it work so people want more and get that bigger majority for the next step.

[hamsterjill]

39. You assume there is time to do that and I disagree.

If Dems don’t get something substantial passed that voters feel good about, the midterms will not go well for us. If Republicans retake control, there will be no more fair elections.

I live in Texas. I dare you to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s not fiction down here. It’s happening.

[Bev54]

42. The reality is, that is not happening right now and yes everyone would like to get the full

package over the finish line. So to blow it all up and lose it all is not helping anyone and sure as hell not going to get the majority. Do you want to bring Biden's presidency down and lose the house and the senate to the insurrection party? That is what is at stake right now.

[hamsterjill]

47. It's going to happen anyway if we don't get a decent bill passed.

Democrats need to fight or else voters are going to give up on them.

Do you think people are going to vote for a party that can’t even get its own members to line up? I don’t think so.

So they need to be brought in line. By whatever means necessary.

It is democracy itself that is at stake right now.

[Bev54]

50. Yes they do but right now they are constrained

Blowing the whole thing up because it is not all that you want is the other sides way of doing business. This is not nothing, getting the bill passed is still a big deal, and nobody should be taking their ball home because you didn't get it all.

[hamsterjill]

56. And if we get nothing, we shouldn't speak up?

I don’t think so…

[Bev54]

66. It is not nothing, there is a lot in the bill

If you want to win a game by 10 points but are only winning by 4 points you don't walk away from the game because you aren't going to win by 10, you still play and win the game.

[hamsterjill]

68. Okay. Once the bill passes...

I’ll let you explain to me what @I@ got, okay?

[Bev54]

77. I was once very idealistic when I was young but learned the world does

not always work the way we want, we have to do what we can.

[hamsterjill]

86. We disagree.

I’m neither idealistic nor am I young.

You can be happy with a crap bill. I want more.

[NurseJackie]

196. It's not going to happen this time. Now what?

I want more.

It's not going to happen this time. Now what? Will people having their tantrums continue to rail-on endlessly about what a "shitty" deal it is? Or will they be grateful that THIS much progress was made (at ALL) in spite of all the obstacles facing us?

I'm sure there are still people who are cursing Obama and the imperfect ACA. But I don't know ANY of those complainers who would want to go back to the way it was before. Even though the ACA wasn't everything that everyone hoped for, it's significantly better than before.

That's what we have here too.

I’m neither idealistic nor am I young.

One need not be young to have youthful attitudes or exuberance. But it's been my experience that my own age and maturity helps me to accept reality and to deal with disappointments in a thoughtful and reasonable way by channeling my disappointment and allowing it to motivate me to turn it into PRO-DUCTIVE energy rather than DE-STRUCTIVE and DE-VISIVE attacks on Biden, or on Democrats, or on party leadership.

Behavior like that is ridiculous and counter-productive. It only serves to breed fear, create confusion and sow discord amongst our party. Now, more than ever, and we need to unite around our shared values. We must ignore those who want to divide us and find a way to overcome the challenges that we all face together.

I hope that everyone will come around to a more realistic way of thinking and look toward the future.

Have a super weekend!

[bluestarone]

217. I applaude your VERY TRUE WORDS!!!

WELL SAID!

[Fiendish Thingy]

84. The bill hasn't even been written yet, and most of the substance has been stripped

Currently, the following has been stripped from Biden’s original proposal for BBB:

CEPP (the most substantive climate change section)- removed at Manchin’s demand;

Medicare expansion- lowering the age of eligibility and adding dental, vision, hearing aids - removed at Manchin’s demand;

Paid family and parental leave- initially reduced from 12 to 4 weeks, then stripped out entirely because Joe Manchin was concerned about creating an entitlement society

Free community college - dropped by Biden in order to meet Manchin’s top line number;

So when you say “there’s a lot in the bill”, here’s what you’re talking about that remains:

Means tested childcare with an emphasis on mean, and with a work requirement, which means almost no one will qualify;

A govt fleet of EV’s which will have difficulty getting charged because, IIRC, funding to build a nationwide network of charging stations has been stripped out of the bill;

Funding to cap unused oil wells- a good thing, but not nearly enough to reach any meaningful reduction in emission to reach reasonable climate goals.

IMO, that’s not “a lot”; it’s a shit sandwich without the bread.

[hamsterjill]

116. Exactly.

But we shouldn’t complain, right?

I am so sick of being told that “shit” is the best we can do.

[NurseJackie]

156. I'm sick of hearing people characterize real progress as being "shit".

I am so sick of being told that “shit” is the best we can do.

I'm sick of hearing people characterize real progress as being "shit". These types of temper-tantrums serve no good purpose.

But we shouldn’t complain, right?

That's right. Put that energy toward something productive. Work harder.

[hamsterjill]

157. Too bad.

I’m sick of some here cheerleading for very obvious reasons. I don’t see this as real progress. I see it as caving in to two grandstanders.

And I will complain if I feel like it. You might want to put me on ignore.

[NurseJackie]

162. Complain away. It's just a silly thing to do and serves no good purpose.

I don’t see this as real progress.

But it is progress. It may not be everything you wanted, but it's still real progress. It's certainly better than what we had. I hope you're not one of those who'd prefer absolutely nothing instead.

That's how politics goes. In the real world NOBODY gets everything they want. There's always give and take. There's always compromise. There's always the difficult and messy job of finding common ground and doing what's possible.

This was possible. All the complainers are having a tantrum because they incorrectly believed that just shouting louder would magically make it all fall into place. That's just not realistic.

People should try to be happy that we've gotten this far, and put the disappointment toward more productive outcomes.

Feel better soon.

[hamsterjill]

177. You assume that I feel bad?

I don’t feel bad. I just don’t like condescending posts that don’t recognize the fact that I have a right to an opinion that may differ from some who post massive amounts here.

This is just a message board and not real life. I come here for news and information, and sometimes entertainment.

If I want to express a different view point from yours, you assume it’s complaining. To me it’s explaining my point of view.

You assume that ALL that I do is complain - because that fits YOUR narrative. What I do and don’t do is none of your concern. I have no intention of sharing how I am involved in the party.

Yes, there is always compromise. But it’s the definition of what is compromise and what is caving that is pertinent. And your definition is no more valid than mine because both are nothing more than opinion.

There is nothing signed yet. Nothing to be happy about yet. Let’s wait and see what actually gets delivered.

There were way too many important items dropped from this bill and if we don’t gain seats in the midterms - which is going to be hard to do when entire segments of the population are being left out of this bill - then Trump will merely dictate that all that is in this bill be reversed, and his minions will oblige. Legal or illegal, he will do it out of spite.

Now, please don’t feel that it is your duty to change my mind. I relieve you of that burden. I’m fine being in disagreement with you.

So, now having lifted that burden off of you, I hope you can feel better, too.

[NurseJackie]

195. Having the "right to an opinion" doesn't mean the opinion is correct.

That's a non-defense. It's an informal fallacy. It's the same as someone saying that they have the "right to be wrong". Yes they do, but it doesn't help their argument any.

If I want to express a different view point from yours, you assume it’s complaining. To me it’s explaining my point of view.

That's an example of making a distinction without illustrating a genuine difference. When I see that kind of hair splitting it indicates to me that someone knows they're arguing from a very weak position.

If I said "the sky is blue" and someone else argued "no it's azure" that person is just splitting hairs and making a verbal distinction with no real difference. In the end, the sky is still blue. Nothing has changed.

Now, please don’t feel that it is your duty to change my mind.

No, that's rather up to reader. But I do think it's important to point out to you (and others who may have read down this far) that the type of behavior I'm observing with regard to this issue serves no good purpose. It's just people having a temper tantrum and isn't reality based.

I’m fine being in disagreement with you.

Sometimes it takes time for people to accept the fact that they're wrong. I'm confident that someday, people who feel this way will come-around and realize that this is actually a good deal, and that their initial disappointment can be channeled in a more productive way. I hope that's the case with you.

Be well. Have a great weekend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

I'm entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is an informal fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.[1][2] The statement exemplifies a red herring or thought-terminating cliché.

[hamsterjill]

198. I tire of the proselytizing.

I hope you have a nice weekend. Do try to take a few breaks from the keyboard.

[NurseJackie]

201. Well...

I tire of the proselytizing.

Then don't do it.

I understand how easy it can be for many people to view their political beliefs with the fervor of a religion... and by the same token, they can see party leaders as gods/goddesses (for lack of a better word). But that kind of "blind-faith" that what ought-to-be will magically manifest itself (ie: if everyone just believes strongly enough, or shouts loud enough, or stomps their feet hard enough, etc.) simply has no basis in reality.

The reality is that we have to accept the bad with the good. That there will always be wins, half-wins, compromise, and outright losses... and shitting on our hard-working, loyal and stalwart Democrats and Democratic leadership will not produce the desire outcome.

That's all I'm trying to say. It's just important for people to be realistic and allow these half-wins to be a source of INSPIRATION to work harder and to achieve more the next time. It truly serves no good purpose to characterize everything as a shitty loss or being "served shit" when there's a lot of good and an impressive amount of progress.

The "THIS IS SHIT" comments only demoralize everyone and make it harder to get another win (or half-win). Instead, an attitude of "THIS IS WONDERFUL! IF WE WANT MORE, THEN LET'S WORK HARDER NEXT TIME!" is the way to ensure success.

I think that's a reasonable approach, don't you? Most people can agree with that.

Be well.

[betsuni]

202. +1

[hamsterjill]

207. Why do you continue this?

You are writing volumes that I don’t even read. Do you realize that I don’t agree with you and nothing you say is going to change that? Let it go.

[NurseJackie]

213. That's okay. It's not only about one person. Others will read my words...

... and that's actually the thing that's more important.

[hamsterjill]

215. I wouldn't be too sure about that.

But hey, whatever makes you feel important.

[NurseJackie]

236. It's not about me... It's only about the truth.

That's what's important.

I'm focused on reality and building on these successes.

[hamsterjill]

237. Have a great weekend.

Seriously, get out and get some fresh air and step away from the keyboard for a while. It'll all still be here when you come back. We'll be fine without you for a little bit.

[NurseJackie]

242. Once again, it's not about me.

[sheshe2]

260. I read what NJ has to say, always do.

No need for you to swipe at her by saying:

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

But hey, whatever makes you feel important.

[hamsterjill]

264. That's your prerogative then.

But it’s not mine. I get tired of being swiped at and then chastised for swiping back and stating an opinion.

There are some posters on DU whose opinions always differ and that’s their right. But I have a right to my own. If that’s a problem for anyone here, I suggest they put me on ignore.

[sheshe2]

265. I did not swipe or chastise you.

Nor did I say you were not allowed an opinion here. Honestly, I don't think we have ever had a conversation before.

I don't use the ignore feature, I prefer to read and comment on ideas from all sides.

[hamsterjill]

267. I wasn't referring to you.

I was referring to the post you mentioned.

[sheshe2]

268. Well, you said in response to ME:

Star Member hamsterjill (12,607 posts)

264. That's your prerogative then.

But it’s not mine. I get tired of being swiped at and then chastised for swiping back and stating an opinion.

There are some posters on DU whose opinions always differ and that’s their right. But I have a right to my own. If that’s a problem for anyone here, I suggest they put me on ignore.

hamsterjill

267. I wasn't referring to you.

I was referring to the post you mentioned.

You responded to me, not the other poster.

Perhaps you should respond to the post you have an issue with and not take it out on me.

[Cha]

245. That's right... I'm reading your words &

I agree.

It's easy to "doom and gloom".. staying positive and fighting for the best possible outcome is what's productive.

[lapucelle]

252. Not only is the bill written, but the text has been posted. Focusing on what isn't in the bill

rather than what is in the bill is interesting, but counterproductive.

[mcar]

40. What was "promised?"

I recall a lot of proposals - most of them were good. I don't recall promises WRT this bill.

[hamsterjill]

43. Lowering the age for Medicare for one thing.

It was on Biden’s website. It has the support of something like 71% of voters and yet it’s not even a discussion point any more.

So I wasn’t supposed to believe him when he said he would get it done? What else was I not supposed to believe? Campaign promises now automatically mean nothing?

[mcar]

49. I would have liked that one too

as I'm 62 and hubby is retiring after this school year.

I am, however, aware of how governing works. I have no doubt Biden would have wanted to include that, but 52 senators wouldn't allow it.

Do you know of a way that could have been included - and passed - in this package?

[bluewater]

53. +1000

[BlueJac]

15. Good advice!

[malaise]

22. Correct is right

[rickyhall]

34. Actually, what we're currently calling progress is mostly returning to the New Deal & Great Society

Social Progress is a bit new, but Economic Progress would just be pre-Raygun first, then go from there.

[MineralMan]

59. Well, yes, in many ways.

We have slipped back to some degree, although we did get the ACA, which was another compromise measure.

There's a lot to do with regard to social progress and infrastructure. We have some new challenges that weren't really recognized during the New Deal and Great Society eras. Others were recognized then, as well, but not dealt with in any significant way.

We also have a pandemic underway, and the challenge of climate change added to the list of must-do things.

However, what we do not have is a solid, unified majority in either house of Congress. We do not have that, so it is difficult to make massive sweeping changes in one pass.

Maybe we can get that unbreakable majority in Congress at some point, but we do not have it right now. Not even close. So, we're going to either do what we can or accomplish nothing. The second option, however, will guarantee that we do not increase our majorities.

In fact, there is a real danger from the right that is present and threatening. That, we must overcome.

[KS Toronado]

44. Most changes are not completed in a single pass

Especially with a bold agenda like Biden's. Get what we can to help us in the midterms, and with a solid
majority in both houses we can go real bold after the midterms. Need to keep our eyes on the forest &
trees, not the leaves & branches on the ground.

[MineralMan]

48. Exactly.

[gab13by13]

51. I agree with you MM,

and there has not been one poster here who disagrees with you give a strategy for changing Manchin and Sinema's minds.

What is your strategy people? Don't even argue what is or isn't in the bill because that doesn't matter to Manchin and Sinema. Someone needs to explain why he or she thinks that if we just keep waiting and pushing that Manchin and Sinema will get on board?

Iowa votes on March 1st.

[MineralMan]

55. I'm pretty sure that Manchin and Sinema are not

going to bend, regardless of the pressure they get from others in the Senate. So, we are apparently stuck with them. However, without them, we'd still have Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader in the Senate. I can't see how that would benefit progressive legislation in any way.

So, we can't add Democrats to the Senate until 2022. In the meantime, we can get some beneficial legislation through Congress and signed into law by President Biden. So, that's what we should do, since the other option is to get nothing at all.

I can't see how that is particularly complicated, frankly.

[gab13by13]

61. It appears to me that what is being said is,

that if we don't get everything we want or were promised we won't have to worry about GQPers bashing a watered down bill we will need to worry about Democrats bashing a watered down bill.

[MineralMan]

71. Yes. However, I don't think that will be the case.

There's plenty of good stuff in the bill that's currently up for discussion. Not everything that everyone wants, but lots of beneficial stuff. I think it is just the first step, but without taking that first step, we never leave the starting gate.

I know that not everyone agrees with me, but I can't help that.

[wellst0nev0ter]

62. Beware of people obstructing Biden's agenda. Got it

And we all know which side has been doing that.

[bluewater]

65. +1000

[wellst0nev0ter]

80. Also beware of those who gaslight the vast majority of the party

into acquiescing to the whims of a vanishing minority of the caucus.

[bluewater]

90. "acquiescing to the whims of a vanishing minority of the caucus"

Sadly, I think it will take another 10-15 years of natural attrition until real progress can be made.

Right now older Democratic voters, of which I am one, are.by and large, not experiencing the same economic pain that younger working people are. Many had good jobs with good benefits and are economically comfortable and, paraphrasing President Bill Clinton, do not "feel the pain" of half the country struggling in the current economy.

[wellst0nev0ter]

104. Yes, you can see it in the cavalier attitude expressed in this thread

Too many people in the demographic you describe unironically believe we can afford to wait for meaningful change. As you said, they benefitted from decades of responsible government that simply does not exist anymore, and they won't wake up until their Social Security or Medicare gets taken away.

[MarcA]

135. McConnell called Medicare the #1 driver of debt.

The Oligarchs will try and privatize or means tests Medicare and Social Security making them another confusing, red taped welfare program. Supporters of BBB and other progressive measures must communicate continuously in all media about who opposes and truncates the BBB and those other measures.

[Celerity]

193. It is by far the biggest driver of debt in an amortised basis, BUT

a huge part of that is because it interfaces with a rapacious, for-profit wealth extraction scheme aka the American healthcare/pharma/insurance matrix, the single biggest multi-headed hydra of a scam on the planet.

People lost their minds back in in the day when the Sanders health plan was scored at 35-40 trillion usd or so over 10 years, but what most failed to account for was that the status quo cost, even with tinkering and tweaking to the ACA, etc, was at least 10-15 trillion USD more for the same period.

The US, pre COVID, was tracking to spend over 120 TRILLION USD on all healthcare costs over the 20 year period of 2018 to 2038.

Literally trillions upon trillions of dollars in potential profit. That is why it is so hard to get fundamental restructuring done.

[people]

64. This is complicated

The last thing I read is that we are "within inches" of getting agreement with Manchin & Sinema. That means to me that they have not agreed yet to what Biden has laid out now for the democrats in the house. If there is a vote today on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and not on the Build Back Better plan will Manchin & Sinema EVER vote for the Build Back Better plan? They need to be not "within inches" but rather fully and openly committed to BUild Back Better in the current version Biden is suggesting and voting for it.

[MineralMan]

79. One thing I know is that I don't know Manchin or Sinema,

so I don't have any insights into where they are on these bills, exactly. Neither does anyone else in this thread. Who does? Democratic congressional leadership and the Biden administration. They know. That is why changes are being made.

As for the timing of the various bills, again I have to defer to congressional leadership and the administration. They know. I do not, and neither does anyone in this thread. I have zero influence into those things, and nobody here does, either.

We have a representative democracy. That's the system that is in place, for better or worse. We can't change it right now, so there it is.

[betsuni]

168. +1

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. Progress is not revolution...and a shitty bill is not progress

Unless something changes today, the BBB has currently been stripped of the CEPP (the most substantive climate change section), paid leave, Medicare expansion, lower drug prices, community college, and billionaire taxes…

What remains is means tested childcare (emphasis on mean), and funding to cap unused oil wells and to buy a govt fleet of EV’s.

That’s not progress, that’s a shit sandwich without the bread.

[Voltaire2]

72. Yup.

[jalan48]

69. I hear ya. Manchin and Sinema had some fooled but we know what they are all about at this point.

[bluewater]

73. +1000

[MineralMan]

82. Well, we have to deal with that as best we can, frankly.

I have no option but to leave that to our Democratic congressional leadership and the Biden administration. I have no ability to do anything else, and neither does anyone else in this thread.

We have the situation we have. We have to deal with the reality of that for now.

[jalan48]

87. Yes, and unfortunately two Senators are torpedoing Biden's and the rest of OUR Party's agenda.

[MineralMan]

89. Well, they're limiting progress to some degree, but not stopping it.

There's that, at least.

[dpibel]

114. That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

Seems to me I've heard a whole lot of "But Manchin/Sinema say they won't vote for the bill if X and Y."

They are demanding that things be their way, or no way at all.

Why is that negotiating tactic acceptable to you from those two, but not from those unnamed people who "claim to be on our side"?

For that matter, what are some examples of these people you are warning us against?

It's a pretty swell thing to issue dire warnings in such vague terms and then, when people attempt to identify who you're talking about, say, "I never said those people."

Oracular, man.

[Hortensis]

278. Why? Not MM, but for me the difference is democracy v anti-democracy.

Like it or not, the spoiler senators are the democratic process working as it is currently designed to. Senators are intended to be very powerful and able to represent their own states without control by others. I hate that a perfect storm means these currently have the voting power they do, and I certainly don't think their choices are optimal for the nation. BUT, the voters of WV and AZ chose those two to represent them in the senate and that's that. Both have the power to say no and cannot be forced. By anyone. This is democracy. And let's repeat: They cannot be forced.

The warning, as I see it, is about those who masquerade as progressive and concerned about poverty, climate change, healthcare, all the usual, but are actually working to defeat it all -- some knowingly as professional enemy agents both foreign and domestic, but some unknowningly. Not all the anti-Democratic Party radicals and well meaning but very mislead followers of the former are on the right.

Tear it down, burn it up, and take it over. Someone described that as the grand strategy of RW Steve Bannon types, and so true.

Btw, how many social media posters have you seen advocate blackmailing or committing some other illegal/illicit ("Whatever it takes!" ) action to force Manchin to change his vote? This is anti-democracy, and those protecting our government of, by and for the people for all of us really, really couldn't allow it.

Hope this helps.

[dpibel]

280. It's the system we have, but it's not democracy

The senate is, by design and by function, an anti-democratic institution. Unless your idea of democracy is more along the lines of "one acre, one vote." Although it's not even that. It's "one arbitrary boundary, two votes."

There's nothing remotely democratic about two people who represent 6% of the population of the country being able to put the kibosh on measures that are favored by the vast majority of people in the country.

It is, for sure (lest someone jump in here and gravely intone, "But it is the rules that we play by&quot , the American system. But you are mistaken if you believe that automatically means its democracy.

In addition, you are applauding Manchin and Sinema for vigorously representing the people who elected them. How do you square that with the fact that many of the things that Manchin and Sinema are preventing are favored by the majority of people in their own little states?

[Hortensis]

281. It's the system our western liberal democracy has. Claiming a need

or moral right to overset the will of the electorate in no way excuses or justifies advocating subversion and illegal actions --- of any kind -- by anyone or any leader -- by any political orientation left or right -- by any political faction -- or by any warring nation.

I hope that's clear enough.

[Hortensis]

70. Who'd vote for corrupt, betraying Republicans if they knew who WE really are?

Or throw away their votes on LW third-party candidates?

Professional agents have always worked to deceive, confuse, and above all divide the electorate, and not all in our nation by any means.

[Sogo]

78. Funny that my read of your post

doesn't follow how it's been discussed on this thread.

I took it that you were referring to the infiltrators on this and other discussion forums who are, indeed, "fighting against us and trying to divide us through devious means."

Their contrived posts (always from a handle that has a very low number of posts) are so obvious, I'm always surprised when people respond as if they're legitimate. And it's almost amusing when other fake posters (also with low numbers of posts) respond on the original post to keep it going....

[MineralMan]

83. Yeah, well, I'm used to that, I guess.

You are correct, I think.

[CentralMass]

117. Sure

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

180. 👍

[Beastly Boy]

81. You are in very good company this morning.

Most progressive icons today, including Bernie, The Squad, Ro Khana, etc., are now convinced that progress is not revolution, and that incrementalism in a representative democracy is a more effective tool to achieve progress than revolution. This is how we got the Presidency, the majority in the House and the Senate, and this is the reason why all progressive lawmakers are firmly behind the Biden agenda. This is why we can enjoy the privilege of fuming about the biggest expansion of the progressive agenda in decades as being not enough. But think of the alternative to being in control of both houses and the Presidency: we would have been fuming about more corporate tax breaks, a far more conservative judiciary and more institutionalized voter suppression instead. If I were to chose the subject for my discontent, I would certainly prefer the former.

Some revolutionaries will naturally disagree and reject incrementalism. But that is the distinction between a revolutionary and a progressive, and I would remind the revolutionaries, their conviction and sincerity notwithstanding, that their record of accomplishment sucks.

[MineralMan]

88. Thanks. I'm afraid that's how I see it as well.

I don't necessarily like it, but that's the reality of things at the moment. So, lets get everything we can get, rather than nothing. Sadly, that is always the case in our system of government.

[Nixie]

101. "Progress is not Revolution."

Amen.

[dlk]

109. With all of the hand-wringing in the MSM about Democrats, nothing is said about

How Republicans are governing. This double standard has become very old and tired.

[Joinfortmill]

110. Totally agree.

[Caliman73]

111. Our side includes many diverse points of view.

I understand the sentiment and I also get tired of seeing people "bashing" Democratic leaders. I have no problems however with criticism in the context of a discussion about policy.

What I don't like is when people just post things like, "Dems never do ... " or "When are we going to fight...." without ANY kind of suggestion as to what we should be doing differently.

MM, this country was founded on Revolution. The old system was not working so the people who were in the Colonies rebelled against the monarchy. This country also progressed through "Revolution" the Civil War was caused by one group of people, wanting to maintain a social and economic system that kept other human beings as property with no rights and recognition of their humanity. The Southern States tried to rebel against the shifting of ideas and they lost, and we were able to make progress.

The Civil Rights movements of the 20's through the 60's were not "revolutions" in the sense of overthrowing the government, but they ere not "steady" change either, they were fundamental shifts in the way that government recognized the rights of certain groups of Americans. They were loud, and disruptive, and for a long time "well meaning" people were upset by MLK marching all around causing problems. Until they saw the footage of the hoses and the dogs unleased by the likes of Bull Connor, there was a push for Black people to be patient and wait for steady progress.

When Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta organized Mexican and Filipino farm laborers to fight the exploitation, it took 5 years. 5 years of hunger strikes, boycotts, beatings, arrests, etc... to gain recognition and change peoples lives. That wasn't slow and steady progress, it was a revolution.

There are always going to be discussions and disagreements within our coalition of Democratic groups. The Democratic Party is the ONLY vehicle for likely change in our political structure at this time. People will push and others will push back. We need to engage, in good faith and listening to the plight of others.

I 100% agree that change is not completed in a "single pass". I think that the problem that some people have is that change is not being completed in several hundred passes.

I think that people are frustrated and/or they maybe can't articulate their ideas in a better way. I definitely think that there are people out there who are trying to exploit the frustration of some within the coalition. There are people who see an opportunity to push the narrative of the Democrats being "Just as bad" as the Republicans and that is a bullshit narrative. The reality though, is that most people, when asked directly about all of the policies that have been proposed by the progressive coalition, like the policies and want those policies. It is only when the lies about "socialism" and bankrupting the US, culture wars, lazy people getting more that the hard working people, etc... that those policies lose their luster.

We do need to find a way to work together as best we can. We absolutely do need to be careful of people arguing in bad faith about the failings of "the establishment". We also need to NOT automatically label anyone who has a problem with the pace of change as someone who is trying to sabotage the process. We need to engage and ask questions to figure out what their motives are.

[FoxNewsSucks]

112. That's not a wrong concept,

having a steady change to the better.

In practice, though, it's been used to continually get progressives to accept less and ending up with sometimes less and sometimes nothing. It's never been used to get conservadems to give up protecting their corporate and billionaire donors. THe ACA is an example. We were told that to get it through, we had to "compromise and settle, and wait to fix it in the future this is just a starting point." 11 years later, some of the ACA has been undermined, not improved and we're still at the mercy of price-gouging for-profit insurers.

Once again, it's looking the way some predicted a few months ago. When progressives and conservadems "compromised" a 6T plan down to 3.5T + "some infrastructure". When that was split into two separate bills, the writing was on the wall. Conservadems would get their way and the 3.5T would never pass because they would also fail to keep their word and live up to the bargain they made.

That should also be kept in mind when being aware of people pretending to be on our side. Whether it is troll infiltrators posting here or elected "democrats" who work against Democratic policy and politicians.

[gab13by13]

113. OK you all or nothing people,

I believe that you were part of the Democratic group who keeps claiming, Trust in Pelosi. Well Speaker Pelosi just came out and said to not embarrass president Biden, she is calling for a vote on the infrastructure bill.

OK you people who love and trust in Pelosi, get on board. I still have faith in her leadership, she knows what is going on and I don't.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

283. ??? I've noticed it seems like the opposite. Nt

[berni_mccoy]

119. Like Manchin and Sinema? I've been saying for some time they are only pretending to be on our side

They are clearly not.

[MineralMan]

121. And your solution for that is?

I don't like either of them. I want their votes, though, on something. How hard is that to figure out?

So, if they will vote for a less sweeping bill, but won't for a more sweeping bill, what's your suggestion? No bill at all?

Reality. It often sucks, but it's sure as Hell real.

[berni_mccoy]

123. Be patient and pass both bills together. This is the only way

To ensure the entire package passes. All or nothing. This is the way.

[MineralMan]

128. Do you suppose that our Democratic congressional leadership

hasn't considered that? I'm sorry, but I'm completely out of this loop, as far as influence goes. I have to rely on our leaders to get things done. I suggest that we all have to do that, quite frankly.

[berni_mccoy]

130. Pelosi was pushing the house to pass the BIF before Biden leaves

[crud]

120. A lot of talk about the 2 senators

and what could move them. Just a thought...I would give them everything they want on the BBB if they would dump the filibuster for their voting rights bill. We need to secure our elections to win more seats.

[MineralMan]

125. See, though, the thing is that neither you nor I have any influence on

all that. None whatsoever.

We are therefore forced to let the Democratic congressional leadership handle this, along with President Biden, in the best way possible. I'm quite certain they are working on that, even as we bicker here on DU.

I have zero influence on Manchin or Sinema. Nobody here does.

[crud]

134. personally

I just really hope they can get voting rights done. I always felt that the BBB would be a compromise. Happy to get something instead of nothing. I hope they are getting something else out of them in the way of voting rights.

[MineralMan]

136. That's probably going to require killing the filibuster.

That will also be a tough battle, once again.

[UnderThisLaw]

127. In general or on DU?

I’ve seen plenty of the latter

[MineralMan]

129. Both.

[SYFROYH]

132. " Progress is not Revolution.". Nice dog whistle, MM.

[MineralMan]

139. Hmm...

I don't see any dogs, though...except my two, who took a strong interest in my lunch of Stouffer's Swedish meatballs. That gets them eager every time, even though they get none of it.

I'm not sure what it is you find so amusing, though, nor what you think my "whistle" is.

[Celerity]

222. a helpful tip (if this is what you had)

köttbullar (Swedish meatballs) should never be served with Italian pasta, eeeeek

Stouffer's Swedish meatballs

this is a proper plate:

köttbullar med potatismos, gräddsås, pressgurka, och rårörda lingon

[MineralMan]

223. As you know, I'm not a purist. I like noodles,

whatever their shape or origin. Call them fettuccini or egg noodles, but they go just fine with any sort of meatballs and sauce.

And meatballs aren't necessarily Swedish. They're meatballs. Every European culture makes them, and serves them in various ways.

As it happens, those Stouffer ones are quite tasty, which is my primary criterion for my desk lunches.

The second plate you show looks good too, of course. Takes more prep and cooking time, though. I'd eat that, for sure.

[Celerity]

224. 'And meatballs aren't necessarily Swedish.'

thus my specificity:

[MineralMan]

234. Ah, well neither are the meatballs in the Stouffer's product Swedish.

Of course, I've eaten many, many "Swedish" meatballs. They've been very different. I've also made many meatballs of various types.

There are many recipes for "Swedish meatballs." And for Italian meatballs and meatballs from all over the planet.

My personal favorite meatballs are made from a mixture of lamb and reindeer meat. But the second ingredient is pretty hard to find, really. On the other hand, I ate some meatballs made with camel meat at the Minnesota State Fair a few years ago. They were served with a very spicy sauce.

I like meatballs and fishballs (fiskeboller), I've even made meatballs from a mix of shrimp and crab with rice. My walleye and wild rice fishballs are pretty amazing, too.

"Swedish" meatballs are whatever someone makes under that name. There is no pure Swedish meatball recipe, I'm afraid. Serve them with whatever you like. All meatballs are good.

[BannonsLiver]

133. And the purity brigade goes to their default "victim" position right off the bat in the responses.

And so it begins…

[MineralMan]

137. So it continues, anyhow.

As you say.

At least nobody has gone for a personal attack on me so far. Not really, anyhow.

[betsuni]

170. +1

[Scrivener7]

254. Wasn't that the intention?

[EmeraldCoaster]

138. My favorite DUer.

Wisdom from a great thinker. I always appreciate your messages MineralMan.

[onecaliberal]

141. My point is all of the things people need are out of the bill in order TO PROTECT BILLIONAIRES.

We have watched our rights incrementally being taken from us to the extent that recons are now after democracy. We're steadily making progress alright. Sadly it's going in the wrong direction.

[moniss]

142. What

you say is true but also what others are saying is true also. There is no longer time. Not for the climate change, not for the democracy and not for the people. Crumbs at a time are no longer able to keep things going. I respect most of your opinions but the fact is you and those advising to take a gutted bill and "wait" for more somewhere possibly down the road do not see that if we had taken the same approach during Vietnam we would likely have been there at least as long as the Afghan deal if not longer. People need to understand hard realities. Daycare in my area is averaging almost $150.00 per day per child. What is the incrementalist answer for average young parents who need help right now today and not "next election" or "maybe the one after that"? The same goes for seniors on Medicare who are told to sit by for another few years and take a free coffee at McDonalds while the wealthy and the corporations have another course of prime rib.

The same is true for measures to mitigate the damage brought on by climate change. More "global conferences" without real action are nothing but cover for high pronouncements about intent and cover for inaction beyond a few more incrementalist crumbs. Always endless money for the wealthy and the corporations but when it comes to the people then the powers that be want to cry they can't afford it. I've watched over 6 decades of this incrementalist crap get us to the edge of losing democracy itself. I am done with appeasement of the people like Manchin and Sinema even if that means things get stalled completely. There is much that can be done to make it clear to both of them that the activists and the party will poor massive resources into burning their careers to the ground. But that looks like it won't happen because the incrementalists are determined to announce ahead of time before any program or bill is even discussed that they are in mortal fear of the opposition and are willing to give up nearly everything until the other side stops demanding concessions. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

[MineralMan]

143. Yes, time is running out for many things.

However, bills that aren't passed and signed into law fix nothing. Nor does losing Congress in 2022.

Both of those events are certainly possible. If they occur, far more time will pass without any action on measures that are desperately needed.

We need to pass useful bills, get more Democrats elected, and then pass more useful and much-needed bills. If we fail to do those things, we may miss our opportunity altogether. That, too, is certainly possible.

[moniss]

147. You miss

the point here. The time for incrementalism is over. Period. It's not a matter of time running out on problems. It has indeed run out. If we had a good deal more time we could accept incremental change and the inevitable claw-backs that the other side would make to even those small improvements. It's over. They are now aggressively and openly taking over the machinery of elections in the states. They even announce it to the world. There needs to be fundamental change and that will be difficult and probably traumatic to a degree but we are at the end. There is not another 10 years and then 10 after that. The crooked boss is a hair away from taking over the town and he is trying to succeed by hoping that purchasing a couple of trees for the front yard of the orphanage will make him seem like his intentions aren't really so bad because maybe we can get him to give them a new coal burning stove next year.

[Hortensis]

229. What if intransigence caused the entire thing to fail?

The Republicans are extremely close to getting control of congress next November. McConnell probably fantasizes about Democrats failing to pass both. Once in control of the budget he can pass out contracts as he wishes to whom he wishes.

Normally, it takes double-digit years for the electorate's demands and all the rest of the stars to line up to pass major legislation. 17 years passed between the defeat of a national healthcare plan in the 1993 and passage of the ACA in 2010, which is almost exactly what political scientists predicted in in 1993. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people, continued to die from lack of healthcare, millions made destitute; continued great need and suffering did not make it happen sooner.

Missing this opportunity is not like forgetting ice cream and putting it on the list for next time.

And the next change might not happen for many decades, on the other side of great national decline and disaster, if a RW authoritarian coup d'etat succeeds in the next couple of years. They intend to dismantle everything we've done over the past 90 years. tRumpists look at strongman dictators and want their own; they never look at the state of the people dictated to or the state of the roads.

[moniss]

239. Moscow Mitch

and Manchin desperately want that infrastructure bill that already passed the Senate. It is loaded with billions of dollars for their favored donors. That is why they forced the separation of traditional infrastructure investment from human resources investment. They figured that they could make a hollow promise about passing both at the same time (which never made sense anyway since it's akin to a vendor telling you he can sell you a hot dog and a bun individually but he can't sell you a hot dog in the bun) while doing the ping-pong act between Manchin and Sinema until the human part of the bill is gutted to almost nothing. Their calculation was that in the end no matter what the "hard infrastructure" bill passed by the Senate would eventually get voted through by the House in order not to have that go down also. I'm saying don't give in to that strategy or you will deal with it on every last thing of any importance. Once they know you will cave they are not just going to walk away from that tactic. So you cannot give in and you must show them that you are ready to blow their plans for billions for their donors out of the water and just pass extensions to the already existing Highway programs etc. The alternative is to try and go to the electorate and convince them to give us another shot even though we only brought incremental change while we promised fundamental change. The average voter doesn't get into the whole thing of knowing politics like we do and that Manchin etc. hamstrung the situation. Combine that with trying to overcome massive voter suppression and we can be fairly certain of the outcome. But if you show people you will fight for them all the way and get our messaging straight on that we stand a better chance in my opinion. It is hard to convince people that our own members didn't castrate Biden and more years will make it better because they in fact did castrate him with help and support from the other side. social and economic resistance is all we have left. Just like the Civil Rights marchers, anti-war protests etc. resistance to tyranny with social and economic pressure does work.

[Hortensis]

241. No, they are not desperate for that bill, nor are their current donors,

future members of a ruling cabal. They're desperate to defeat us.

Most potential Democratic voters are going about reasonably rational lives and have almost no idea what is and was in these bills. They will know if we do nothing. Fail. Fail them.

There is tremendous good in those bills for people, and so much that's incredibly necessary. Now.
Not someday maybe. Imo, to believe otherwise is irrational.

And for 30 congressmen to trash them would be as tragically destructive and socially insane as anything the Republicans have done so far.

[moniss]

269. To

ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars that will go to large contractors etc. and pretend they don't want it is not correct. Nobody is saying that the first bill wouldn't help different projects and people. But to not see that you can use the passage of it as leverage for the BBB bill and in the future is to be oblivious to how negotiation works. Actually walking out of the car dealership and waiting a few days will often get you a call from the salesman saying they have accepted your offer. The highway/bridges etc. continue to be funded by extensions to existing legislation and that has been going on for several years and as one deeply involved in them I am always amused by how the centrists posture on infrastructure spending and then when something passes engage in agreeing to huge give-backs later on to what they just passed. Meanwhile they can go around puffing themselves up over having passed something initially. The record on follow-through is incredibly weak.

The time to get fundamental change is here. The status quo doesn't want fundamental change. They want to only allow small, scattered incremental change because those things are most easily hamstrung in subsequent budgeting/legislation. We either fight for fundamental change or we keep going along with the pattern of the last 40 years and keep passing bills with big sounding themes and price tags and hold them up to the public while knowing full well that weeks later the give-backs will begin. I say enough of the smoke and mirrors.

[MineralMan]

232. So, what's your plan?

Do you have one? If so, lay it out for us so we can understand it, OK?

[moniss]

238. You

see what is already freaking out the corporations and the Chamber of Commerce types about not having employees? We need to be confrontational and aggressive and entertain the notion of a general strike. Oh I know how everybody will pooh,pooh it but they are fast putting their people in place to control and overrule elections so they will not fear anything at the ballot box. The only thing we really have left now is to plan and organize for major work stoppages to hurt their bottom line. That is one part of a very much needed national plan of resistance. I know it will be difficult but there is little doubt that the other party is not about governance in any sense but rather power, maintaining that power, wielding that power to roll back and cut programs for people in order to try to keep them desperate and to use that power to punish and destroy any opposition. So a plan of resistance going forward and into the future is needed. Money and the loss of it is the most powerful tool we have against them in order to end this nightmare. Other countries use this tactic of resistance and their is no reason we should not at least try.

[Hortensis]

244. Sounds like you want two general uprisings against the government.

That's never happened before!

That's a joke -- Except for surprise internal coups, almost all ends of democracies involve uprisings on both the right and the left. Both need societal chaos to bring down the government, or in your version force the elected government to submit to the will of people who feel as you do. In the nature of things, the mainstream has failed to maintain stability and is overwhelmed by them both.

So, Moniss, given the current situation -- with a fanatically aggressive RW populist mob of many millions, their chosen vicously depraved wannabe dictator, assisted by ruthless Republican insurrectionists embedded in all areas of government -- which side do you imagine would win here?

Tear it down, burn it up, take it over!

[moniss]

270. History

in the US shows that civil resistance does work. I guess you forgot about the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, the end of the draft etc. as just some examples. You apparently think that these would have passed, or passed eventually, without the organizing and civil resistance. Additionally nobody is calling for an "uprising" other than a general strike type of civil resistance. But we can always keep going along the path of incremental change. Until things get so bad that it will finally sink in to people that the phrase "too little, too late" fits incrementalism perfectly. At that point I expect the vast majority of the country to begin to whine "Why didn't somebody do something?" Nero has been tuning up in the background for long enough and he has now approached the stage to perform. He will be joined by the piper so that the audience can be dazzled by a shiny bauble here or there while society goes to ruin. The time for being able to wait for major fundamental investment in the people has expired and shows clearly how incrementalism has failed. But some will be even more wealthy and powerful and the roads and bridges can be shiny and new as the rest all falls to pieces. Nero and the piper will be catching a ride out of town on a new super highway.

[Hortensis]

273. Good trouble? Like the #BLM marches? You must know

#BLM did not force tRump or McConnell to so much as reschedule a dinner with their donors. Silly.

A whole lot more would be required just to accomplish that.

For all the angry delusions about who's obstructing, the Republicans are the ones you'd have to force to obey. (What does it mean for your good trouble that so many talking this kind of talk choose to cast Democrats as opposing the will of the people?)

Democratic senate and house committees, in concert with the Democratic president, developed what's called the Biden Plan -- it is THEIR plan, the Democratic Party plan.

So, back to it: what would you have to do to force McConnell to instruct his senators to vote yes to everything?

Ridiculous. This is the real world, and if you came out in force it's actually probable now that the seething RW would come out in much bigger force. Because it was their time. Because they were told to. If Biden's government couldn't hold, tRump would be in the WH for dinner. And you'd be running and hiding for your lives -- except for any "good" troublemakers who joined them in an ecstasy of virtuous civic action. It may have escaped you, but some of the more zealous posters here frequently call , angrily,for criminal and anti-democracy actions against "the government." A whole lot like their angry counterparts on the right.

You've already answered, so no need. I'm just hoping you'll wonder, just for a moment: What would you have to do to force the Republicans in congress, and throw in the Democratic senators if you feel a need, to pass these two bills intact?

[moniss]

274. I normally

would stop a dialogue like this when the back and forth is just deflection and argument more than anything informative. I'm making an exception in this case. Nowhere did you see me reference the BLM protests or anything that has taken place for civil resistance in the last few years. Nowhere did I say the Republicans weren't obstructing everything. The infrastructure bill that passed the Senate was absolutely NOT the sole product of Democratic input and control. As I said I usually wouldn't have bothered with a response to posts that begin to veer into sort of a direction of name calling as you seem to attribute opinions you don't share as "silly" and "ridiculous". I have been a follower of DU from the beginning and I come and comment usually infrequently but when I do it is encouraging to find factual back and forth exchange of information and discussion. This has not been that and I made a mistake in thinking it would be.

[Hortensis]

276. But, did you give thought to how the Republicans could be

moved to support these bills? Just a few of them would be needed.

McConnell is not desperate to pass the BIF, with its big contracts all designed and awarded as Democrats choose.

Badly underestimating him is apparently what's required to "justify" the desire of some to go for all or nothing with the lives of 200 million Americans, and they would find just how mistaken they were if they went up against him.

McConnell's determined to win back power in the next election. I know he'd be glad, but my guess is he'd be overjoyed if the Democratic Party engineered its own total failure by willfully trashing this historic opportunity.

Including the millions of good jobs that will be created, universal pre-K, and taking many big actions fight climate change (more jobs!). Hope is bad news for Republicans at election time.

[Patton French]

144. Yes, Indeed.

And today/tonight will be telling in many regards.

[brooklynite]

145. And who would those people be?

[MineralMan]

146. Just what I described.

[MineralMan]

155. I'm not about naming names.

Mine was a simple post. It was my opinion about this important matter.

I'm interested in those who think it was anything other than that. That's as far as I will go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. No, it's not a "simple post". It's quite elliptical. You've tried hard to be unclear.

I'm sure you know that. I'd guess that's because you want to draw out some other people, and either get someone else to say it clearly and take the risk of getting a post deleted, or because you want the people you are criticising to reply and take the flak. but I'm fucked if I can work out who. However, I hope you see that you can be quite divisive when you post this way.

[MineralMan]

164. I'll just let the post stand on its own.

[Celerity]

179. +10000000000000000

[Shermann]

151. Yes beware the "Concern Troll" nt

[Baltimike]

152. This is a great post. Thank you for it. nt

[Moebym]

153. I completely agree with you

Sadly, the ones clamoring for revolution are the loudest and therefore the ones most likely to draw attention.

Slow and steady progress is lasting and consequential. It is not, however, exciting, nor does it inflame passions or inspire as much as protests, marches, and passionate speeches. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few have the patience for slow and steady when we have instant rushes of adrenaline and endorphins at our fingertips.

[AZProgressive]

167. Like the OP

Not everyone can be a Freeper then come here to tell us who is or isn’t on our side. Threads like this are why I like Twitter better.

[Autumn]

182. Twitter and TikTok beat anything out there.

[MineralMan]

221. It's certainly easier to find people who agree with you 100% on Twitter.

No question about it. You can follow those people and not others, so all you see is agreement. That's why I don't really use Twitter that much.

[AZProgressive]

230. What I mean is everyone is who they say they are on there

There are anonymous accounts but you don’t have to worry about CC trolls or things like that you do have to worry about on DU.

[MineralMan]

231. Do you really think that's true?

Maybe among the people you follow.

I see what you are trying to do without letting folks know. However, here I am, and I've been here now since 2008. I post so much here that it's pretty easy to see what I think and believe. This is the only place I've posted about politics for many, many years now.

I'm not going to play this game. Nope.

[AZProgressive]

233. I'm here since 2008 also

I saw you do the same thing creating suspicion among members over Obama policies like how some disagreed with some of his policies. Biden is a lot more liberal than Obama so the same thing isn’t going to work as well and besides most here are upset with Manchin & Sinema rather than Biden besides a lot of the liberal folks left or were banned over the years.

CC trolls are another issue but you are more likely to see right wing opinions from them. I see trolls mostly in LBN or the gun forum was a haven for them a number of years.

[MineralMan]

235. There are some Conservative Cave moles hanging around on DU.

There always have been. They're pretty careful, mostly.

I call things as I see them, and from my own personal experience and political perspective. I became a Democrat in 1960, when I started volunteering for JFK's campaign. I've never been anything else.



Not everyone is the same. Truly.

[Celerity]

169. I have a type who I consider your framing apropos for: those who insisted that we HAD to pass

Last edited Thu Oct 28, 2021, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

the BIF ASAP, and oh, well, if the BBB did not pass at all, we still had more than enough to have a Blue Wave in 2022, even though if THAT had happened, we would have failed on NINETY-ONE per cent of Biden's (NOT the Progs original numbers, that 91% gutting is based off BIDEN'S numbers) proposals for the 2 bills, and most all of that remaining 9 per cent of the new spend was for long range, huge projects, the vast majority which would not even kick in at all before the 2022 midterms.

yep

[George II]

173. Eureka, I think you've got it! The root of the word "progressive" is "progress".

[BradAllison]

175. Is this like the movie character who says.....

..."Don't trust anyone" and then turns out to be the big bad?

[traitorsgalore]

181. 80% of Americans don't want to be thrown under the bus again

I'm on their side and just voted all D in Virginia as I always have. Why do you always question people's allegiance? You sound like the "other side" you're talking about.

[Roy Rolling]

185. C'mon, MM

You unintentionally did what you warned us about—people trying to divide us.

Your division between progressives and moderates is noted—only time will tell if I’m better off having been warned about these two separate camps. Regardless, your advice is taken. 😁

[KentuckyWoman]

187. Well that blew up quick.

probably not any popcorn left.

We have a local candidate running for a non-partisan seat as a "progressive" but it takes almost no homework to see they are what used to be called libertarian.

I regularly see various sources claiming to be supportive of the causes I hold dear but it is obvious they are working to push a narrative of doubt, or off point or introduce some side show to get eyes off the ball.

When it comes to the internet we really don't know who is on the other side. We have to use our own critical thinking.

[hunter]

188. I'm a radical environmentalist and some kind of socialist.

Nevertheless, my politics are entirely practical which makes me a fierce supporter of the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party is the devil and the fringe leftists and clueless greens only get in the way of any actual progress.

Politics is a messy business. Politicians like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi know it. I trust they are fighting for many things I believe in.

[czarjak]

189. Rick Santorum is beside himself...

Urges people to call and thank them for doing the dirty work. With friends like these?

[Dystopian Optimist]

197. But if THEY decide to foist a Revolution upon us,

it'd be crazy on our part to not be prepared!

[betsuni]

199. That will be the most effective anti-Democratic propaganda.

Message that Democrats control government but stop progressive polices on purpose because they're corrupted by "donor class." oligarchs, billionaires, same as Republicans but worse: "corporate Dems." Shame on the person who started this bullshit..

[olegramps]

204. We have two outstanding examples, both of who we elected: Sinema and Manchin.

They, along with Sander's pie in sky crew, they will destroy any chance for advancing the party in the up coming elections. Sanders has been proposing bills for years that have absolutely no chance of passage. To my knowledge, his record of successful bills amounts a couple of bills: naming a post office and the passage of a sure fire bill of veterans benefits which few would dare to oppose.

The results are more than disappointing, they are paving the way for a Republican sweep in 2022 and the return of Trump. If that happens you can kiss your rosy future goodbye. It could actually lead to the destruction of the Republic and the establishment of a authoritarian presidency, i.e., a dictatorship with Trump as the Fuhrer. This has been the dream of oligarchs for decades that would result in the dominating the executive branch and the destruction of the balance of power created by the founders of our Republic. This is not some exaggeration. The Federalist Society, of which this is the major cause, has succeeded in dominating the courts by the Republicans by installing their candidates while blocking any that oppose this takeover of the courts by judges who are dedicated to the concept of the establishment of a dictator. Why does anyone need to wonder why Trump admires every bloody dictator. Its what he aspires to become. Sorry folks, but it may too late.

[MineralMan]

209. A Very Good Point, Indeed.

Some people appear to think that I was only talking about progressives. You are the first to recognize that pretenders can come from any political position.

Thank you.

[Autumn]

208. What I have to say this morning is I am very aware of who is pretending to be on my side.

No one on the internet exists in a vacuum.

[betsuni]

210. What side?

[Celerity]

211. well.............

No one on the internet exists in a vacuum.

[Autumn]

212. Okay Cel. She might be in a vacuum. But her posts are there for all time.

You always make my day.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

214. Like Manchin and Sinema? If they would commit to voting for the Infrastructure

Bill, it would go a long, long way toward progress.

"I think that the House should not be voting for the infrastructure bill unless they see very clear language and know that there are 50 senators on board, whatever the agreement may be." Sen. Bernie Sanders

"I think (the framework) shows tremendous momentum, but we want to see the actual text because we don't want any confusion, misunderstandings," My understanding is that the framework is very general, so let's turn it into legislative text.

If 90% of the text is already written as the speaker has said, then it should be very quick, we can do it anywhere from two to seven days." Rep. Jayapal

Certainly not too much to ask. Make sure there is no devious fine print, and get the Senators who are obstructing passage to commit to voting for the Bill prior to the House vote.

Never sign any document, unless you clearly understand what it says. Especially if you are an elected official.

[MineralMan]

218. Yes, they are examples of what I said.

Now, you are the second person to recognize that in this thread.

Pretenders can come from anywhere.

Excellent.

[olegramps]

216. It may be a shock, but every one of todays'politician has one major and sole objective: Reelection.

A seat in the congress is worth millions. It provides access to strategic information that can be result is handsome profits. Every bill that crosses their desk is evaluated on one and only one criteria: How will this affect my reelection? It has lead to the establishment of professional politicians whose elections are little more than manufactured shams. If they are caught, their party quickly comes to their aid. Surprise, Surprise! A slap on the wrist and told quietly told to be more careful. You wouldn't want to damage our reputation.

It was supposed to be representative form of government. It has been a great success. It solely represents the winner, not the people who naively believe their bull crap. There is only one solution; Term Limits. Now what are the chances that the same politicians who are responsible for "real progressive" legislation is going to vote to kill the golden goose?

A snowball in hell chances are better. We are screwed, blued and tattooed.

[bluestarone]

219. Again MM i

AGREE with EVERYTHING you're saying!! Why others cannot see you're point of view surprises me! Cooler heads will prevail, for sure!

[MineralMan]

220. Thanks. Yes, cooler heads will prevail.

We'll get bills passed, despite all efforts to keep that from happening. Those bills won't please everyone, of course, but that is almost always the case.

What is important is that beneficial bills are needed right now. Their passage will help Democrats win in 2022. If they fail, those wins will be far, far more difficult in the current political environment.

Am I a pragmatist? Yes, indeed I am. We need legislative action to create progress. Without it, we end up with nothing.

[ismnotwasm]

266. K&R

[Violet_Crumble]

272. Two questions, Mineral Man...

1. Can you define what 'our side' is? I could assume it'd be the side that cares about the community, believes in universal healthcare, paid parental leave, and all that stuff, but I don't like assuming, so I thought I'd ask.

2. Who are the 'people pretending to be on our side'? Any names? Examples? How are they pretending?

When it comes to change and progress, sometimes it is revolution and sometimes it's not. I'll use an example of universal healthcare. Here in Australia, it was a revolution rather than slow and incremental change. There was a social revolution in the late 60's/early 70's that led to a Labor government that introduced social change like Medicare, gender equality in the workplace, shortened working hours, protection for employees, maternity leave of 3 months etc etc. Those legislative changes are now considered a baseline that neither side of politics would be game to remove and there's been incremental improvements to them in the decades since.

Having given that example, I'm aware that the US is a whole very screwed up different thing from democratic countries around the world and large numbers of people blindly and tribally support a party that stands for everything that will make their lives miserable and quash their individual voices. Here's my solution. Get rid of that fillibuster thing. It doesn't make sense and it has no place in a democratic system. Then get that original bill that protects voting rights sorted out. My bet is Joe Manchin and that Arizona one whose name I can't remember will vote against it, or they may cave once they realise what their place in history will look like. Then get the infrastructure bill done because collapsing bridges and stuff is something only Republicans could support.

I do have another solution, though it's very incremental and longterm. Education in the US is pretty weak if it's churning out people who don't have the ability to tell the difference between facts and conspiracy theories. Democrats should focus on the grass roots side of things and get the messaging and education side of things right before it's too late and the US no longer is a democracy...

[betsuni]

275. Pretending to be on our (Democratic) side: Our Revolution/Brand New Congress/Justice Democrats/

The People's Party/Sunrise Movement/third parties/populists (one name I can't say who is responsible for much of the damage) -- claiming to be on the Left but considers the Democratic Party/liberals corrupt/immoral/evil/ideologically bankrupt/elites: the true roadblock to progress because beholden to wealthy donors, corporations, billionaires, Wall St., Big Pharma, etc., with the same economic policies (ignoring working/middle classes) as Republicans, but worse because they could pass progressive polices if they wanted to but don't (FDR and LBJ are often mentioned but that they had large majorities in Congress and a non-insane opposition party is top secret). Lesser of two evils, half a "bowl of shit" and so on. Ignorance of how government works and history are essential for believers.

The Democratic Party is the progressive party.

The ideology insists dysfunction in government is only because of money in politics, everyone's corrupt except for them. Populists need lots of enemies but the Republican Party isn't one (they think Republican voters suffer from economic anxiety (because Democrats ignore them) and they're actually democratic socialists waiting to join the working class revolution against the 1%). Therefore the Democratic Party must be replaced by true progressives who are pure and righteous. A crusade/revolution.

Same progressive goals as the Democratic Party, but when there are slight policy differences, demonize Democrats by attacking character as corrupt, immoral and evil. The label "progressive" is denied to Democrats, replaced by "corporate Dems," "neoliberals," establishment," "elites" "status quo" and other insulting buzzwords. They believe lots of myths: bully pulpit, purity tests, misinformation.

It's a long story. Republicans have horribly polarized the country, and this absolutely unnecessary non-Republican polarization encourages cynicism

I highly recommend this book, available in full online that explains (the only source I've found that really does). Steven Stoft's "Ripped Apart, How Democrats Can Fight Polarization to Win."

[Violet_Crumble]

277. Thanks for the recommendation.

I shall go find it and have a read