Manchin, National Hero

[Rotadom]

A traitor, an elitist, and a liar. No wonder so many Republicans are loving him.

https://i.imgur.com/s3Xbh9C.png?1

 

[Cubantripod]

A traitor, an elitist, and a liar. No wonder so many Republicans are loving him.

https://i.imgur.com/s3Xbh9C.png?1

That will show him. Attack a guy that you need to pass anything in the senate because he is a rubber stamp to your spending spree.

 

[Rotadom]

Lol, he was attacked by his own position and words.

 

[Cubantripod]

Lol, he was attacked by his own position and words.

If he actually said that. Manchin has been consistent from the very beginning. He even put in writing what his conditions were back in July. This sounds like a temper tantrum from the petulant children on the left that thought they were going to get their way.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If he were really a National Hero, he'd switch parties and give the Senate to the Republicans a year early.

 

[bellisarius]

If he were really a National Hero, he'd switch parties and give the Senate to the Republicans a year early.

That could still happen. Reports are that he tried to compromise, gave ground on the total spending and was willing to revisit the bill in the Mar.-Apr. time frame. He and Biden were alleged to have scheduled a joint presser to make the announcement the the WH staff put out a statement attacking him. At that point he said, "screw'em."

So the treatment he's received from his fellow democrats had a lot to do with his decision and it appears that the bill isn't 'dead for now', it's 'dead forever.'

 

[pecksniff]

So the treatment he's received from his fellow democrats had a lot to do with his decision . . .

Then it's not a responsible decision.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

If he were really a National Hero, he'd switch parties and give the Senate to the Republicans a year early.

If he did that, he’d forfeit his energy committee chairmanship for a year. The smart move would be to wait until after the election.

 

[GothTalk]

Then it's not a responsible decision.

Incorrect, it's not a partisan approved decision.

And considering the party almost certainly the responsible decision.

 

[Rightguide]

What exactly makes you think the Framers knew or thought that?

The Federalist Papers. Read them and educate yourself.

 

[Rightguide]

Then it's not a responsible decision.

He represents a red state full of Trump voters. His is a different political reality.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The Federalist Papers. Read them and educate yourself.

I don't remember that part, perhaps you could enlighten me? Especially since that very clearly wasn't their actual plan.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't remember that part, perhaps you could enlighten me? Especially since that very clearly wasn't their actual plan.

You never read them.

 

[pecksniff]

Incorrect, it's not a partisan approved decision.

And considering the party almost certainly the responsible decision.

Still, a decision made out of personal resentment.

 

[pecksniff]

The Federalist Papers. Read them and educate yourself.

There's a lot of discussion of checks and balances, but the question of democracy as such is pretty much ignored. As for the Electoral College:

Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and believed it would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be:

...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college members would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Also, a successful candidate for the office of president would have to have the distinguished qualities to appeal to electors from many states, not just one or a few states:

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Hamilton expressed confidence that:

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

The FFs originally seem to have conceived of the Electoral College as a short-lived version of the College of Cardinals: The electors would have no prior commitment to any candidate, they would look around at the most prominent pols of the time and pick one to be president.

As with a great many other things about the Constitution as originally conceived, 1) this is largely irrelevant now and 2) there is no good reason at all to try to go back to it. Fuck originalism!

 

[schism666]

https://i.imgur.com/Qxxpw8X.jpg?1

 

[schism666]

maybe he can save face amongst his constituents and supporters.

Manchin told White House he would support version of billionaire tax: report

https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/manch...ion-of-billionaire-tax/?utm_source=reddit.com

Sen. Joe Manchin reportedly told the White House last week that he would be willing to support a version of the billionaire tax in President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, in a reversal from his previous criticism .

Three people familiar with his private offer informed the Washington Post this week of his endorsement of the plan, saying it was included in a list of spending and revenue proposals that he supports. It remains unclear if the West Virginian Democrat included a revenue estimate.

Manchin’s offer included spending for pre-K, climate, and Obamacare. It did not include child tax credit funds, which are set to expire this month.

The report comes the same week as a falling out between Manchin and the White House after attempted negotiations over the legislation.

On Sunday, the senator announced he could not support the Build Back Better Act — dealing a possibly fatal blow to the legislation. Manchin cited his concerns on inflation, the national labor shortage and legislative stunts that could increase the national debt.

In order to pass the Build Back Better Act, Democrats must have all 50 votes in the Senate – leaving Manchin to be a key vote.

The billionaire tax was not included in the House-passed version of the bill discussed, as many Democrats – including Manchin – have slammed the proposal.

In October, the West Virginian simply said he didn’t “like it.”