I think the admins just add them on their own initiative. So one of them?

No, how dare strikes have leverage or consequences! I am totally pro-union and worker.

But seriously, if the president had the power to remove NLRB, it would have already been gone. Jesus, Trump being worse than Biden doesn’t mean he’s vastly worse on every issue.

Raise that to two and I’m in.

I’d take it more seriously if the Democrats did or treated this as a serious issue. Instead they use it as an excuse to be 99% fascist and use it as an excuse to not campaign or take up popular issues because if they lose, it is because the voters didn’t fight to have 99% fascism instead of 100% fascism.

The entire point of Pied Piper strategy is to create that threat.

“It’s not our job to campaign or do politics, the Democrats cannot fail, only be failed” - Democrats, totally caring about fascism.

That’s the Democrat’s only gambit. Never make any progress and keep as much rights as possible contingent on the next election to try to force people into accepting lesser evils.

Love how it is always the voter’s fault, it’s not candidates or parties job to appeal to voters.

Is it propaganda that Biden loves cops and supports Israel?

As far as Muslims, I am responding to the people on the tracks in the meme. Biden has been vocally anti-abortion for most of his career, he is only trying to walk that back in the last few years. Even then, best case scenario, he is refusing to try to make progress on that issue to use it as a mobilization issue. If it is not an issue of legislation, but only the Supreme Court reversing the precedent, then you have to keep voting Democrat for a generation before progress can be attempted. That is what it means to be Democrat.

No, Biden did a number on me. It showed that Democrats and Liberals have absolutely no principles or beliefs. They are fine with a senile, racist, rapist, right-wing, war criminal, genocidaire president as long as he has a D next to his name and doesn’t have an orange spray tan. Now Liberals think it is not fascist for ICE to put more people in concentration camps, the president to continue building the border wall, ignore human rights agreements to turn away asylum seekers, arm and fund genocide, continue interventions in the middle east, etc. It laid bare that all of the Liberal’s objections to Trump were based not on principles nor positions, just that it was Trump doing it.

How am I wrong? Was it Trump that passed the COPS expansion, using federal funds to make sure police got funding expansions without local input, didn’t Biden say that his Catholic faith meant that he was anti-abortion, and wasn’t Biden’s position on the Senate Council of Foreign Relations make him the Democrat with most input and culpability on how the war on terrorism was carried out? Were Muslims served by Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan, starving the people, as petty revenge for him following through on Trump’s planned withdrawal not working out. Just excluding the point that Palestinians are Muslims and most Muslims care about Palestine. Did Biden stand up for trans rights or is his only saving grace not vocally cheering on the Republicans, and instead just try to avoid taking a position on that because Democrats don’t actually want to fight for things or defend positions.

Biden is anti-abortion, anti-BLM, doesn’t care about muslims… Not saying the tracks are equal, but it is definitely not as one sided as this.

The Biden approach

Modern Leftism: I don’t want to have a senile, racist, rapist, right-wing, war criminal, genocidair as president that will continue building a border wall and arming and funding genocide.

Liberals: BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HOW MUCH WORSE IT WOULD BE IF HE HAD AN ORANGE SPRAY TAN!!! TANKIE SCUM!!!

It’s not both sides-ism. I am saying that the Republicans can’t guilt-trip their voters, so they aren’t constantly moving to the left and having platforms that their voters hate, relying on their only appeal being lesser evilism. It is because the Democrats need to constantly move right for their donors, and can in some respects ignore the wishes of their base through the logic of “lesser evils” that Biden can continue building Trump’s border wall, try to outflank Trump on the right on immigration, and continue to support genocide, when 4 years ago, liberals could understand these policies are fascist.

Clinton was not a move to the left! The Clinton wing is the right wing of the Democrats. Both Clintons, are the prime example of the Democrats being the Republican party of 8 years ago. And Gore would have been a continuation of Bill. Trump being the other candidate is the only reason she isn’t seen as a right wing candidate. A lot of her liabilities, particularly with battleground states, in 2016 was her being the champion of every right wing policy an appreciable amount of Democrats signed on to.

Except that is the opposite of how the Right works. Contrary to what Liberals tell themselves, Republican voters need to be wooed, Democrat voters fall in line. If a national Republican candidate isn’t anti-abortion, the evangelicals might not show up, if they aren’t anti-tax and anti-welfare, they loose “business Republicans”, and they need to scaremonger about things such as immigration to rile up other parts of their base. That is why you don’t have every Republican presidential candidate saying things like “Look, we have to appeal to moderate Democrats. That is why we have to expand welfare, access to abortion, and make it easier for immigrants to come in. If you believe in conservative values, he is still the lesser evil than the Democrat, despite being pro-welfare and immigration, and you only have two choices”

You are reversing the causality as why Republicans don’t have the same level of “Vote Red no mater who” and voter shaming and have to keep moving right to keep their base engaged.

No, there are really tangential analogies about how self-interested behavior can have negative consequences, but it is and has always been based around a bunch of numerous myths. Externalities is a better description of this.

Elinor Ostrom investigated management of the commons and the original description of tragedy of the commons was a complete lie. The commons were enclosed so that in this transitional stage of feudal lords could become businessmen that could profit off of using the land rather than taxing a peasant community living off of it. The enclosed commons is an asset to generate profit, where if enough of an increase in profit could be achieved, that could be reinvested, meant that exhausting the land would be an economically rational strategy. Where, if a peasant community is using it to sustain themselves, they have to carefully manage and steward that land so it is still producing for themselves years later, their children, and their grandchildren. The complete opposite of what the “tragedy of the commons” describes.