711
submitted 5 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Colorado congressional candidate and sitting State Rep. Richard Holtorf (R) received a tough grilling this week at the hands of local 9News anchor Kyle Clark over his apparent hypocrisy when it comes to abortion rights.

Holtorf made headlines back in January when he defended paying for his girlfriend’s abortion, despite being an adamant pro-life lawmaker and abortion critic. “Anti-abortion GOP lawmaker praises the impact of the abortion he paid for,” read the headline of a local report by Clark from the beginning of the year.

To his credit, Holtorf sat down with Clark to discuss the issue.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee -4 points 5 months ago
[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Joe Manchin double crossed Republicans who thought he was in their pocket. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/27/manchin-schumer-senate-deal-energy-taxes-00048325

For those who weren't paying attention at the time, Biden had a massive proposed spending bill called Build Back Better, which was going to be the cornerstone of his plan for recovering from the pandemic. Republicans oppossed it, of course. There were 50 Democratic Senators and 50 Republicans, meaning that spending bills could not get past the filibuster (which requires a 60-vote supermajority).

The bill was split into two parts. One was the Infrastructure and Jobs Act, and the other was the (cynically named) Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA contained some of the sweeping provisions regarding climate change, health care, etc which Republicans were dead set against. The infrastructure act they were okay with on principle, but they didn't want to give the Dems a win. The IRA, due to the type of spending involved, could be passed with just 50 votes under a loophole known as reconciliation.

In late 2021, Manchin and Sinema were making noises about the IRA. Democrats started saying very publicly that they should refuse to pass the smaller but more popular infrastructure act until/unless the bigger IRA was passed. It was starting to look like another broken promise from Democrat administrations: a big, ambitious bill (Build Back Better) gets watered down and stripped of all its best parts and a good but wimpy version of it (infrastructure act) is all that's allowed to pass by Republicans.

Democrats backed down, Republicans passed the infrastructure bill, it looked like business as normal. Manchin publicly pulled support for the IRA and by early 2022 it was dead.

It briefly revived in June of 2022. Republicans had no power to block it, but they threatened to block the CHIPS act unless Democrats backed down again. Once again, Manchin, seemingly a loyal Republican plant, pulled his support and the bill died.

Congress passed the CHIPS act, and hours later on the same day, Schumer and Manchin revealed that Manchin had actually reached out to secretly continue negotiations, and they had a deal, and now there was nothing left for the Republicans to block out of spite, they were gonna pass it. And they did pass it, 51 to 50 with Kamala being the tie breaker.

It was stunning, everyone had written off Manchin as a R in D's clothing, but honestly without him it's very unlikely that we would have gotten all three of those bills passed. Even if we'd passed the IRA, Republicans would have killed one of the other bills out of spite.

[-] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago
[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago
[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Yea, thatsthejoke.gif

Probably could have used a /s once upon a time

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

Grasping sarcasm is part of child development, and I can't help it that you people need /s to understand something my 4 year old could grasp.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Indeed, we aren't the sarcasm police. I thought it was hilarious BTW. Good one.

this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
711 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2245 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