Why do I disapprove of the game is the better question. This is a game Establishment Dem's play. They offer the world in the Election knowing they will find a bogeyman after the election that they will ALLOW to gut it while they blame them.

So why do I blame Obama for time and time and letting Republicans gut his bills while then saying 'nah nah not voting on it anyway' just because Obama can't make them vote???

Seems like a silly question to me.

And Biden has promised Progressives a near $2T bill if they commit to the new plan to vote on them separately. oh he has spoke to Manchin and has his commitment so trust him, the football is on the ground and won't move out of the way this time.

House Build Back Better Act: Details & Analysis of Tax Provisions in the $1.85 Trillion Reconciliation Bill

Honest question, are you gullible enough to believe that?

And I am not saying that Manchin won't honor his commitment and support it but I am saying that the next 'devil' is not ready to step in.

That Sinema or someone else will just act as the immovable face this next time and the next round of gutting will begin and we will be back here and you will defend it every step of the way.

What if anything of the above do you disagree with?

In Cuepee's "defense", he says those things about virtually everybody! So, you ain't special!

I think we can point out what's wrong with the system and still be pragmatic.

The question I have at this point is do we need another party (or two or three) or can the Democratic party serve the people well enough to keep our two party system going for a while longer.

Watching the progressives lose so much to their own party is pretty mind numbing. Although the proposal was pie in the sky for our American system where you have to be on the brink of starvation so your masters can control you, it was still nice to see some modern political ideas get looked at.

Practically speaking the lazy poors (as INS has called them in another thread) have to eat or they can't make the corporation/plantation any money. But I guess education and child care is just a bridge too far.

Nothing wrong with being labeled and old Bernie Bro. I've always like him tbh.

I also believe you are 'political' and enjoy 'winning' against those you see as Progressive. To that end I think you put winning over fact or truth even if you tell yourself you are not, especially when you deal with Progressives who i think it is fair to say irritate you more than any other stripe outside many hardcore Trumpers.


So no I don't believe for one second you actually think Manchin and Sinema are just being good representing their voter bases interests.

I don't believe for one second when you hand wave multiple polls as meaningless and suggest that simply because they vote GOP we then have what we need to know where they stand on these policy issues as that is just really dumb. And you are not dumb. You are data driven and if the data supported you, you would present it and put it in my face. But instead you stick to this vague 'they vote GOP so that trumps all' argument that cannot be challenged in any substantive way as it is a fascicle point to try and make.

Close to 9 out 10 people across the US want drug price reform. Manchin and Sinema fight it.

But herr durr their voters vote GOP therefore they don't want it and thus they are just being good independent Congress people representing their voters.

No. NO. F*CK NO.

They are representing their donors pure and simple and giving the middle finger to their voters but you will do everything to not admit it. And I know you know it. But I also know due to politics and a desire to win you will never give on that.

There is simply no reason, NONE to believe Manchin and SInema would even fall in their view with just Republican voters if they supported the provisions within BBB as republicans are 50/50 on most. And as the benefits got realized you would expect that to win over many of the republicans who resisted at first just as Obamacare has for many who now benefit from it.

But those who are willing to vote Dem or are independent overwhelming support them. That is Manchin and Sinema base. You take out just the Republican only vote in both States and it is overwhelming support.

So one last time, who are Manchin and Sinema fighting for then if the people who vote for them overwhelmingly support it?

I don’t think progressives( as you are defining the word progressive, I’ve always found it quite telling when during the debates Hillary described herself as a progressive and Obama described himself as a liberal, that’s a different discussion) have much of a choice. They have to fight through rather than away, they have to take over the Democrat party to advance their agenda. I don’t think that will be easy but I don’t think they can get anywhere in the next 40 years by starting a third party. In scenarios where progressives win everything they take over the dem party and then defeat/destroy the other parties. In that way progressives should go for a one party system I think.

No, it's not. Just answer my question instead of restating the same points you always make. You say Biden can't force the Senate to back his bill, but also that he could pass it if he wanted to. I don't understand your view. Help me understand it.

I don't care so much that the Progressives lose to their own party. That is politics.

it is the gaslighting around and how the surrogates on TV and on forums like this just expect everyone to play along like this is just some game.

I get for Politics for Politics sake it is not a good argument to say Manchin and Sinema and most Establishment Dems don't give a **** about citizens and primarily serve their donors and if you want to convince yourself of that and accept that more power to you.

But to expect others to act like this is Chris Cuomo and PRETEND that it is equally valid and think if we can all just stay civil and nice then both sides have equal credibility on this topic is the problem.

No. We have to call it BS and lies and gaslighting as that is what it is.

Manchin and Sinema are making millions directly and indirectly to be the foils to screw up Biden and his agenda and the citizens of their State, their voters.

Just because someone can put forth an alternative fact does not mean we have to treat as equally credible when it is not.

As a side note how do you “lose to your own party”?it seems like if your views always lose “ in your own party” then it’s not your party.

Quote and contrast the specific statements (link to the original content posts) so I can see them and the context you are referring to.

I don't think it is good faith question to begin with as I think it is perfectly appropriate to say Obama and the Dems could of just forced his agenda issues during the early months of his 1st term and if someone confronted me with 'how could Obama MAKE any Dem vote his way?' thinking that undone my point I would point out it does not. I would say it is an attempt at a literal nitpick that ignores context.

This. So much this.

Open question for the gallery:

Why would anyone with any sense participate in a Forum in which virtually everybody else participating in said forum is a "dishonest, gaslighting, bad faith troll?"

Esablishment Dems and Republicans and their surrogates next big defense.

FEC lets foreigners finance U.S. ballot fights

The Federal Election Commission has ruled foreign donors can finance U.S. referendum campaigns, opening the door to foreign spending on fights over high-profile policy issues, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Foreign nationals are barred from donating to U.S. political candidates or committees. But the FEC's decision — allowing them to support ballot committees — provides another avenue for foreigners to directly influence U.S. voters and domestic policy.

- A major question stemming from the decision is whether foreign nationals are now permitted to spend money to influence the actual mechanisms of the U.S. democratic process.

- That would include congressional redistricting, which is frequently subject to ballot referenda.

- The FEC's ruling did not address that question, meaning it will likely be litigated in future fights at the commission.

- Two sources familiar with the decision told Axios that FEC chair Shana Broussard, a Democrat, voted with the panel's three Republicans to dismiss the underlying complaint. It alleged illicit foreign funding for a ballot committee in Montana.

- Issues such as congressional redistricting are frequently settled via state referenda. The FEC's decision could put wealthy foreigners in a position to influence that process.

- David Brooks, the executive director of Montana Trout Unlimited and one of the complainants in the case, called the FEC ruling "surprising and scary" in an emailed statement to Axios.

- "Are we, as U.S. citizens, really OK with letting foreign money go directly to state lawmaking via citizen initiative campaigns?"



Because what America needs is more special interest money in politics.

Incoming 2022 argument on why Manchins defense of Saudi position that harms is State is just him being Independent and acting for his voters.

I think Cuepee is improving his arguments for other forums so he can continuously outsmart the bad faith trolls on those forums. I think he cares more about being right than an Open exchange of ideas - see the transgender thread where in my opinion he was willing to ruin the discussion for the sake of not conceding any points, which falls right in line with that.

You admitted in the recent BFI thread that if we looked at recent posting prior to that, that you likely called people liars more often than I. I can quote you on that if you want.

But it was why it came up that was interesting.

IN thread after thread just as you have done in this one you keep showing up in discussions you are in to say something like 'he calls people a liar a lot, oh but I do too, but he even called Original Position a liar once'.


In the BFi thread there was not even a dispute going on around lying at the time. You just showed up made one of your first posts there and felt you need to point 'that he even called Original Position a liar once'.

Not one person replied to your completely random and out of context post but there it was anyway. Your seeming shock and inability to digest that I once suggested I did not think he was being honest in a reply.

So what is your agenda on this Laggy. Is it just that disturbing that you say you may call people liars more but how dare I say that to O.P? He is off limits?

As it is beyond weird to see it in completely random threads at completely random times as your near template refrain.

The answer is no one. I lurk for the hell of it. Every now and them I throw out a zinger and am told to go away.

There are like 10 of you that post with Cuepee being 50% of those posts (and it's just him arguing with everyone).

Awesome forum.

I think that the vast majority of regular posters in this Forum are not dishonest, gaslighting, bad faith trolls. I think some posters are at least some of those things, and have said so. The difference is, virtually everybody you engage in this Forum you attribute those traits to.

I've called Trolly and Victor "liars" about a gazillion times each. You pretty much call everybody a liar.

Even though almost everyone in this Forum disagrees with me on the issues, I seldom see bad-faith posting, especially from the "regulars" like OP and Rococo.

So you admit you may call people liars more than i do but you think you just nailed the actual liars where as I am wrong.

That you are the arbiter of how can do it and how often and to whom?

Do I got that right?

lol jesus christ

Cuepee is the worst

Nope. I absolutely believe everything I put forth in the Trans thread. I absolutely believe well meaning people are horribly wrong in their approach and decisions.

I completely understands others have other views but make no mistake as my views are genuine.

I think that cuepee often misattributes views he sees as being too mean to being dishonest or duplicitous, which if true would mean he’s quite a nice guy. I, like cuepee, also do not like when people come out of nowhere and assert characteristics and truths about people as if they are on a cloud above them and then poof ! Leave.

Fwiw, if you care more about being correct than open discussion, that does not mean you do or do not believe the things you say. I did not mean to imply you were being disingenuous, just that it seemed very important to you to win the argument rather than encourage other people to say their own thoughts.

Sure. But about 90% of the time it was directed at two people: Victor and Trolly. I'm sure I've never called Rococo or OP or Chezlaw a liar.

I guess you're superior to me in discerning the hearts of those you are interacting with.

I'm not the arbiter of anything around here. Unlike most Progressives these days, I'm a Free Speech guy. Say what you want as often as you want to say it.

Back to my question: Why are you sullying yourself engaging all these bad faith, gaslighting, dishonest so-and-so's?

As an aside, I like most of what you have to say, especially in the BFI Forum.

I agree!

So much this.

Cuepee you are making these threads unreadable for those of us who want genuine discourse. Every other post from you attacking people, telling them they are stupid (or not stupid but just naive and ignorant). When you grow up you will realize how silly that is. I’d appreciate that you either debate in good faith without attacks related to your misunderstanding or misinterpreting others points or just leave these threads to people who can do so

Progressives will never take over the Democratic party, which will suicide itself before it ever let's that happen. It's not like the party has some bad apples in it. The party only exists to represent corporations and the leadership is only there to get their share of the fleecing. If any credible threat to that corruption were to emerge the party would go nuclear and accelerate the slow merge with center right repubs and move to establish new bipolar power centers between the center right and extreme right/Trumpers/kooks. It would then sic the national security state on any progressive dissidents.

Bernie could have taken over the party after Hillary lost to clown show. He passively did nothing. He feared Trump because he's a coward, deep down. That was the only opportunity likely to open up until material conditions worsen to the point where we will have a revolt.