this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
928 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3108 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foggy 210 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As a Democrat who voted for Biden because he didn't want to see fascism, but was very sore about doing so because Biden is a milquetoast moderate at best...

This is sick. Props.

[–] [email protected] 88 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He's been a lot more progressive in his policies than I think people thought he'd be. He's not flashy about it though, so people tend to only hear the complaining that comes from much louder people

[–] aski3252 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just remember, this isn't Biden having a change of mind necessarily, this is more about Biden answering to pressure. The reason why Biden behaves like this is mostly because the UAW has witheld their endorsment for him, saying that "Biden has to pick a side, either the working class, or the billionaires", that "he has to earn his endorsment" and that "they expect actions, not just words".

[–] Cryophilia 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Although also to be fair, there's a long line of democratic politicians NOT bowing to progressive pressure (presumably over their donors). So this is a massive improvement.

[–] FlyingSquid 11 points 1 year ago

If he's willing to concede that very reasonable point and fight for the UAW, I think he'll earn it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did we get buttery emailed with misinformation?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Nah, we just got Hunter Biden dick pics on the House floor.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He sold out the rail unions not even a year ago

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He ended up getting them what they wanted just a couple months later. Check out the top comment threads here

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He got them some sick days. A far cry from having their demands met. Particularly in the aspects concerning safety

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Copying my response to the other guy here too:

Safety is absolutely a serious concern, but can you show me some sources where safety was a sticking point leading up to the strike vote? The union literature from the time is very focused on sick leave

[–] K1nsey6 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No he didn't, one of their largest complaints was safety. Democrats downplayed their strike as 'sick days' so it sounded like their demands were trivial.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Safety is absolutely a serious concern, but can you show me some sources where safety was a sticking point leading up to the strike vote? The union literature from the time is very focused on sick leave

[–] assassin_aragorn 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the fact dumbasses here are splitting hairs around sick leave, safety, and insane schedules is absurd. All are serious problems that shouldn't exist.

and it was viscerally demonstrated with multiple train crashes occurring during the period the unions were threatening to strike.

[–] assassin_aragorn 1 points 1 year ago

When someone says that sick days weren't a major strike demand and falsely claim without any evidence that safety was the biggest issue, it isn't splitting hairs to ask for proof. If the distinctions don't matter, then makes no sense to complain about safety vs sick leave.

Which train crashes are you referring to?

[–] assassin_aragorn 4 points 1 year ago

No, their largest complaints were sick days and a brutal scheduling policy. That's what I remember from looking into this at the time, and what I'm finding looking into it now too.

[–] kmkz_ninja 1 points 1 year ago

Can you show me where getting 7 sick days per year was what the unions were looking for?

[–] Wakmrow 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I might actually vote for him if he does this

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Otherwise what, you're voting for Trump?