I’m sick of hearing about this asshole going out of his fucking way to prevent anything that would remotely benefit the working class. Sit the fucker down and tell him if he doesn’t play ball his ass is gonna get primaried. God damn the Dems suck.
If Dems had a 51-vote majority, then there would be two "Manchins".
That's exactly what they did. Democrats need an antagonist to block the progress the party is pretending to achieve. God forbid they accidentally do something and risk the proles learning politicians are capable of helping them.
Manchin is their ringer. They would sit him down and have a chat if he were thinking of voting to pass anything good.
It's this way by design. He takes all the heat to distract from just how much the Democrats as a whole suck ass.
If the Democrats had, say a53-47 advantage, it wouldn't just be Manchin. It would be Manchin, Sinema, Ossoff, and Feinstein. If any liberal tries to defend the party as a whole because of Manchin, literally ask them why Biden isn't berating him in public speeches like Trump did with GOP senators, or why other senators aren't bullying him. They wont have an answer.
Sit the fucker down and tell him if he doesn’t play ball his ass is gonna get primaried. God damn the Dems suck.
"It's better than having McConnel control the senate. Whoever would replace Manchin would be worse." is the line right now. You know because the current Dem controlled senate has been so productive.
Because he's doing what they want
Sinema will probably tag in for chief antagonist on the next bill they want to neuter.
The Democrats tolerate him because they can use him as the reason why various legislation does not get passed.
That being said, from a realpolitik perspective, I just don't get how preventing practically anything good from being done is the smart move.
There was quite a popular idea regarding revolutions and social upheaval. I've seen variants of it regurgitated here and there but it goes like this.
Revolutions and social upheaval don't happen when things are absolutely shit, they happen when the ruling classes bring in reforms that benefit the people but they don't improve things quickly enough. Broadly the French revolution tends to be given as an example here.
Now I tend to think that the reason you might see a new ruler chuck a bunch of crumbs at the masses right before a massive revolution is that the rulers are dimly aware of the inevitability of it and having tried literally everything else attempt to placate the people with reform that comes far too little too late.
A smart person might figure then that the best bet is to keep people happy and secure enough that this doesn't become a problem in the first place. Your average liberal politician on the other hand writes this up as a cautionary tale as to why you can never make the conditions of the masses better by even an iota or they will revolt. You can see this in all those brainfart articles implying China is playing a dangerous game in improving the material conditions of its people as they will come to expect it. Same mentality.
Joke's on them of course cos when the shit is flying towards the fan for real you bet they will chuck everything at it, including reforms that come too little too late. Just like every out of touch ruling class before them they'll probably be quite surprised when their heads are up on pikes along the city wall, metaphorically speaking of course.
Certainly I have no idea how the future will play out, but I still don't think the United States in the 2020s is to the point of Russia in the 1910s, Cuba in the 1950s, France in the 1780s or just about any other left-wing revolution.
This is also not to mention that a very significant amount of the population would more willing to go towards fascism.
Oh absolutely. I would think that we are decades off that point. I should probably also state we're not neccessarily talking about a revolution or social upheavel that's any good -some sorta weird US brand of fascism is obviously a possibility.
Mostly I was pointing out that particular lib theory about revolutions I have seen repeated in diff ways; that if you try and improve things somewhat for the poors they might expect more and overthrow you if they don't get it.
Gee, maybe elected officials could take action that a majority of their constituents want.
I mean on a very fundamental level that probably won't happen because the majority of their constituents are working class and elected officials in a liberal democracy are ruling for the borgousie and not the prolateriat.
The thing is: a minimum wage increase and/or coronavirus relief money would be great for the economy, as people would be getting more money to make purchases or what have you.
Personally, I think a lot of the Democrats think that they can win by only appealing to diehard liberals and Republicans who actually are not comfortable with the mainstreaming of fascism. Meanwhile, they don't have to do much to help people, since those people are not needed and/or implementing "socialist" policies may scare off these moderate voters.
It's almost as if lack of party discipline is a sign of weak leadership.
