'The Youth are to blame for our losses but we wont change to address their concerns'.. Republicans 

'The Republicans are worse than us in addressing Youth concerns, so we don't need to change all that much'.. Democrats 

Tucker doubles down on his terroristic rhetoric in the immediate wake of the Colorado Springs shooting.

I still can't believe this guy still has a show, let alone such a popular one.

Democrats better find a new presidential candidate for 2024. Biden has (tentatively) lost me in his post-midterm activities, and I voted straight Democratic in the mid-term.

Between him practically giving up on student loan forgiveness, and his actions calling for the suppression (by Congress and himself) of workers' rights to collectively bargain without making sure their goals were met (or even coming out for the anemic 7 days), I am done with him. Still will vote Democratic in local, state, and federal house elections.

Also when Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley (fascists that they are) vote to give rail workers seven paid sick days, but Joe Manchin doesn't - it is time to kick Joe Manchin out of the party, especially if Georgia goes well for Democrats.

Why do you believe Biden has given up on student loan forgiveness.  The government appealed and it was rejected so they pushed it to the SC.  What else are you expecting the government to do while this is held up in court. 

As for the railroad strike, well that's a tough one.  Why are you saying that The Biden administration pushed to have congress suppressed workers' rights. From what I have read, the Unions have specifically asked congress and the President to intervene into the situation. 

The Biden administration brokered a deal that 8 unions agreed to while 4 did not.  After that things were in Congress hands, as the house passed the deal and included it seems one of the major sticking points which is paid leave and the Senate voted on it but the GOP voted it down because it require 60 vote super majority.  Allowing them to strike at this particular time could nuke the country which probably would not be a good thing.  As president, this is a no win situation, let the economy burn while the railroad workers are on strike or prevent them from going on strike and get congress to fix it.  But with congress fixing it, means that now Congress gets to manage it and it all gets political again.  

I am sure that Biden could issue an executive order but that can be challenged in court while if its made into law by congress is a whole different situation. Do not forget, there are 2 sides and one person in the middle which is the President.  A lot of times you will not get everything you want.  I agree that 7 days paid sick leave should be on the table but I also agree that in order to get something like that passed, it would need to be done by Congress, not the President since I doubt an executive order would do the job.

Either way, I am interested in see if Biden can fulfill his promise to push for 7 days paid leave as he states.  Still, since something like that would need to get pass Congress, I just do not see the GOP ever getting on board as they probably believe it hurts Biden.

Yeah it would be good if Joe just moved over to the GOP but thats probably not going to happen, instead, if Warnock wins in Georgia, then his vote and himself will fade for at least 2 more years.

Clearly 

I don't know what you argument you want me to make. If you fail to see the point of brining manufacturing back then you're being intentionally dumb and I am not going to spoon feed you the alphabets. Ask Biden, his excellent recent policies and his rhetoric regarding China supports my views on the matter. Not yours. 

The case you "presented" is lacking in logic and common sense, and I refuse you believe you actually believe in your "presentation", you're not dumb. Manufacturing will not be brought back by the snap of a finger, markets will adapt, gradually, like they always do.

You argue that:

• "a more concentrated manufacturing ecosystem could make it much more difficult to respond to these fluctuations in this demand. Highly concentrated manufacturing can also make the manufacturing ecosystem overly tied to the economic pressures of a single economy. Highly concentrated manufacturing can also make the manufacturing ecosystem overly tied to the economic pressures of a single economy"

You know you're making the case to bring manufacturing back with your line of thinking, yeah? what we have is a highly concentrated manufacturing setup.... in China, bringing manufacturing back will counter this self-inflicted issue. 

Let's imagine if FDR were president right now (somebody Biden's fans compare him to all of the time), here is what he would've done when this got tied up in the courts: 

1. As soon as the bill was held up, he would've came up with half-a-dozen alternative plans that would address the legal challenges and explain them to the public. 

2. He would threaten to stack the courts, expanding not only the Supreme Court but other federal circuit and appeals courts, given the Democratic Senate. 

3. At the very least he would make the 0% interest rate and forbearance indefinite to induce action on the part of Congress to pass a bill. 

Instead this is what Biden has done: 

1. Threw his hands in the air and if the courts strike this down reinstate the status quo 60 days after they make a decision or July 2023 at the latest. 

It is pretty clear that the Biden administration has given up. 

1. If the Railroad workers are that crucial, there needs to be more pressure on the owners of the railroads to secure laborers (the industry is hemorrhaging workers.) Eliminating the ability to strike is not a long-term solution, if -- again the railroad workers are so critical to the economy. 

2. 51% of all Railroad workers who voted voted against the contract. This is because three of the four unions, that voted against, were quite large, and the margins were slim in the other 8 unions. 

3. Even if the majority of railroad workers didn't vote against the contract, the unions had an agreement that if any union decided not to go forward none of them will. The rules were clear. 

4. Biden did little to pressure the owners and much to pressure the workers. 

5. Biden could've talked with Pelosi to keep the compromised 7-day amendment and the original bill together; he also never came out publicly for the 7 day amendment, instead promising something he obviously won't keep. Just like his other promises: student loan forgiveness, public option, etc., it is empty. 

6. All workers should have the right to strike, regardless of the effects it has on the economy. The alternative is to propose slavery and exploitation. In a free country labor should be voluntary. 

So yes, Biden did urge congress to remove the right to strike from an entire sector of the economy. Most railroad workers have decided that they're going to take their backpay that they were owed for not having a contract in three years, and then they're going to find new jobs, because being on call 24/7 and not having sick days while the owners of the industry over the last 15 years cut laborers in order to maximize profits isn't worth it. 

While you believe that all workers should have the ability to strike but actually that is not a reality in the US. There are a lot of industry that are allowed unions but not the ability to strike.  Personally, I would say it depends on how it could impact the nation.  Let's say the strike happens and prevent needed supplies that cause people to die.  If one of those people are your loved ones, you might blame, the strikers, the president, the railroad, the GOP you name it but at the end of the day, it will not matter who you blame, your loved one is dead.  I know if my child is in danger, I am not going to be for a strike. I look for ways to help but dead is permanent and looking for blame does nothing.

So my position is that if the strike could really hurt the country, find another solution. It would have been great if the GOP did not block this bill but then again for them it was a pretty easy move.  They are not getting any pressure from their constituents; all blame goes to the President, and they continue the tactic of doing nothing because the easiest move for most people is to blame the President then actually blaming their representees.  Even now, you seem to believe that the President has all this power but in reality, the power is in Congress as it always is.

Why would the president keep the 7 day leave in the House bill when he probably knew it would not pass and thus the strike happens.  Either way the GOP still get what they want.  Strike happen, nukes the economy, president gets the blame.  

Now just think if GOP constituents cried out that this is wrong and put pressure on their representees to vote yes.

As for the railroad workers, they are doing what they should as any worker who is not satisfied with a job, take your money and go but its not like its an industry with a lot of cross over especially in today's climate.

Yes I am well aware that Taft-Hartley forward there have been many bills to neuter the right of workers to strike in many instances. What is legal =|= what is ethical and just though. There was an explicit choice here to make the rail strike illegal/unprotected. 

If the strike were to happen, what would actually happen is that the rail-workers would stop or slow down work for a day, likely still working to supply critical needs like medicine. The profits of the railroads would be hit, and there would be a crisis that they'd want to solve within a day -- like with every other rail strike in history. Now what Congress has done has risked a wildcat strike -- which would last much longer than a day. They've also almost guaranteed a long-term labor shortage in a rail-industry, which over the long term could cost the economy much, much more. 

There were half a dozen different solutions and paths the Democrats and Biden could've gone so that we didn't get to this point. They could've put more pressure on the railroad companies to reform their points system, they could've mandated minimum staffing (which if rail workers and the rail industry is so important is a necessity) they could've sided with the workers more in September. But they didn't do these things because they are on the side of capital primarily, and workers secondarily. 

Why are you so sure the bill wouldn't pass with the seven day leave in it? Many Republicans would've reluctantly voted for it if the economic risks that are being expressed are true because many Republicans own businesses that depend on the Rail supplies. Their own self-interest to keep their businesses afloat would overshadow their reluctance to give a meager 7 day pay sick leave. Hell, if Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley could vote for it when it is decoupled, many other Republicans likely would've join if it were coupled. Joe Manchin too. 

Rail workers have plenty of skills that are in demand in other fields, so I think you're going to be surprised when they do leave. In the past there hasn't been crossover because the job paid better. But now rail-workers expressed that the pay isn't worth not having real time off work, being on call 24/7, being reprimanded for going to the doctor outside of specific designated periods, etc. Given that there are labor shortages throughout the economy, I doubt it would be hard for them to find jobs in say fracking, as machinists, in construction, as truckers, etc. All jobs that pay at least 70%-100% as much as rail-work but with much more favorable schedules. And as staffing becomes more of a problem, the pressure to leave exacerbates. The ones who stay likely will be older, more conservative, and with more to lose by leaving -- not a good sign for the industry. The labor supply isn't infinite and it isn't easy to retrain new engineers and machinists. 

Many on https://www.reddit.com/r/railroading/ have already said they're going to slow down their work through malicious compliance and then once they get their back-pay ($11,000 to $16,000) they're leaving. A strike that probably would last a day (like previous rail strikes) and 7 days of sick leave would've been the seamless solution compared to this. 

Edit: 

"

I disagree, why change your current plan or present any alternatives until you hear a ruling from the SC.  It would be a bad tactic because the SC could be very specific if they ruled against the forgiveness which would allow the President to change the terms just like he did when another court case against the forgiveness happen.  There is no reason to show your hand unless you actually have to especially until you get a decision from the SC.  An alternative plan at this juncture does nothing since it would then have to go through a whole process again and just throwing stuff at the wall until you know what you need to do seems like a lot of wasted energy."

Missed this in my original reply. You have backup plans if you want to get something done rather than look like you're doing something because you want to get that thing done and to put pressure on those who are opposing. You also threaten your opposition by using a more radical plan as an alternative to the current more moderate plan. For example, a good backup plan in this challenge would be to expand the $20,000 forgiveness to everyone, neutering the challenge that some are only getting $10,000 and others $20,000, which is the basis of the legal opposition going to the supreme court. 

Regardless though, Biden through his current forbearance policy already "showed his hand"  -- that he doesn't have backup plans. He's told everyone that if this doesn't go through then 60 days after the court's decision people will have to start paying at the normal interest rates. Unlike Biden, FDR got things done by playing hard against Republicans and the judiciary and being honest with the public. It's called using the presidential power of bully pulpit.