It's stunning really. On October 1 2018, Trump basically says in public that he's blackmailing a Democratic Senator. And on October 5th and 6th Manchin is the sole Democrat who votes with Republicans to end debate, and to confirm Kavanaugh.
Manchin would go on to vote to confirm Barr, and now states clearly that he will neither end the filibuster, and will even block the For The People Act if it comes to a vote.
But sure lets spend all of our time and political will trying to convince him to switch his vote.
Manchin also voted to confirm Gorsuch, one of three Dems who did so.
But the interesting thing is that this vote only occurred because of Mitch's use of the nuclear option — the vote only happened because filibuster was circumvented.
Shouldn't Manchin have opposed that?
To be clear, Manchin did not vote to end filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, and his vote wasn't essential to confirm Gorsuch. But if Manchin believed in his heart that fliibuster was right and overcoming it was wrong, he should not have voted for Gorsuch.
Trump: "I have compromising materials on a Dem Senator."
Dem Senator: "I will steadfastly side with Trump on all the critical votes."
Me: "Dem Senator might be compromised."
People: "You're insane there's no evidence whatsoever."
For those who say he's simply playing at local politics like all members of Congress do sometimes, then ask what is his goal? What is he trying to get for West Virginia by turning this vote into a bargaining chip?
Answer: nothing. He's not using this position to bargain.
Oh yeah, and Manchin's critical vote to end debate on Kavanaugh was only possible because McConnell had killed the filibuster in that context. Once again, there's no genuine belief in filibuster as an important principle, just as with the Gorsuch vote.
This blew up a little... instead of supporting my soundcloud, write to your Senators and Representative on a regular basis and tell them the issues that matter most to you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My default assumption for both Manchin and Sinema is that they are compromised by some right wing entity, and therefore will not yield on core Trump issues no matter what.
They're going to act exactly like Graham, Nunes, Cruz, Jordan, etc., until our democracy is dead.
If you are willing to entertain the possibility or likelihood that some members of Congress are compromised, then the surprising part here isn't that they got to a couple of Democrats too. The surprising part is that anyone ever thought Democrats would be immune.
Sinema and Manchin both broke party lines to confirm Barr, too. There's no common thread of issues or policy between that vote and this one.
Except that they're both the highest priority votes for Trump in terms of keeping him out of prison.
Hey @nytimes this is a lie. And I say this because I don't think it's a mistake. I think you knew full well that this had been previously reported by @forensicnewsnet.
Parnas' arrest certainly had the effect of shutting up Trump and allies, but I have a hard time believing it was intentional, considering the massive propaganda effort that was all but demolished with their arrest.
I could more easily believe that Barr worked to keep others from being arrested and/or investigated, and warned them off of traveling with Fruman and Parnas, so that they wouldn't be nearby when FruPar were arrested.
In which case, a more accurate description would be that Barr couldn't prevent their arrest, and so arranged to limit the collateral damage as much as possible. Part of that WOULD mean shutting down the propaganda effort.
Sadly it seems like 1/6 really didn't have the impact on our culture it should have. If you do an image search on 1/6 you don't get single image of the insurrection in the first screen.
There's some scientific arguments for lab origins of COVID-19 that are frankly well outside of my expertise and I can't comment on them.
But there IS a statistical component to their arguments that some are making, and that I CAN comment on.
Statistics is one of the trickiest fields of math, because it has strong interplay between the results you get, and how you state the problem. It's easy to create what seems to be some sort of statistical paradox or weirdness, but it's usually in problem misstatement.
And so there's an argument that says (more or less):
"the mutations to this virus are exactly and precisely what a lab would do to make this non-human virus very dangerous for humans."
I would in particular say that how they're racist matters. Knowing it's the Great Replacement theory that is driving these people points for me to what sort of public education efforts can reach them.
The Great Replacement theory is pure zero sum game. "They win I lose."
I've written before about how zero sum game theories are generally the roadblock for lots of progressive ideas.
The good news is that this is solvable. If it wasn't, women would NEVER have gotten the right to vote in this country.