These are excuses, and like all excuses for sexist double-standards, they're bad ones.

In reality, Joe Manchin's belligerence toward the reconciliation bill makes no more political sense than Kyrsten Sinema's. The proposed bill, as is mind you, polls better than both Manchin and Sinema do even in their respective states, so the only position that makes any political sense for either of them is to support it like the rest of the Democratic Caucus is. The reason they don't is because the two of them have massive financial conflicts of interest with key objectives of the reconciliation bill that matter more to them than their political careers do. Sinema is heavily invested in the drug industry, for example. Manchin, for his part, is a modern-day coal baron who makes $500,000 a year in dividends from millions of dollars worth of coal stock he owns, which is significantly more money than he makes serving the people of West Virginia as their Senator, and so naturally will find it tough to support any law that would substantially fight climate change. Their motives here are the same: money. It's just that the latter's conflicts of interest get publicized a lot less often because...well, genitals, familiarity. He's a statesman.

The truth is that my cynical side kind of expects politicians to behave like craven bureaucrats, conveniently changing their positions to match the aggregate views of their latest constituency as they move up in their careers. I expect that because it honestly seems like almost a natural, inevitable consequence of having a system of representative democracy. I mean how much can one really fault a politician for seeking to accurately represent the positions of their constituents, after all, however half-heartedly they may do so in a given case? Our system of government is built in such a way as to incentivize that kind of behavior, so what else do we expect? The only solution to that particular problem I can come up with is working to make our democracy more participatory and direct to the extent that as much is viable. At the end of the day though we're talking about people's motives for doing what we want them to.

What Senators Manchin and Sinema are doing here is something very different from just behaving like craven bureaucrats like we might half-expect politicians to though. They aren't simply changing their positions to match those of their latest constituency, they're going against what their constituents want in order to secure their own personal fortunes. That is something qualitatively more corrupt in my eyes and which is driven not by the basic logic of representative democracy, but by the machinations of our capitalist economy, and is something which exposes the ultimately incompatible logic of the two things (capitalist economics and democratic principles) methinks. To that end, I'm of the view, personally, that public officials should be legally obliged to hold regular jobs and incomes that don't exceed those of the average worker.

Getting back to the matter of the reconciliation bill though, my point is that there's no rational reason why Senator Manchin should be given a free pass from criticism here, as would seem to be your goal. His recent behavior is NOT on a different moral tier from that of Senator Sinema.

I wonder how many American members are watching this thread.

Doing so might be hazardous to your mental health.

The idea that acknowledging very real differences in the context between Sinema and Manchin's actions is sexist, is ludicrous and I won't debate under that implication.

That got a genuine laugh out of me because it’s true :)

But I think the traditional News isn’t the worst offender these days, not for years now. Most of it is dry objective reports on what’s going on with little to no opinion inserted - anything remotely political is immediately slammed with a lot of scrutiny, so it’s not nearly as impactful as it once was. Right now, the worst brain-rotters are political youtubers and social media political pundits. The funny thing is they keep attacking the “mainstream media” (their pejorative for traditional news media) for political slants, when these sorts are often dozens of times more politically slanted. The “mainstream media” pejorative is also quite hypocritical as social media is the most mainstream form of media today - if you’re a Joe Rogan type with tens of millions of followers across Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and YouTube, then vastly more mainstream than any traditional news show. In almost every online community I’m in, I see people driven to irrationally ecstatic anger because they watched some really crap “Secular Talk” or Jimmy Dore, Ben Shapiro, or Russel Brand video and bought into it fully without any kind of skepticism, basic logic, or common sense… This happens MUCH MUCH more often than anyone watching something like BBC or CNN.

I totally agree with this point.  Most people today cannot decern between actual real news and celebrity news which is more entertainment then actual news.  Its why when Tucker Carlson was sued his layers pleaded that Tucker is not news but entertainment.  Any of these internet sources used for news are also just entertainment and thus they are not held to the same standards.  The fact some people post their opinion as if they are sources of news always baffle me.  If anyone is going to these sites or youtube talking heads and using them as a source of news, they are falling into the trap of listening to someone opinion and not actually doing the work to form their own opinion on actual facts.

Personally, I stopped taking any source that does not link to or provide the source of their information.  Without being able to see where they are getting their info, its hard to know if they are slanting it, leaving out important info or just lying period which I have seen on multiple occasions.  I am more care about any source that actually cater to my bias because that is where the real trap is laid.

Something that I am very interested in is how Trump is going to destroy the GOP. Now I know that is a very bold statement but it does appear from his latest statements and his popularity within the party that things are going to get worse unless he switches gears. At a time when the GOP probably want to concentrate on winning 2022 because as history has shone, usually the House gets flipped during the first term of a new President, the GOP definitely want to concentrate on Biden and his performance and low numbers. The problem for the GOP is that Trump still seems to be making 2022 about himself. That statement he made about GOP voters not voting in 2022 or 2024 unless the GOP somehow overturn the Presidential elections has to be a huge concern for the party. I am wondering if Trump continue down this road and turnout from GOP constituents are low, how the party will react. This could be Georgia all over again. Will the party cave in and believe they have to do whatever whims Trump has or do they bit the bullet and just totally revolt. The bad part for the GOP is that Trump probably care nothing about the party or its goals. He is only concerned about how it effects him and his ego and its going to be very interesting if they later feel like they should have moved on way sooner.

Originally the Infrastructure Bill was $10 trillion over 10 years (this would have covered everything needed for a complete overhaul of the system), it eventually was reduced to $3.5 Trillion over 10 years due to Dem moderates concerns

Things have recently changed, Biden position has changes again, he now wants the Progressives to accept a 1.75 Trillion Bill over 10 years, most of that as corporate handouts   

The compromise 

$1.75 Trillion over 10 years for a Universal Infrastructure Program that benefits whole of society 

now contrast

$7.1 Trillion over 10 years for Military spending, supporting the Military Industrial Complex     

:/ 

Yes, Biden is the one pressuring Progressives to lower the cost.

There is no other important context.

Yet it's the Progressives and the US Public that are always asked to compromise 

Weak leaders get weak results 

Weak leaders don't stay leaders