this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4212 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not like he ever voted with Democrats anyway. Fuck that guy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He did sometimes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act

I mean he made the law worse too let's not give him too much credit, but a republican wouldn't have even bargained on it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I won't say you're wrong about yes he made it worse but he did ultimately accept the compromise version and help make it happen, but even that is a sort of charitable reading. He waited until the much more aggressive first iteration had gotten most of the way through to completion, and then fucked it all up (presumably in the hopes they'd just give up), and so everyone had to go back to the drawing board and do it again with a pared back version, which was the Inflation Reduction Act, and then when that passed he took all kinds of credit for it, even though he still did his best to kneecap its actual implementation when it came to anything that might lose money for any of his campaign contributors or personal investments, which are many and mostly destructive.

It is almost impossible to overstate what a piece of shit Joe Manchin is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I don't disagree with you. Only stating that he's less of a piece of shit than every republican senator. Admittedly, an extremely low bar to clear. Like Mariana trench low bar.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Climate "ambitions", huh. The pressing need to avoid or mitigate the collapse of civilization is merely an "ambition" now...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

I mean it’s certainly not a policy reality, or a fucking priority or anything

😢

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Hm, I thought it was missing some big stuff -- I had some impression that BBBA was targeting a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030, and the IRA reduced it to 40% (this was the only actual list I could find in quick searching, and says it was missing "A range of policies that were previously part of the Build Back Better Act ... like electric power transmission, CO2 pipelines, and building energy efficiency" which makes basically 0 sense to me and sounds like an LLM hallucination. What the fuck is a CO2 pipeline.)

I wasn't able to find a really detailed breakdown of what might have been missing from it, so honestly I could be wrong.

I do agree with you that the IRA was a massive step forward from the usual US government "total inaction or else make it worse" policy, and that Manchin supporting it despite the fact that it was actually trying to do some significant good things is a shocking and welcome surprise. You kinda have a point there.