>

McConnell’s kids are real cut ups huh ?
Once they leave office, they will likely get board seats and lobbying opportunities that will fill their wallets to overflowing.

The two were speaking on a panel about U.S. foreign and domestic policy at the Davos World Economic Forum on Tuesday. Sinema argued that the current levels of partisanship in government are not “healthy for democracy,” and then Manchin asked if they still agreed on not getting rid of the filibuster.
“That’s correct,” Sinema said, and the pair high-fived.

.....

Sinema, meanwhile, appears to have undergone an ideological 180 since coming to Capitol Hill, seemingly jettisoning the progressive beliefs she previously espoused. She went viral for voting with a flippant thumbs-down against increasing the minimum wage—despite previously being vocal in support of raising it. The Arizona Democratic Party censured her for opposing the removal of the filibuster and accused her of cozying up to wealthy donors instead of fighting for her own constituents.
She was already deeply unpopular across party lines in Arizona, and since switching from Democratic to Independent in December, it has only gotten worse. A recent Morning Consult poll found that Sinema is one of the most unpopular senators in the entire country. >

$$$ is a very powerful drug. Her ambition drove her, not ideals. She has no decency. Manchin? Also a money worshiper. I don’t think he ever pretended to be anything but. >

Definitely rubbed off on manchins daughter as well. She's a big time money first at any cost kind of gal >

Even at the expense of kids dying of allergic reactions. >

Beyond fucked up. She started as a clerk and worked her way up while lying about her resume after Manchin mentioned it to an executive. 
It's an incredibly different version of the human species. I just can't fathom thinking let's make epipens go up 461% over 9 years and nodding in agreement. Gas would cost like 18 dollars a gallon in a 9 year span of that happened. Legit, not even oil executives have the balls to pull what she did.....and Joe Manchin was fine with it >

This just makes me fucking sick.
They might not be the violent conspiracy theorists that have overtaken the right, but they sure as shit didn’t mind protecting and enabling them while fucking over the people and environment. >

Sinema seems like she simply lied about positions to get elected.
But Manchin is I think the best we can get from West Virgina. It is a red state. They had more liberal candidates that they didn't elect.
If you are liberal, you should be pretty happy you have Manchin who at least sides with dems on some issues over a republican who would do a lot more to work against the agenda.
Manchin represents his electorate and he probably does so in the way the majority want him to. >

I appreciate that Machin votes for Dem leadership and judges, and understand his overall voting record is better than whatever fucking ghoul WV republicans would nominate, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a total piece of shit who makes objectively horrible decisions for his constituents. >

If he is voting the way he said he would and they elected him because he said he would vote that way, then he is doing his job.
If the voters are electing people who say they will do things that are against their best interest, then that is a problem with the voters, not with the person they elected.
If Manchin changes the way he votes, he simply will lose his seat. If your view is that the way he is voting is bad, you should be blaming the West Virginians for electing him. >

There is a problem with both. 
Manchin is a regressive force in the Senate, both in process and substance. He blocks reforming the filibuster, and has to performatively extra his pound of flesh (in the form of tens/hundreds of billions of dollars less to help the American people) from every piece of progressive legislation, while also advocating in favor of fossil fuels. It's comparatively better than a vanilla republican, but it's still awful. 
But yes, of course, the voters are partially to blame. They get some credit for picking Manchin over the GOP, but they're still picking an awful public servant. >

I don't really see a better outcome though. If he doesn't vote for coal and oil and for lower spending, then he will be breaking campaign promises and get voted out.
Maybe even disenfranchising democrats and helping get a republican in there in the future.
Like if the voters want someone who is anti-government spending and pro-oil, but also pro liberal justices, what do you want the representative to do?
Break all the campaign promises and go down in a blaze of liberal glory? That trick would only work once. >

I mostly agree with you and I think we're basically talking about different things. I get that he has to do some of this to please voters, but at the same time his pro-fossil fuel nonsense also benefits him personally. 
On the whole, I'm of course happy that he is the Senator from WV rather than a Republican, even just in terms of leadership votes and confirming judges. He might be the best we could reasonably expect out of the state at this time. 
My issue remains though, in a vacuum, he is an awful public servant, and his views and actions are terrible for the country. >

Being an asshole  pays so much better than tirelessly working for the ungrateful public. >

They wouldn’t be in Davos if they weren’t pieces of shit. >

Not true, they are many upstanding people in Davos right now, they are just serving the champagne, hors d'oeuvre, and cleaning the shit out of the stables. >

Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t go to Davos to do that, they shovel all their shit on the senate floor. >

Hmm thought we were talking about the hired staff. Whoops. >

Ha, no, I was only referring to those two. >

Good. Get her ass out of the Senate race. Has any presidential candidate ever had less than zero votes? >

Does it matter when you get no votes if you can live off the political donations for another year or two? This isn't high school where you have to live with your shame. >

Shitbirds of a feather, Randy. >

Members of Congress, governors, even the head of the FBI all in Davos hobnobbing and backslapping with the wealthiest people on earth. No wonder the right wing has a multitude of conspiracies about the WEF. Some of them aren't that far-fetched when you see your very own government and elected leaders participating in a forum like this and assuring the rich that nothing will change and committing to help with the labor "shortage." I feel like there's a term for a government that's essentially one with business that works to oppress its people. Can't quite think of it, but I'm sure we've seen it before. >

There's good god-damned reason why people are suspicious of the WEF. "The rich and powerful discuss how to define life as we know it moving forward" becomes a reeking tagline when life's trajectory is favouring the rich and making wealth divides more dramatic. I don't buy into conspiracies, but I'm going to tell you - why would I look at the WEF and say "Yeah, they are probably making the right decisions here?" >

Who is paying for this trip? Surely not taxpayers. >

Who the fuck invited those two turds? >

People in their pockets likely >

Voters in WV had a chance to choose Paula Jean Swearingin, and Manchin crushed her 2:1 in the primary. Manchin is the best we are going to get in WV. Manchin has even said that if Democrats don't like him, they should elect more progessives.
So. Elect more progressives. >

Exactly. You win with the electorate you have, not the one you wish you did. If all we can get out of WV is Manchin, then at least that's one more Dem for control of the Senate. If people want more progressive candidates then they need to elect them. >

Vile, but unsurprising >

2 useless pos >

And one of them is a friend of the President, as proclaimed by Biden himself…
With friends like that, who needs enemies >

I mean yes of course Joe Manchin and Joe Biden are friends. I know acknowledging Joe Biden's legislative career is verboten on this sub but for decades in the Senate he WAS the Joe Manchin. >

Ah, the joy of sharing obstruction. Progress isn't going to happen on their watch! >

Pieces of shit of a feather, flock together. Or something along those lines. >

This is how I know there's no god.    
Any all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being would say "Getting a lightning bolt in might be tough but I think I can rig a stage failure and at least take 'em out of commission for a few months." >


I can rig a stage failure

When I see the words stage failure, I think rockets, and I was like No! We want them to make it all the way to the Sun.
But I guess I could live with your way. >

A Falcon 9 crashing into Davos would feel karmically just. >

I wish tar and feathering was still acceptable >

Turds of a feather... >

surrounded by billionaires
I could see them making the argument that they at least make it no secret they’re bought and sold >

Did they high five after she was ranked at the bottom of America’s most unpopular senators since she left the Democratic Party? >

...so like I said we need to run against Sinema and primary Manchin. >

Ugh. I haven't heard the names of this pair of turds for weeks and I really liked that. Sigh. >

Voting rights bill killed by these two idiots >

"We're useless!" *high five* >

Man it takes balls to gather the most corrupt people on the planet in one building to circlejerk how hard they screwed their home countries with absolute confidence that no one is going to do anything about it. >

I would despise them both less for their principled stand on preserving this historic piece of the Senate rules that they seem to think came direct from the founding fathers if they demonstrated any kind of understanding of the actual history of it.
It's a mistake. It's an oversight. It literally came into being by accident. It can't be what the founding fathers intended, because NO ONE INTENDED IT.
Aaron Burr was persnickety enough about the Senate Rules to make abolishing the Previous Question Motion a point in his farewell address in 1805. When they were making rule changes in 1806, they remembered and went ahead and adopted his idea, thus opening the procedural door to the filibuster. But it took decades before anyone really cottoned on to what the possibilities were.
Burr was convinced that Previous question motion was superfluous and managed to convince others to think the same.
Spoiler alert: >!It wasn't superfluous. At all.!< >

Purge them and all conservative leaning Dems from the party. Make the Democrats left again. >

They love the attention so much. >

Yep there spot in hell is fully secured! Both those fuckers deserve everything coming to them and their families. >

As a citizen of WV I want to apologize for Manchin. He’s a useless pos who is only looking out for his own interests >

I hate these fucking assholes so god damn much. How do you sleep at night while being such a complete piece of shit? >

These two should not be there. We should be sending our best. These two ain’t it. >

Like, a full on high-five? Not even a subtle thumbs up or knowing head nod? A high five? My…. GOD…. someone get that to print! >

Hate them so much. >

Does it result in better policy or legislation? No because what happens is so watered down that any meaningful change simply doesn't happen in most cases. >

I prefer watered-down to what most Americans think is meaningful (abortion bans and a welfare state to give examples on both ends) in the current political climate. This is one of the filibusters pros. >


welfare state

Both sides are nakedly capitalist and beholden to business interests. I'm curious about what federal legislation has been proposed by Congress under Obama or Biden that you would call 'creating a welfare state?'
Will you still call any legislation taxing automated labor or AI to pay the people whose jobs are being automated out of existence 'welfare'? >

Not the purpose of this discussion. >

Then don't bring it up. >

I didn't bring up anything partisan. >


(abortion bans and a welfare state to give examples on both ends)

Isn't this supposedly bringing up the issues from both sides? Op was challenging one of the sides you mentioned. >

I'm making examples of both sides so as to avoid partisanship, which a response focused on one side immediately creates. >

I'm guessing because they do not agree the issue you mentioned is something their side champions for. So, you might have inadvertently went partisan, but it is. The "welfare state" comment seems like it comes from someone on the right, since that is what they say the left wants. >

Another reason that it must be done away with. >

One thing I'll give the Republicans, is that they're very good at politics. >

They both should be booed for allowing the filibuster. Helping Republicans and pretending to be Democrats is appalling.  Every bill that would of helped voting rights, abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, helping the poor and other positive bills stalled because of there filibuster.  America is an embarrassment to democracy.