I don't have the time or the mental bandwidth to go through this point by point although I do appreciate getting to have a substantive discussion even when we don't see eye to eye. There are a few things that I do want to touch on however.

There's a huge difference between rhetoric that is meant to build a coalition amongst everyday citizens and what it takes to get a political coalition going - which quite often is more about horse trading than it is about scruples. Joe Manchin (and all other politicians) back or do not back bills based less on how they align with their personal values or even the values of their constituents and more on how they align with the dictates of their political machinations. As I said to you in another comment, Manchin supported the recent climate/economic bill not because it was the right thing to do or because of the eloquence or vitriol of any people on the street, but because he got what he wanted for a lobby group that makes large donations to his campaign.

MLK's Vietnam speech was widely condemned as being inappropriate and inflammatory. Some 200 publications refuse to run it and roundly condemned him for it. The fact that you think his quite pointed indictment of the white refusal to truly grapple with inequality, which also didn't go over smoothly, is any different than my pointing out places where Dancova was using misleading statistics and saying things that were demonstrably false, as well as being insensitive to the devastation that so many American women are feeling right now - including me, is quite surprising to me, and a bit disappointing. I'm not sure why he can say inflammatory things, some of which are obviously untrue (e.g. that angry rhetoric is why Democrats don't win more races) and mock positions which I hold and have substantive backing for, but I'm out of line for not just rolling over for that.

In any case, thanks for the chat.