[kneebonian]

And yet despite having a majority of the house and senate under Biden they've been unable to deliver almost anything except an unfair railroad contract.

So maybe, just maybe, the 2 sides are willing to shout about different things but at the end of the day are in fact the same.

[e40]

Razor thin margin in the Senate and at least 2 of the "Democrats" are not really going to vote on anything controversial. They have been shills, so far, for business interests.

[swearwolf]

Have you ever considered that maybe the reason there’s always a Democrat or two willing to block progressive legislation is that the Democratic Party wants it that way? That way they can have their cake, by promising progressive reform, and eat it, by not delivering that reform and thus, not pissing off their donors. I’ve been hearing about these one or two non-compliant Democrats my whole voting life (remember Joe Lieberman?), and yet the party never invests resources in primarying them.

Just a thought.

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s always a popular conspiracy theory that either side has certain “renegade” members that are there mostly to prevent popular with people but not with big money laws from getting through.

[peyton]

Are you saying there was no possible way to get railroad safety through?

[knewter]

But it was the Republicans' fault

[katbyte]

well it seems Dems put the rule in place, Republicans removed it, and then the Dems didn't act fast enough to re-instate it.

if i where to point at who has the most fault it here would be the Republicans.

[CyberDildonics]

If someone puts up a tent and someone else purposely burns it down, is the first person partially at fault for not rebuilding it when everyone gets rained on?

[katbyte]

no? its the 2nd person for burning it down. full stop.

[e40]

I'm saying the situation Biden has been in since he took office is very tenuous. There was a virtual tie on paper, with the VP breaking the tie, but 2 of the people on the Dem side were not at all cooperative with the agenda that Biden wanted.

To say "the Dems could have done it if they wanted it" is not at all true.

[btilly]

Normally I'd agree with you, but not on this.

The Democrats had the option of doing nothing. The railroad workers would have had a strike for a variety of their issues (safety being high on the list), and the workers would have gotten a better deal than the one they got.

Unfortunately the strike would have to have lasted long enough and been painful enough for the train companies to accept that they had to negotiate with workers rather than trying to bargain with Congress. That's fundamentally why Congress caved - because THEY would be blamed for the economic disruption. But that doesn't change the fact that simply doing nothing would have been a better outcome for workers.

[pseudo0]

Both parties primarily serve the interests of the 0.1%, hence the reduction in safety protections under Trump and the imposition of an unfair contract and the removal of the right to strike under Biden. Got to squeeze out every last fraction of a percent of profit to keep Berkshire Hathaway's stock price up.