You may have noticed that in recent weeks, the Biden administration has been rolling out a hell of a lot of new regulations. Earlier this month it was big student loan reforms and a massive improvement in how public lands are managed, then this week we had better pay and working conditions for working Americans, minimum staffing ratios for nursing homes, and even improved service on airlines.
That’s not only because it’s an election year, though Joe & Kamala certainly do like to point out that where the Other Guy rages (and wants to raise inflation!) they’ve been busy making Americans’ lives better. But the bigger reason is that the administration wants to get new rules finalized prior to May, to keep them from being tossed out in the next Congress via the Congressional Review Act, which Donald Trump and his cronies used to reverse a bunch of Barack Obama’s environmental regulations.
. . . The requirement that coal plants find a way to eliminate 90 percent of their emissions by 2032 effectively accelerates the end of coal for power generation, which was inevitable anyway. Roughly 70 percent of US coal plants have already closed, and last year, coal generated only 16 percent of electric power, a new record low. In addition to the emissions rule, three other final rules also impose strict new limits on mercury, coal ash, and pollution of wastewater, to put an end to the environmental degradation caused by coal.
. . . The other option, obviously, would be for utilities to meet coming demand with renewables, as administration officials pointed out when previewing the new rule. Thanks to the IRA’s hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives, carbon-free power generation, including battery storage, already beats the cost of building new gas plants. Going forward, the administration is confident renewables will be the far more cost-effective and reliable way to meet increasing demand by 2032, when the emissions limits fully kick in.
Genocide Joe is better than Obama or Clinton were? That’s a hot take
deleted by creator
Clinton was very invested in creating Israelis-Palestinian peace, I don’t think he would have been as passive on the Palestinian death toll as Biden was at the beginning of the conflict. Obama was willing to go up against Netanyahu when he wanted something (like the Iran Nuclear Deal), so I think it’s likely he would have also had a stronger response to the Israeli genocide, as long as it was politically expedient for him. On most issues, I think Biden has actually been better than the (admittedly very low) expectations I have for the Democratic party, but I think he’s actually worse than his party’s predecessors on Israel.
That’s just not true. Biden is the most rabidly pro-Israel president we’ve ever had – since before Reagan for sure.
He’s actually been tougher on Israel than any US president since Reagan. That’s not saying much, but it’s sadly true. He has been against the move into Gaza from the start, and has used a lot of diplomatic pressure (though not enough by my estimation). His administration is the only reason Rafah doesn’t already look like the rest of Gaza. The idea that the US could yank Israel’s leash and stop the invasion of Gaza in it’s tracks is ignorant.
All the ranting people did to get a ceasefire from the UN was ill-conceved because when they “won” the ceasefire was issued and summarily ignored. (Like anyone familiar with foreign policy knew it would be). What the Biden administration has been working towards is a peace, not a ceasefire, and that requires sustained involvement, not removing US influence entirely to make a point.
There are signals from both sides and other nations in the region that peace might actually be achieved soon, and it has been “Genocide Joe” working on it all along while the virtue signalling squad lost their shit.
You can’t actually believe that. Biden refused to publically criticize Israel until February, four months into the genocide, when he said Israel’s actions were “over the top.” And even then, the flow of weapons has yet to even slow. Even Ronald Reagan withheld weapons from Israel when they got out of line.
The President coming out to criticize a close ally is never going to be the first step in that direction. That’s not how foreign policy works.
Incorrect. Weapons shipments were delayed and are still being delayed. The deals went forward, but delays were introduced as some of the very first signals to Israel.
Exactly why I said “since Reagan”. Biden has at least threatened to do so, which is something that hasn’t happened since Reagan.
My position isn’t that the Biden administration has done everything right, but that the narrative where they have done nothing but defend Israel is bunk. The general strategy of slowly turning up the heat is the best way to maximize US influence by my estimation, but I think the dial has been turned way too slowly.
Foreign policy is way more complicated than most people think. There is an entire region that has to be considered over decades, not just the issue catching people’s attention at the moment. As bad as things are in Gaza, they could be worse, and they could be far more widespread. If Israel goes to war with any of their rivals, all pretense of restraint in Gaza will end immediately.
Got a source for that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-delays-sale-assault-rifles-israel-over-settler-violence-sources-2023-12-13/
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/13/us-israel-rifle-sale-delay-west-bank-violence
https://abcnews.go.com/International/senior-israeli-official-us-slow-walking-aid-us-disputes/story?id=108107192
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-discussing-slowing-weaponry-deliveries-israel-pre-rcna136035
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4434545-biden-administration-looking-to-slow-weapon-sales-to-israel-in-effort-to-scale-back-military-assault-report/
Thank you.
First two links are exclusively about rifles, not the bombs and shells being used on families in Gaza. The third article says:
Your last two articles say that three months ago the administration was considering thinking about exploring the possibility of debating the merits of slowing weapon deliveries.
It’s not pragmatic to twiddle your thumbs while your weapons are used to commit atrocities. It’s evil.
And then sent them anyways in violation of the Leahy Law. You forgot that part.
It’s so neat watching Democrats use Republican smears like this.
I think putting the appearance of virtue ahead of actual virtue is a problem, no matter who does it. Anyways, the entire right wing suit of bad ideas is almost entirely virtue signalling.
We invented that phrase, Republicans just stole it and tried to use it (badly). They can’t come up with anything new. Even The Cheeto’s favorite phrase “witch hunt” was stolen from Democrats criticizing the Republican attacks on the Clintons.
The phrase is much older than the Clintons’ problems with Republicans. Allusions to Salem are at least as old as McCarthyism.
Thanks, Captain Pedantry
Republicans still adopted it after that instance because they’re too stupid to have read it before then.
You’re welcome, citizen! I’m glad I could inform you that things happened before the Clintons.
Obama preferred to bomb civilians directly rather than by proxy (CIA drone assassination program).
Still, all far better than Trump. Like Trump wouldn’t have bent over Israel pressure himself.
You’re right, it would’ve been the same with Trump. I would never vote for him either.
The 2 party system sucks balls.