Talk:Joe Manchin

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

	This politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Any recomendations...

...for getting this to mainspace?-Flandres (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Is this missional? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, he downplays the risk of climate change in order to defend fossil fuels, so that already slots him into the pseudoscience category. We also look at how these issues are handled by leading public figures, in this case a senator who is being widely noted as extremely influential.-Flandres (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is missional. His views on LGBTQIA+ rights are poor (voted against same-sex marriage; is also against the Equality Act), along with voting yes on several of former President Donald Trump's appointees, most of which are highly controversial. Magic Master (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth is the Democratic Party of America a centrist/right-wing on international standards?

Especially on the cultural agenda, American liberals are located on the left side of East Asia and Latin America. South Korea's welfare level is weaker than that of the United States, and Chile's gap between the rich and the poor is wider than that of the United States, but in South Korea and Chile, the centre-left is called social democrats. is not called liberal. Do you think the American "liberal" is really a centrist? Really? --Umaru16 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And above all, the Democratic Party of America belongs to the Progressive Alliance. If the Democratic Party of America is really a centrist party, why does it belong to a democratic socialist international organization? The American "liberal" is absolutely not centrist.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope the leftists of the United States will abandon the illusion that their country is a very conservative country by world standards. There are many countries that are much more conservative than the United States. I don't think all social welfare systems are weak just because the U.S. has a poor health insurance system, and I think the U.S. is culturally progressive in terms of international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you live in South Korea as LGBT or Chile as the poor, you will feel that the United States is actually heaven.

Why do American leftists pretend not to know about the misdeeds they have done in other countries, but say nonsense that their country is very conservative? At that time, study how conservative Pinochet, supported by the United States, made Chile. To be clear, the United States is not a conservative country even if it is an imperial country.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why the U.S. leftists don't apologize to the Chileans, but say nonsense that U.S. country is more conservative than other regions. American culture and institutions are sufficiently progressive, and their progressive elements were made by exploiting other countries. Americans should also study how much Theodore Roosevelt was a Shit to Koreans.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Chile is conservative in almost every way than the United States. South Korea is conservative in almost every way than the United States. The reason why they became conservative was that the United States sponsored Pinochet in Chile, divided Korea, remained silent to the dictatorship, and promoted far-right anti-communism.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If the U.S. Democratic Party is right-wing on an international basis, all South Korean parliamentary parties are FAR-RIGHT parties. ALL political parties in South Korea are more socially conservative than the U.S. Democratic Party.--Umaru16 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to remove the right internationally remark, the rest of your revisions are wrong for a simple reason-this page is not focused on international politics.

The Democratic party is internally divided between "moderates" (Biden) "progressives" (Sanders) and "conservatives" (Manchin). This article is referring to those divisions, relative to democrats, not international figures.-Flandres (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is still dominated by neoliberalism, a right-wing economic ideology. Attempts to portray them as left-wing are largely a result of cherry picking. Plutocow (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, before the site has this debate for the thousandth time, let me just remind everybody for reasons outlined in my first post it is only tangentially relevant to this page.-Flandres (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we focus on actual problems on the article? Like how it is terribly editorialized POV-pushing and full of non sequiturs, like the oil industry part? GeeJayK (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No, because you can't provide specific critique. You wouldn't happen to just be whining about it because it conflicts with your personal bias, hm?-Flandres (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Most definetely not. The only thing I know about this guy is that Ken likes him, which probably means he sucks as the article suggests. But that does not mean the article is good. I'm not at home right now, I'll see if I can elaborate when/if I have time. GeeJayK (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, just please provide specific critique when you do. We (rightly) contemptuously dismiss drive by users who show up just to post "THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED" on some talk page all the time.-Flandres (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh, I don't care about bias, as long as the article is accurate. Problem is being POV pushing. I agree the article should be critical and that this guy is probably na idiot. My problem is more with the form, not the substance. GeeJayK (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That's still not terribly useful (especially as the difference between "snarkily criticizing a politician for accurate reasons" and "pov-pushing" is kind of subjective). Also, what "oil industry part" are you talking about? If you want the article to change you should at least give a more concrete example.-Flandres (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right. Just give me a couple of hours and I'll elaborate when I come back home. GeeJayK (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Flandres I read the article with more attention now and it turns out that it's far better than I first thought. I don't even know how I came up with that oil industry part. My main problem would be with this paragraph:

This is all emblematic of Manchin's conservative nature. He refuses to commit to higher social spending and simply does not like social programs that benefit workers. [28] His intransigence, second only to Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, has ruffled a lot of feathers even from his own party, his fellow senators, and the mainstream media, with many criticizing how Manchin "gets half a million dollars a year from coal production." [29] [30] Much of his behavior makes more sense when you learn his personal finances are dependent on the fossil fuel industry.[31]

First: I don't think Manchin, or even someone that is batshit crazy like Ron Paul, disagree with with social spending because they want to screw workers. Maybe they think these programs aren't actually benefitting workers (many of them aren't) . I don't think we need to fully remove the sentence of even the conclusion, but I do think it should be better elaborated, unless there's actually evidence that Manchin is a sadistic that doesn't like "social programs that benefit workers". Second, I don't understand what his personal finances have to do with anything. It's possible that he's against these policies because of his source of income? Yes. But it's a non sequitur to conclude without evidence that, because he's earns money from coal, he votes against his own party on certain subjects. Again, maybe he actually disagrees with these policies. I'm not denying the importance of the lobby, just that I'm not convinced that he votes the way he votes mostly because "his personal finances are dependent on the fossil fuel industry".

There are a few other problems too, like the article disagreeing with itself, sometimes calling Manchin a centrist, sometimes a conservative, sometimes a reactionary, and the entire last paragraph, that, quite frankly reads like a rant of someone pissed with this guy, but I won't be able to answer until Tuesday, and even then I 'm not sure if I'll have time (and probably interest) to edit the article myself. So if you don't agree with my points just call it a day. As I said, I don't think this article is very good, but it's not as bad as I thought. GeeJayK (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, at that point you should probably talk to serocco, because he added that. Of course, politicians hiding behind bad policy just for profit even if it screws over the less fortunate is pretty much business as usual in the USA so I can at least kind of see why he did. Also, not understanding that a politician who benefits from an industry votes against polices that might hinder it, and that these things could be connected...well that's certainly very naïve of you.-Flandres (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not that stupid. As I said, I find the idea plausible. I'm questioning the evidence presented on the article. In any case I'm not going to edit the article, at least for now. See, I find extremely... frustrating to engage with the user Serocco and do think he had this little habit of writing these POV-pushing pieces sometimes (though I can enjoy how he keeps articles on American politics up to date). It is no big deal, and I don't have time to think in a better version for these two parahraphs anyway, so whatever. GeeJayK (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the main factor in dividing the left and right is to promote 'social equality'. I don't think Joe Biden, the current president of the United States, supports neoliberalism. His plan to increase his budget and establish an ambitious welfare state was only blocked by conservatives in the party.--Umaru16 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Joe Manchin is a relative conservative within the U.S. Democratic Party, but I think South Korean wiki users don't think there's a conservative within the U.S. Democratic Party. In fact, fiscal conservatism is a bypass expression of economic liberalism or neoliberalism. In other countries, it is not usually called conservatism unless it is in a tough position. Right now, Blue Dog doesn't seem to take a socially conservative stance on overall international standards (although I would agree with European standards).

The definite fact is that the "conservative" within the U.S. Democratic Party may be culturally more progressive than South Korea's social-democratic party.--Umaru16 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, citing the relative position of the Democrats with international parties does not matter here specifically. Manchin is a conservative by Democrat standards. Biden is a moderate, but as the party leader has to pass policy progressives (and conservatives for that matter) like to keep the party together.-Flandres (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, okay. Then I'm not against it.--Umaru16 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, but I don't think the Democratic Party is a 'centrist' party. By U.S. standards, Democrats cannot be located in "centrist" because the U.S. is a two-party system, and even more, the U.S. Democratic Party is not "centrist" in East Asia's gender discrimination, social inequality, and poor welfare system. I think the phrase 'centrist' should be replaced with another phrase.--Umaru16 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, because we are just talking about America. East Asia doesn't enter into it. The Democratic party is called "centrist" because it's leadership is composed of centrists (Biden/Schumer/Pelosi). Progressives and conservatives are also in the party and have to be appeased but they are second chair at the end of the day. A more spefic term could be "Big Tent centrist" but why type that over and over just to satisfy a few annoying pedants...-Flandres (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That "centrists" has a very, very relative meaning. It's a concept similar to the left side of the German CDU or the right side of the SPD. In fact, the "conservatives" of the U.S. Democratic Party are considered "centrists" or even "liberals" in the U.S. Republican Party, not "conservatives".--Umaru16 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The Democratic Party of America's "centrist" is only "centrist" within the Democratic Party. They are basically centre-left social "liberal"s on the right side of left-wing "socialist"s like Bernie Sanders.--Umaru16 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(EC)The party is dominated by centrists. Sure, we can add the qualifier "Big Tent" if this article is really giving you nightmares but the party is still run by centrists. The American Left is defined by things like the GND or M4A, which have their home among the dems but are not party orthodoxy. Bear in mind it is also pulled to the right by appeasing conservatives.-Flandres (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the mainstream of the Democratic Party before the left in the United States is "centrist." I think it's at least a much more reasonable definition to define the U.S. Democratic Party as "big tent" rather than "centrist." Therefore, the phrase "centrist" should be changed to "big tent".--Umaru16 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't really use "Big Tent" by itself. You kind of have to use a qualifier like "centrists." Or, I could just reword the section so it doesn't make any claims either way.-Flandres (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What is certain is that there are no politicians in South Korea who openly claim to be "socialists" (even if they are social democrats). They are not "centrist" in US standards, nor are they "centrist" in international standards. Please don't misunderstand me as a conservative who supports the Republican Party after hearing this. I also see Nordic social democracy in a friendly way.--Umaru16 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There are centrist Democrats and Republicans. In a broad sense, Joe Biden may be a centrist. But I don't know why Nancy Pelosi is a centrist. It would be very absurd to apply Nordic political standards to the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I reworded the section. It no longer calls the Democratic Party centrist. You can shut up now.-Flandres (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, good job. Then get out of here, your SHIT.--23:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Umaru16 / talk / contribs}

Oopsie me.

I might have accidentally deleted stuff for Manchin. Sorry. - Patty Pat.