NoShit....

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. No clue. Hints? Is there text that could be posted? An image that could be posted?

[Elessar Zappa]

3. You can't see the tweet?

[Tetrachloride]

29. I use a twitter blocking technique.

1. If I use Safari normally or
2. if someone posts the plain text of a tweet,
3. or another browser without a blocking

then i can read the tweet.

But i don’t like to disable my twitter blocking.

[Celerity]

4. here

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Thank you!

[Celerity]

12. yw!

[Hoyt]

2. More Reich BS of the type that helped defeat Clinton in 2016.

[Celerity]

5. how is THIS

It’s the filibuster or voting rights.
The filibuster or abortion rights.
The filibuster or a living wage.
The filibuster or democracy.

This should not be a hard choice.

More Reich BS of the type that helped defeat Clinton in 2016BS of the type that helped defeat Clinton in 2016.

??????

preposterous hot take

[Hoyt]

6. Reich is criticizing Democrats, in case you have not noticed. He did the same leading up to 2016,

Last edited Thu Dec 9, 2021, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

and his BS hurt Clinton.

That's my opinion, you are welcome to yours.


Edit, since some folks can't read--

If Reich had said he is for voting rights, abortion rights, living wage and democracy, I would not have said anything because we all are.

But he didn't, he criticized our leaders for not removing filibuster. There's a big difference that apparently some have difficulty comprehending. This is the same kind of Reich BS that helped beat Clinton. There is a reason Clinton, Obama, and Biden do not seek Reich's counsel anymore.

[pbmus]

8. Frankly, I don't give two shits about which side of the aisle you stand..

If you are opposing voting rights, climate change, you are not a democrat, you are a fascist.

[Celerity]

10. Not only that, but nothing Reich said in that short tweet is criticising Democrats.

It was claimed to be, but no evidence was supplied so far as of my typing this.

[Hoyt]

13. Not opposing voting rights. I do think Reich needs to shut up about fillibuster because

he criticizing Democrats who have decided it best not to remove it.

Now, go back and read my original post without pointing at, and mouthing, each word. I said nothing about opposing voting rights. I support Democrats in the know, who think it would be unwise to remove filibuster.

[Celerity]

9. That in no way explains how what he said was in any way that would you first claimed, and now

further claim:

Reich is criticizing Democrats

Again, all he said was:

It’s the filibuster or voting rights.
The filibuster or abortion rights.
The filibuster or a living wage.
The filibuster or democracy.

This should not be a hard choice.


how is that

More Reich BS of the type that helped defeat Clinton in 2016.

and now this:

Reich is criticizing Democrats

????


Neither of those two positings are backed up in terms of any evidence provided by you.

All you did was add a new tangential rationale that did not answer my precise and narrow initial question that asked specifically about your initial claim.

[Hoyt]

14. Celerity, yes he is criticizing Democrats for not removing filibuster. Typical Reich comment.

If he had said he is for voting rights, abortion rights, living wage and democracy, I would not have said anything. But he didn't.

[Celerity]

18. Hundreds of elected Dems, thousands of pundits and journos, and millions of Dem voters

have said the same thing in regards to the filibuster blockage, especially about the voter rights/projection bills.

It is NOT at all criticising Democrats as a whole, only the 2 obstructionist filibuster defenders in the Senate, (in the Dem caucus), Sinema and Manchin, who have repeatedly said they are against even a carve-out for any bills, including the voter rights/protection bills.

Manchin and Sinema are absolutely open to this valid criticism, unless they finally cave in. IF they do not, and those voter bills die because the of filibuster rule, then we, as a Party, and the nation as a whole, are in serious, serious trouble come 2022, and thus (if we lose either chamber, or both, in 2022) 2024 as well.

you said

If he had said he is for voting rights, abortion rights, living wage and democracy, I would not have said anything. But he didn't.

Saying you are for those things, YET not dealing with/critiquing the very thing blocking them (the filibuster) is a toothless posture, as the filibuster is the reason they are being blocked (from a legislative standpoint).

It is a hollow stance at the end of the day.

[Hoyt]

19. Sorry, I trust our leaders to do the right thing. I get there are plenty who don't trust them.

So, please join in the criticism if you want. I don't think it will help Democrats.

There are more than 2 Democrats who are against removing the filibuster. Some of those are willing to go to a talking-filibuster.

[Celerity]

23. Now you are goalpost moving, as it is a carve-out that has been under discussion for months, not

a complete removal of it.

Very few are still holding out hope for a actual complete removal at this point, myself included.

There are more than 2 Democrats who are against removing the filibuster. Some of those are willing to go to a talking-filibuster.

Manchin shot down the 'talking filibuster' and multiple other options that would have the power to end the 60 vote requirement, almost 9 months ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142714005 Wed Mar 17, 2021,

Sen. Joe Manchin, the most conservative member of the Senate Democratic caucus, has spent the past couple of weeks doling out cryptic hints that he might be open to changing filibuster rules that currently allow the Republican minority to block most legislation unless a bill is supported by at least 60 senators.

On Wednesday, however, he appeared to shut the door on several ideas floated by proponents of filibuster reform within the Senate. Manchin’s latest move does not mean that filibuster reform is dead, but it does suggest that Democrats who wish to make it easier to enact legislation may struggle to come up with a strong package of reforms that will win Manchin’s support.

Earlier this month, Manchin told Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd that he’s open to making the filibuster “a little bit more painful” for the minority, and that he might be willing to make senators “stand there and talk” if they wish to maintain a filibuster. The West Virginia senator, in other words, appeared open to a so-called “talking filibuster,” where senators who wish to block legislation must speak continuously on the Senate floor in order to maintain a filibuster.

...

And Manchin’s newly stated opposition to burden shifting — that is, moving to requiring 41 senators to sustain a filibuster instead of requiring 60 senators to break one — is a particularly significant blow to reform efforts. Burden shifting, combined with other reforms such as a talking filibuster, could have imposed very potent limits on the minority’s power to obstruct legislation.

Link to tweet

a month later

Sen. Joe Manchin Rules Out Support for Weakened Senate Filibuster

West Virginia Democrat calls for bipartisanship rather than rule changes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-joe-manchin-rules-out-support-for-weakened-senate-filibuster-11617848294

WASHINGTON—Sen. Joe Manchin, a pivotal centrist, further closed the door on the prospect that he could support any move to end the filibuster in the Senate, a rule change that would allow his party to pass legislation with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes needed for most bills.

“I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster,” he said in an opinion article posted on the Washington Post website Wednesday evening.

Mr. Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.) have previously said they would block the party from eliminating the filibuster, even as pressure builds from party lawmakers and activists eager to advance their agenda on gun control, voting rights, immigration and the minimum wage, which have little support among Republicans.

Opinion: Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-manchin-filibuster-vote/2021/04/07/cdbd53c6-97da-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html

[onecaliberal]

20. Be careful. I got 2 hides for saying much less about those two.

[Hoyt]

24. I get it. If I get alerts because I question Reich, it'll just have to be.

[dpibel]

31. I do not think

the post your replied to said what you thought it said.

But do carry on.

[Celerity]

25. I said nothing that's against TOS, and I never called (here or before) Manchin or Sinema nasty

curse-filled names when discussing them, unlike HUNDREDS of posts that I have seen here (and were not hidden) that literally tell them them to fuck off, call them pieces of shit, etc etc.

That type of vitriol serves no purpose.

[onecaliberal]

28. I didn't call them names either. Just pointed out why they're voting how they are.

[Celerity]

30. Well, I would need to see your posts in order to make a fair judgement, feel free to PM me

[jaxexpat]

15. Okay Hoyt. Get ready to play the wounded party.

I'm calling you a troll. Don't be confused. I said troll.

[Hoyt]

16. What, for telling Reich to quit bashing Dems who think it best not to remove filibuster.

If he had said he is for voting rights, abortion rights, living wage and democracy, I would not have said anything because we all are. But he didn't, he criticized our leaders for not removing filibuster. There's a big difference that apparently you have difficulty comprehending.

This is the same kind of Reich BS that helped beat Clinton. There is a reason Clinton, Obama, and Biden do not seek Reich's counsel anymore.

He needs to stick to teaching first year college students.

[jaxexpat]

21. Baloney. He's for rationality.

In the case people don't appreciate how gravity works there's always falling. Perhaps his emphasis on economics comes from the fact that's his expertise. The turning back of social progress made by previous democratic administrations and the legislatures that made them do it was essentially a redistribution of wealth and power. It was/is a good thing. It's what the fuss is about. The current rank morons want girls to giggle and women to shiver in fear that their man will leave them and they'd be helpless. Going back is their agenda and they're smarter than you'd like. Mass economics is what social changes are all about, troll.

[Hoyt]

22. Like I said, Obama, Clinton, and Biden don't seek his counsel. You can call me a "troll," but

I don't like Reich since he criticized Obama and carried that into 2016 election by criticizing Clinton.

[jaxexpat]

33. He made it clear to both of them what as at stake.

Their inability to grok it is their legacy. He's the good guy. You're picking scabs. That's not what good guys do.

[Hoyt]

34. Think they understand it, without Reich's sophomoric BS.

Last edited Thu Dec 9, 2021, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)

[BlackSkimmer]

35. Wow, nice personal attack. Smh. nt

[dpibel]

32. You are making things up

Please point me to the part of the Reich tweet that "criticized our leaders for not removing filibuster."

He did not point to any person or party. He did not name names.

He stated, correctly, that the filibuster stands in the way of a number of things that we all want--even you.

The responding tweet called out Manchin and Sinema, who, if not the major obstacles to filibuster reform, are certainly the face of it. But those are not Reich's words, and do not "criticize our leaders," unless you consider Manchin and Sinema our leaders. If that is the case, I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

You, as do many others, claim that there's a horde of democratic senators who agree with Manchin and Sinema. Problem is, you can't tell me who they are, they haven't stated their support, and the only evidence for their existence is your say so.

In short, you're putting words in Reich's mouth and justifying it. because of a grudge you hold against him. At least you are clear about your motivations. I have to give you that.

[Hoyt]

37. Reich has pulled backhanded junk since 1996, and may well have cost Clinton the election in 2016.

You don't have to agree.

[dpibel]

38. So you are making things up

Thanks for acknowledging that.

Whether I agree with your analysis of Reich and his effects has nothing to do with the fact that you have, at best, your personal inference as to what Reich meant in the OP, as opposed to what he said.

[Torchlight]

39. Are you going to provide us data supporting your assertion?

may well have cost Clinton the election in 2016

Of course, someone can say "two plus two may well equal twenty-two. You don't have to agree."

It's their right to say it, even if it's unsound. But pleases bear in mind, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[Hoyt]

40. Well, for one thing Reich openly criticized Obama and Clinton right up to the 2016 election

for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That was an issue in the election because trump also opposed the TPP and used it against Clinton.

Obama, Biden, and Clinton do not rely Reich for a reason.

[Torchlight]

41. Criticism does not directly lead to what you asserted.

Will you provide data?

[Hoyt]

42. Yeah, when you provide data that Reich agreeing with trump's

position on foreign trade — even if for different reasons — did not hurt Clinton.

Biden would likely have more leverage now had TPP gone through.

[Torchlight]

43. You made an assertion. I did not.

It's your obligation to support it as such, otherwise it's just idle gossip.

On Edit: After a quick email (DU-mail?) from another member here, I think I understand. You said something you want to believe as true, but cannot demonstrate as true. As it's little more than chatter on your part, I will bow out from this now and not waste your time any further.

[Hoyt]

44. I have no data that trump is a racist or Sanders would have lost in 2020. BUT

But I’m quite sure both are true. Don’t think Reich helps Democratic Party, sorry.

Good to know you have a back channel to discuss things.

[dpibel]

45. See that envelope icon up there by your avatar?

I guess you can call that a "back channel" if you want to.

But that doesn't make it a biscuit.

You're just being petulant now.

[Hoyt]

46. Previously, I have had Gungeoneers and Jackpine Radicals discuss me privately.

This is a little new, dpibel. But carry on.

[dpibel]

48. You are once again making things up

At least to the extent that you believe I am discussing you privately.

If you believe that, you are mistaken.

I'm doing all my discussing right here in this thread.

You just seemed baffled by the DU Mail concept, and I was trying to be helpful to a confused DU member.

[Hoyt]

49. OK. I suppose you didn't get a private email from others, even though you said you did.

[dpibel]

50. You are doing yourself no favors

I'd urge you to look back through this thread and see if you can figure out just how silly what you just said is.

I believe in you!

I think you can do it!!

[Goonch]

7. ;-{)🖖‍

[KS Toronado]

17. We really need voting rights passed before the midterms.

To offset all reQublicOn cheating.

[malaise]

27. K & R n/t

[ChazII]

36. K&R n/t

[Demovictory9]

47. k&r