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.

From a Wisconsin Exurb of the Twin Cities. I am an astronomer and instrumentation physicist, most of my day job is debugging software and electronics. But sometimes it is looking at galaxies and exoplanets. I am getting back into running after an injury and am currently reading about political economics.

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.