Of course— I'm not the one criticizing democrats though and it was also created by one. I'm just saying it's unfair to hold him to a higher standard just for being the last one to catch on (as a very junior senator in a deep red state)
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
POLITICO: Sen. Manchin open to endorsing Trump in 2020
- Thread starter Deleted member 22490
- Start date
- Status
I can get being annoyed by a pro-DADT Democrat in this day and age. That's got to be one of the least controversial pro-LGBT positions one can take.
Agree on your first paragraph.
But your statements about DOMA and DADT fundamentally misrepresent the events of that time. Bill Clinton signed DOMA because the Republican Congress had passed it with veto-proof majorities. To that statement you might reply, "Well, didn't they need Democratic votes for a veto-proof majority?" and "Couldn't he have vetoed it symbolically? Solidarity!" At this point, however, you have to consider the context. 1996 looked very different from 2018, or even 2004, when gay marriage became the hot-button issue again. Only 27% of people favored same-sex marriage at the time. It would've been a hill upon which to die for many Democrats, especially since they couldn't have prevented its passage, and Clinton would've faced tremendous blowback for vetoing it. You really think President Dole would've been nicer? (Fun fact: Nancy Pelosi, favorite target of the ~~~true progressives~~~, voted against it.)
The entire episode actually offers an argument for supporting Democrats even if you disagree with them. Did all Democrats support gay marriage at the time? No. But the bill never would've been brought to a vote in a Democratic House or Senate. Enough of the party supported LGBT rights at the time; they just couldn't say so openly or always vote that way. DOMA, as well as a bunch of other nasty bills, can be linked directly to the 1994 midterms, when Republicans took control. I can say with certainty that LGBT people's situation wouldn't have gotten worse under a Democratic Congress.
I'm not being honest -- I would support him even if his bigoted votes mattered. Numbers mean more in the Senate than votes. Simply having a majority grants enormous power -- and that power includes sidelining nutcases in the party. You can peel off a few votes from Republicans for common sense legislation but not unless you hold the majority leader seat and all the committees
That's actually what I am trying to say
That's actually what I am trying to say
Also, Clinton signing DOMA could have prevented a much worse timeline - one in which Dole wins in 96 and passes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage with the help of larger Republican majorities. In fact, Bill has said before he was worried the party would try an amendment if the DOMA vote had failed.
OP
OP
You're free to think that. I am frustrated with Democrats and their adherence to the center. I have addressed the arguments. I even addressed the post you so humbly quoted. I don't believe we should play to the bigotry of the other side. I don't think we should compromise on the dignity of various groups in order to secure a win even if it's just a performance. Doing so just makes the line blurred between the performance and reality. Manchin says that he wants a wall. Should I not believe him when he says this on the hopes that he won't? Should I believe he won't vote to restrict abortion again?
You keep saying that he's valuable when it counts, but he still voted for the wall. He still voted to restrict abortion. Sure, those things didn't come to pass thankfully, but those are times that counted. But since it only affects certain groups, I guess it doesn't.
Saying something less progressive is alright. Saying that there is a possibility that you'd support a bigot and that you want to erect a monument to xenophobia is something else. If it's alrigt for Dems to throw minorities under the bus to achieve power, then how can minorities depend on them if they become a political liability?
I'm not a minority, so I don't want to speak for someone who is. And instead of saying that and following up with my analysis... I won't.
If someone who is a member of a minority group wants to address this point, I'll readily listen. I recognize this is a shitty position to be in, and I don't want to treat people like pieces on a chessboard (even if politics is about numerically countable things like seats and votes).
OP
OP
You are, too.
I'm a minority and seeing Democrats and liberals being alright with this cynical game is not inspiring at all. I can see why a lot of people stayed home on Election Day. Either vote for the guys who will definitely hurt you or vote for the guys who will toss you aside when it's convenient. Obviously, I have to vote for the latter and they know that.
Look, I hear you. I wish we lived in a world where racial justice issues could play well across the whole nation. But West Virginia is a state that is over 90% white and voted overwhelmingly for Trump. There is no magical hidden super progressive caucus waiting to pop out of the woodwork there. The choice is literally either Manchin or a Republican. It sucks, it's unfair, but that's how it is. Manchin is the better choice.
I went into more detail in this post:
https://www.resetera.com/posts/8800266
^^Read the quote I posted there. It's a dose of political reality.
Joe Manchin is the definitive contemporary democrat, in that literally the only the good thing anyone ever says about him is that he's better than the other side.
User Banned (1 Week): Demonstrated Inability to Stop Relitigating the Primaries in threads causing derails.
Some "democrat" right guys? I mean he has a D next to his name. Meanwhile Sanders and any other left wing independent gets frozen out of the political process because of the DNC being corrupt garbage. Democracy is dead
You do realize what the electorate in West Virginia is like, right?
Where is the Sanders-esque unicorn being "frozen out" by the DNC in West Virginia?
Some people just cannot help themselves, 2016 is over and it's about time you get over it as well.
I'm not. I'm talking about the Democratic party and why they let shitty people like this in yet are so scared of challenges from outside their ranks because they dont want the boat rocked. Very scummy.
Some people just cannot help themselves, 2016 is over and it's about time you get over it as well.
Do you have anything constructive to say about the current situation. Unfortunately what we're seeing now is just representative of politics in general. Your mindset of anyone who has anything to say about it being "reigniting the primaries" is flawed and weak.
I am referring to nothing about the primaries, but the fact that the DNC a few days ago passed a resolution declaring that you could not run in the Democratic party elections unless you were previously a Democrat, regardless of your policy viewpoint or what you register as during the election.
The fact that they do that under everyone's noses yet have nothing to say about garbage like Manchin is telling at the least.
Its not an isolated incident
Last edited:
OP
OP
Thank you for this dose of political reality. It's always good to be reminded that bigotry is tolerated within the Democratic party.
Ain't that the fucking truth.
I understand the political realities of WV. I even understand why Manchin does and says the things that he do. That does not mean I, as a minority, have to like it or tolerate it. And spare me the condescension because I and others air our upset that Democrats like Manchin would throw us under the bus for political expediency.
Centrists act entitled to the support of minorities in America while turning their back on them at every opportunity. It's a big reason why the black side of my family largely didn't vote in 2016 (non swing state so maybe that tips the scales), some for the first time since before they were too young to vote.
Seriously.
The choice is still obvious, if you can look at your options objectively.
OP
OP
No, you must grin and bear the bigotry to save us from bigorty. Vote for the D even if he voted to confirm a racist elf.
Everyone defending anyone like Manchin are basically telling me where they stand on the dignity of marginalized people. They are to be treated as props whenever advantageous and shunned whenever they become a liability. Manchin is giving in to xenophobia and he is being applauded for it. It's disgusting.
When it comes down to their core alot of centrists are no different than the racist elf except they look both ways and then cover their mouth when they mutter racial slurs instead of smiling wide and being proud of it.
This is how both Clintons defended DOMA for a while, but that talking point was conclusively debunked years ago. No one on either side of DOMA in 1996 was talking about a constitutional amendment. It simply wasn't on the table until years later.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/how-the-clinton-white-house-handled-doma-in-1996-in-their-ow
OP
OP
Manchin supported DOMA as recently as 2013.
When Obergefell was decided in 2015, he put out this statement:
That's the only sentence in the statement. It is literally shorter than ABC's statement firing Roseanne.
Manchin declined to vote to repeal DADT in 2010
Manchin voted to limit access to abortion after 20 weeks in January
I didn't bring up these issues because he only supported them in the 90s. These are fairly recent.
Last edited:
- Status