One Day at a Time

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  65 comments

One Day at a Time
“I’m here because of West Virginia,” Manchin said. “I’m here because of every person in West Virginia. I love my state as much as anything in the world, not quite as much as my family, but not far behind. I would do anything for my state of West Virginia.”

Last night Senator Joe Manchin, who is currently the only democrat holding statewide office in West Virginia, was interviewed by Bret Baier. The highlight in my opinion was when Baier asked about putting principle over party.  Baier reminded Manchin that President Biden lost every West Virginia county in last year’s presidential election. Joe Manchin had no problem with the question:

“I’m here because of West Virginia,” Manchin said. “I’m here because of every person in West Virginia. I love my state as much as anything in the world, not quite as much as my family, but not far behind. I would do anything for my state of West Virginia.”



Manchin has never changed. He is a man of conviction. What has changed is the democratic party. It is in the hands of the radical left. With the election of Joe Biden the nation has been turned upside down. The nation's borders are wide open, crime is rising in our cities, inflation is on the horizon and the radicals in charge are committed to indoctrinating the US military and our children. They intend to overcome their narrow majority in the House and a flat footed tie in the Senate by using "reconciliation" , which they somehow get two shots at and of course, changing the rules. Only one thing has slowed them down - the courage of Senators Manchin and Sinema.

Currently democrats are running a scam where Republicans work with the president on a bipartisan infrastructure bill (evidently for show) and then democrats pass another infrastructure bill via "reconciliation" giving them everything they wanted in the first place. It is shameless and assumes that the American people are totally stupid.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed that her chamber will not take up the bi-partisan bill until the Senate passes the great big radical democrat gravy bill. (AKA the big whopper)

The good news is that Joe Manchin stood up and said "I don't think I can support a rumored House Democratic infrastructure bill costing between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. “That seems to me just totally out of the ballpark.”






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

For now we have to slow them down. The courage of these public servants may just go down in history as saviors of the Republic.


Donald Trump is off topic

I am off topic

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

A profile in courage…

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1    4 weeks ago

Let it be recorded.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2  Snuffy    one month ago

I'm thinking Joe could re-record that old David Bowie (and then Queen) hit...   'Under Pressure"

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Manchin is a grifter, and he's raised a grifter daughter.  Their first concern is their pockets, not the people of West Virginia.

Manchin's daughter, Heather Bresch, lied about having received an MBA from WVU.  The university disputed her claim, but Manchin was governor at the time, and she got her degree without having completed the required coursework.  The president of the university took the fall for Joe, as he was fired after a vote of no confidence from the faculty.

Bresch is CEO of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, maker of the Epi-Pen.  After her mother, Gayle Manchin, advocated to require Epipens to be present in public schools, Mylan, under Bresch's leadership, raised the price from about $100 to about $600.

All this was in local newspapers and on local television news at the time.  West Virginians know full well where they stand in Manchin's affections - way behind his bank accounts.  He and his family have used his elected position and his wife's political appointments for personal gain for years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3    one month ago

Assuming all of that (via Wikipedia) is true, don't we consider the totality of individuals and what they contribute?  One could easily say that FDR cheated on his wife, but I'm sure those who never provided for themselves and depended on Social Security would regard him as a great man. So why smear Manchin?  He stands between one-party rule and a democracy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

It's true.

FDR's cheating on his wife did nothing to harm his constituents.  Using one's political position to greatly increase the cost of needed medication does.

Telling the truth is not smearing.

Minority rule is not democracy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.1    one month ago
FDR's cheating on his wife did nothing to harm his constituents. 

Oh I see, there is another technicality. How about his internment of Japanese Americans?  Did that harm his constituents?


Telling the truth is not smearing.

It can be, Sandy. You see, when it is done for political reasons it absolutely does constitute smearing.


Minority rule is not democracy.

How ironic Sandy. The democrats lack a true mandate and they are operating as if they had super majorities in both houses. 

How is work going?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    one month ago

Point out where I've ever defended FDR's internment of Japanese Americans.

Why do you oppose the truth, Vic?  Why is telling the truth about someone smearing, when you don't like what the truth is?  Should we dress you down for bringing up Japanese internment?  After all, it was politcally motivated.

The Dems have the majority in both houses, and they won the White House.  That's two branches of government under Dem control.  You don't get to move the goalposts and demand they have a "mandate" - a fuzzy enough concept that the goalposts would undoubtedly keep on moving.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.3    one month ago
Point out where I've ever defended FDR's internment of Japanese Americans.

You did say that FDR didn't harm his constituents....Didn't you?


Why do you oppose the truth, Vic?  Why is telling the truth about someone smearing, when you don't like what the truth is?  Should we dress you down for bringing up Japanese internment?  After all, it was politcally motivated.

Actually I present truth around here. Aside from that - I'm not the topic Sandy . I went to the trouble of stating that in Post 1. Why don't I get the same considerations as other members would?


The Dems have the majority in both houses, and they won the White House.  That's two branches of government under Dem control.  You don't get to move the goalposts and demand they have a "mandate" - a fuzzy enough concept that the goalposts would undoubtedly keep on moving.

They have a very narrow majority in the House and a flat footed tie in the Senate. They are attempting to govern as if they had super majorities.

mandate: "the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election."



Winning by the skin of one's teeth hardly constitutes a mandate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    one month ago
You did say that FDR didn't harm his constituents....

I said his cheating on his wife didn't harm his constituents.  Don't try to change my words, Vic.  It's dishonest, and laughably so when my words are in black and white for all to see.

You object to the presentation of truth, and call it "smearing".  Your words are also in black and white for all to see.

Quoting a definition of "mandate" doesn't make it any less of a fuzzy concept with regards to governance.  It still allows "mandate" to be pretty much anything you require it to be.

The only wins that were by the skin of anybody's teeth were in the special elections in Georgia.  The White House was won handily by the Dems.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.5    one month ago
I said his cheating on his wife didn't harm his constituents.  Don't try to change my words, Vic.  It's dishonest, and laughably so when my words are in black and white for all to see.

Now you are trying to confuse the reader. You said those words to differentiate FDR from Manchin. That was your technical point. I countered with FDR's treatment of Japanese Americans did in fact harm his constituents and therefore he is in the same category for which you have attacked Manchin.

I think you are in a corner now.

I'll let our readers decide.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    one month ago

And I've decided that Sandy has you in the corner

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    one month ago

No, I said what I meant.  Straw men don't win debates, Vic.  Everybody here can see you're reading into my words what you want them to have meant, rather than what they actually mean, and pinning your wishes on me.  Take responsibility for what you say, and stop expecting me to take responsibility for what you want me to have said.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.7    one month ago

Sandy doesn't need help. She can speak for herself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.8    one month ago
No, I said what I meant.

Check mate.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.10    one month ago

Sandy's the winner here.  Good job Sandy!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.7    one month ago
"And I've decided that Sandy has you in the corner"

Ya!  She does!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    one month ago

Yes, I can, which is why you should stop trying to speak for me.  I think we should both know by now that when my words are deliberately misinterpreted, I will not meekly accept that deliberate misinterpretation.  I will call it out every time it happens.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    one month ago
Sandy doesn't need help. She can speak for herself.

She certainly can and she is making you look rather foolish.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3    one month ago

Manchin is a RINO.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    one month ago
Manchin is a RINO

The alternative will be a Republican. Once he is gone, you'll have two fully functioning Republican Senators representing West Virginia.

Careful what you wish for!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
3.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    one month ago

A Democrat who is a Republican In Name Only? That's bizarre as hell>>>>>>>>>>

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.2    one month ago

What's bizarre about it?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
3.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    one month ago

If you had typed DINO (Democrat In Name Only) it would have fit. But since Mr. Manchin ISN'T a Republican, it is bizarre in that it isn't even close to a descriptive that most people would use.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.4    one month ago

I made a fucking mistake.  HE'S A FUCKING DINO!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    one month ago
I made a fucking mistake.

Oh, now we get it!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.7    one month ago

People show their good character when they own up to their mistakes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.8    one month ago

Are you the authority on character?  I had no idea.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
3.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.8    one month ago

And it was such a gracious admission................/S

Good character indeed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.10    one month ago

Oh for fucks' sake.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.9    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.10    one month ago

Perhaps if you had been a bit kinder she might have been a bit kinder back. The point is, Tessy admitted to her mistake. It's refreshing!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
3.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.13    one month ago
Perhaps if you had been a bit kinder she might have been a bit kinder back.

Yeah.......................

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.10    one month ago

I'm glad you agree that I am of good character. . . .  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    one month ago

I think McConnell changed the Senate forever (or until the filibuster is changed or eliminated) when he denied the Supreme Court nomination of Obama's selection Merrick Garland because it was an election year and then had his underlings confirm Amy Coney Barrett a few days before a presidential election. 

You see, McConnell's decision to push Barrett through was based entirely on partisan considerations, and he even admitted as much, claiming that what he was doing was ok because the Senate majority and the president were members of the same political party. 

If there is an institution in Washington that should be non partisan it should be the Supreme Court. Yet McConnell spit in the eye of non partisanship. 

It doesnt bother me at all that the Democrats have woken up a little and want to fight fire with fire to a small extent. I hope they use as many reconciliations as they can and or need to. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
It doesnt bother me at all

Of course not.

For the record, McConnell's rejection of Garland was a huge longshot at the time. Despite claims to the contrary, Hillary Clinton was a huge favorite to win the 2016 election and she would have surely appointed a far more extreme AG than Garland. At least it appeared that way. It turns out that Garland was another trojan horse. We now see that he was another wolf in sheep's clothing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

Why dont you say something that is relevant to my comment? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

The rejection of Garland and subsequent confirmation of ACB merely exposed the hypocrisy of McConnell's colleagues.  Of course, I'm well aware that some folks are fine with hypocrisy, so long as the hypocrisy is their own side's.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.2    one month ago
The rejection of Garland and subsequent confirmation of ACB merely exposed the hypocrisy of McConnell's colleagues.  Of course, I'm well aware that some folks are fine with hypocrisy, so long as the hypocrisy is their own side's.

Do you think Democrats would have let a Republican nominee through under the same circumstances?  

Only a fool would believe that.

Garland has proved himself to be a political hack.  Thank goodness he was not appointed to a position of trust.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    one month ago
Minority rule is not democracy.

Relevant to your belief that denying Obama an appointment is justification for totalitarian rule?

I leave that to our readers.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.3    one month ago

So, you're telling us that you're ok with Republicans breaking their own imaginary rules, when it suits their interests.  Noted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.2    one month ago

McConnell cited the "Biden rule" as I recall.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1.7  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    one month ago

They forget things jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    one month ago

Which is not codified.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.8    one month ago

I see you forget that they followed it when it suited them, and broke it when it suited them to break it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.9    one month ago

So true Sandy.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.8    one month ago

In other words it's good for democrats, but not Republicans?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one month ago

It's the alleged conservatives who want Totalitarian rule.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.11    one month ago

I never said it was good either way.  I object to it being used as a defense, then abandoned.  You're defending it being used, then abandoned when it's expedient for your side.  It's a blatant double standard.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one month ago

Vic, what I said was that McConnell pushed Barrett through the Senate entirely on partisan grounds. Entirely. Now he wants the Democratic majority in the Senate to be bi-partisan in their actions. 

That is what I said, not what your opinions of Merrick Garland are. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago
That is what I said

And I recognized it: "Relevant to your belief that denying Obama an appointment is justification for totalitarian rule?"

It isn't about McConnell having a double standard, it's about democrats trying to change the nation and all the rules in two years.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.15    one month ago

That's the only standard the alleged conservatives have.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
4.1.17  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.14    one month ago

What Democratic majority in the Senate is that, when it is split 50/50? Only the VP gives the Democrats a one vote edge.

The left's idea of a majority is completely bonkers. The Democrats can't get anything done w/o Republican support; and are trying every trick they can to get around it. If they end the filibuster they will be the first ones screaming to reinstate it once they are out of power. Same as they did with Obama's judicial nominations using the nuclear option. Once they were out of power the Democrats wanted the rules to revert back.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.13    one month ago
I object to it being used as a defense, then abandoned.  You're defending it being used, then abandoned when it's expedient for your side.  It's a blatant double standard.

There is no double standard. Republicans get to do what democrats do. It's fairly simple. You do away with the 60 vote standard for certain judges and we can apply it to all judges. You use ideology to be a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and Republicans can do it as well. Try and remember this Sandy - When Donald Trump had control of both houses of congress he asked McConnell to end the filibuster. McConnell said NO. Senate democrats supported McConnell's NO!

So, who is guilty of a double standard?


 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.18    one month ago
"There is no double standard."

Of course there is.  Only on the alleged conservative side though.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.18    one month ago

You're changing the subject, Vic.  We're talking about the "Biden Rule", to which Republicans adhered when it suited them, and ignored when it was expedient.

You're also forgetting that the filibuster was actually adopted by Congress.  The "Biden Rule" never was.  The "rule" you cited - it isn't actually part of our system of government.  It was an excuse for obstruction, which, precisely because it isn't actually part of our system of government, could easily be abandoned.  Dems will abide by the filibuster, because it's actually a rule.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.20    one month ago
Dems will abide by the filibuster, because it's actually a rule.

They are hell bent to destroy it, That's the one of the reason's I wrote the article complimenting Manchin and his courage.

I think we are back to square 1.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.21    one month ago

And I don't think Manchin is courageous at all.  He's a grifter.  He's pandering to keep his job.  His wishy-washiness got his wife another political appointment (the Appalachian Regional Commission, for which her qualifications are unclear) to tempt him to toe the Dem line.  He's enjoying the power and perks of being a swing vote.  But courageous?  No, not really.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.22    one month ago
"And I don't think Manchin is courageous at all."

No, not at all.  No courage at all in that spineless slimy prick.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.24  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.2    one month ago

McConnell was historically correct both times!  In an election year when the President and senate majority are different parties the President s nominee is almost never confirmed.  In an election year the President and senate majority are the same party the Presidents nominee is almost always confirmed. Garland and Barrett simply follows historical norms as did McConnell. The fact that democrats think they were cheated both times shows them for the hypocrites that they are.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1.25  Sunshine  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.24    one month ago
The fact that democrats think they were cheated both times shows them for the hypocrites that they are.

Their whining never ends.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
"It doesnt bother me at all that the Democrats have woken up a little and want to fight fire with fire to a small extent. I hope they use as many reconciliations as they can and or need to."

Ya!  Exactly

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
5  Sunshine    one month ago
"I don't think I can support a rumored House Democratic infrastructure bill costing between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. “That seems to me just totally out of the ballpark.”

At least one Democrat has some sense of financial responsibility.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
bugsy


23 visitors