To be clear... if Manchin refuses to change the filibuster, and also is resistant to reconciliation, he's basically saying he doesn't want to govern.

boo-hoo. perhaps for their next trick the (D)s should go back to the Filibuster version that Biden’s senate buddy Senator Robert Byrd (D) wielded when he attempted to stop the legislation that became The Civil Rights Act of 1964

It sounds like he isn't saying he won't reform it, but is saying he isn't going to be changing where it can be done?

Not very clear. He already said he's in favor of the standing filibuster.

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me. The filibuster would undeniably be weakened if it was changed to require standing/nonstop speaking.

I agree with your general sentiment though that Manchin did not completely shut the door on filibuster changes. He makes a very clear plea for good faith, bipartisan efforts at seeking compromise and passing legislation. If Republicans go too far with their fundamental obstructionism, if they drop even the pretense of being willing to negotiate, then Manchin could go back on his words and argue "red senators bad, left me no choice".

Anyway, this should end the debate around ending the filibuster and passing Democratic power grabs like HR1 or DC statehood before the midterms.

Biden's ATF pick posing with the bodies of dead women and children ~ April 1993

“guns are only good when only the government has them”
-biden supporters

That fucking cunt Joe Biden is now setting his sights on packing the Supreme Court. No one should be surprised.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1380536385958985736

He might be saying "weaken", like lowering it to 55 votes to break it, or limiting time. Making it a standing fillibuster wouldn't weaken it since it still retains all the same power to stop legislation, but it would make it harder to use. Same strength, more sacrifice.

We'll just have to see.

I didn't address the filibuster in my post.

Oh, I didn't mean to quote you lol