208
Biden marks Earth Day with $7bn ‘solar for all’ investment amid week of climate action
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
208 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19306 readers
3053 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
...
I mean. If they were being sanctioned for something like their genocide of Muslims on all exports, yeah, I'd be all about it.
But if a country genocides Muslims, Biden tends to give them billions of dollars, not sanctions. You only get sanctions for genociding Christians, and thats only if the rest of the UN does it.
Besides the very very simple difference that if these were sanctions, they wouldn't be called tariffs, they'd be called sanctions.
You could try to read the article i linked if you want more info, or even try searching for another article.
Making random guess of how it could be a positive and throwing them out there hoping something sticks is what trumpets do...
Although these days it's legitimately hard to tell them apart from the few people actually excited about Biden.
Hell. A few years ago no Dem would unironically say they were "just asking questions". That's been the conservative move since Faux News came about.
But I guess if someone kept watching CNN after the Faux News guy bought it, that does explain the change. He said he wanted to turn CNN into Faux News, and it looks like it's working on people
Fact check: failed
"Treasury Sanctions Chinese Government Officials in Connection with Serious Human Rights Abuse in Xinjiang"
source
While you have a point, assume the guy was asking in good faith and then see how your response reads.
That account isn't asking in good faith.
Edit: Comment...adjusted...to comply with rules.
There as no editorializing on my part in my response. I didn't assign any motives or blame to their incorrect statement. I only posted that it was untrue (intentionally or not) and cited the source.
I'm sorry, I thought I was replying to @[email protected].
He's right in that we shouldn't just search for justifications, Trumpist style.