• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Reminder: this is the same Teamster that spoke at the Republican convention, making these comments to Tucker Carlson.

    You probably shouldn’t take this at face value and assume this was her attitude toward labor in general.

    • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s bullshit on it’s face. Biden told Congress they should pass the PRO Act, Harris echoed that ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

      One of the provisions of the PRO Act is to gut right-to-work laws by allowing Unions to collect dues from every employee at a Union shop.

      So the guy is just lying about that, of course there’s no way for me to know if she wagged her finger in a Teamster’s face.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Excuse my ignorance on American doublespeak, but does the “right to work” just mean the “right for companies to employ scabs”?

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      With who her enemy was, it doesnt matter who she said it to. The fact that she had to say it in the first place means Teamsters is an enemy of the country.

  • SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    3 months ago

    The statement reflects the actions of the Kamala campaign and the Dem party, so I believe it. Will Democrats ever change, though? Not until the old guard relinquishes their tight grasp on the party and allows it to operate democratically. The old guard are corrupt and they are paid by the same ultra wealthy donors that pay Republicans. The only reason the Tea Party was successful in taking over the Republican party was that there was a huge amount of funding behind them. An equivalent leftist force does not exist because there is no monied interest that would fund an insurgency on the left (except for the masses— think Bernie 2016, 2020, but we would need even more to create a lasting insurgency of equal scale). In light of this, the Democratic party has continuously pursued a “third way” approach to become essentially Republican with some social equality. The Democratic brand stands for nothing anymore.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The old guard are corrupt and they are paid by the same ultra wealthy donors that pay Republicans.

      I don’t think it’s actually possible to win national elections in this country post citizens united without the ultra wealthy donor class. I’d love to be wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.

      • kofe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Bernie’s campaign loved pointing out the average donation was $27. The issue in 2016 was media coverage for him that the Dems knowingly sabotaged iirc.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The only reason the Tea Party was successful in taking over the Republican party was that there was a huge amount of funding behind them.

      That would be the Koch Brothers. Sadly there isn’t a left-wing version of them, and it feels as if the system is set up in such a way that there couldn’t be a left-wing version.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      because there is no monied interest that would fund an insurgency on the left

      There could be, but in the last 2 decades such companies generally went down or at least didn’t grow into something significant and were not being helped by the state and such when having problems. I agree that politics reflect money.

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m sure one of a great many statements that aged like milk. The sheer contempt that Democrat politicians have for voters is breathtaking. Maybe some day they’ll care about voters the way they very obviously care about corporate donors.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Maybe some day they’ll care about voters the way they very obviously care about corporate donors.

      How are you coming away with that the lesson to learn? The guys that won care even less for voters. The lesson appears to be: “Say whatever you think voters want to hear at that exact moment with no intention of following through for their benefit.”

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s rather the point isn’t it? Republicans lie constantly about everything but those lies are about things their voters want. Democrats meanwhile tell their voters that they’ll get what Democrats are gracious enough to give them and be happy they’re not as bad as the Republicans. In either case neither party is delivering what progressive voters are asking for. Then Democrats wonder why they have voter turnout problems.

        People are sick and tired of showing up to vote for the lesser evil and the result being either things only get very slightly worse or much worse depending on who wins. It’s particularly hard for people to justify investing that time and effort when they’re struggling to just survive day to day and keep a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.

        I and many others tried our best this last election to keep Trump out of office but we can all only do so much when the Democrats are working against us every step of the way. We need an actual progressive running on progressive policies out of the Democrats if they want to win an election, because running as diet conservative isn’t cutting it anymore.

        People gave Bernie a lot of shit for being a populist but you know what? He motivated people. His supporters were excited to get out and vote for him. Unfortunately he was never given the chance and instead we got the same tired “we’ll run on Republican policies from two decades ago” Democrats.

        Even Obama, the most “progressive” Democrat in at least fifty years, promised socialized healthcare like the rest of the first world countries have but ended up delivering a watered down half assed Republican healthcare plan instead.

        So yeah, people are sick and tired of Democrats that only ever seem to be able to successfully deliver things wealthy corporate donors are asking for.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Democrats at least in the last cycle told their voters what they can get based on what is achievable during a term.

          It was a realistic outlook. It wasn’t just lying and pandering.

          What seems to be what you would prefer which is absolutely crazy. Why do you want to be lied to just for your vote and then no actual action taken? Somehow that is better than being told what is real and then action being taken on what is possible?

          The amount of commentary in this thread that share the sentiment is mind-boggling. If most of the voter base in this country only cares about lip service then this place is well and truly fucked. Nothing can fix that, not within a couple generations.

          If this is the case then idiocracy really was a documentary…

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            People don’t care if it takes 1 term or 10 terms, what they want to hear is that Democrats are working on both short and long term goals to address the problems they care about. They want to hear meaningful changes. What they got is a message that Democrats are hard at work rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. There are many systemic issues in the US right now. The Democrats just needed to fucking pick one, start working on fixing it, and explain to people how they’re working on fixing it.

            How about working to get Citizens United overturned? How about actually working on proper socialized healthcare instead of the bandaid that the insurance marketplace was? Working on getting rid of first past the post? Working on creating a federal right to abortion? Coming up with some way to keep the GOP from packing the supreme court with corrupt “judges” who treat the constitution like toilet paper? How about fixing our IP laws to be something sane like cutting copyright to 15 years? Just taxes in general, the 1% tax bracket should be paying 90% in taxes. Make capital gains taxes higher than income tax. These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head, I’m sure there’s dozens more people could come up with.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s rather the point isn’t it? Republicans lie constantly about everything but those lies are about things their voters want. Democrats meanwhile tell their voters that they’ll get what Democrats are gracious enough to give them and be happy they’re not as bad as the Republicans. In either case neither party is delivering what progressive voters are asking for. Then Democrats wonder why they have voter turnout problems.

          But again, the lesson Democrats need to learn is that American voters just care about what the candidate says during the campaign, not actual policy delivered if elected. So Democrats should adopt the same method of the GOP, simply straight up lying to the electorate and the Democrats will have a better chance of winning.

          People are sick and tired of showing up to vote for the lesser evil

          I’m not buying this as a reason they voted for Trump. If they saw Harris as the “lesser evil” then that would acknowledge they are actively voting for the “greater evil”.

          The result being either things only get very slightly worse or much worse depending on who wins. It’s particularly hard for people to justify investing that time and effort when they’re struggling to just survive day to day and keep a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.

          So they vote for the one that will make it MUCH worse?

          I and many others tried our best this last election to keep Trump out of office but we can all only do so much when the Democrats are working against us every step of the way. We need an actual progressive running on progressive policies out of the Democrats if they want to win an election, because running as diet conservative isn’t cutting it anymore.

          Again, that appears to be the wrong message. Voters didn’t want any measure of progressive policies. They voted for Trump with his regressive policies. Democrats apparently need to do the same to win votes.

          So yeah, people are sick and tired of Democrats that only ever seem to be able to successfully deliver things wealthy corporate donors are asking for.

          I disagree with your assessment, but that is exactly what Trump is going to do, and he got the votes, so its the winning strategy apparently.

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            You seem to be assuming that people who were going to vote for Harris decided to vote for Trump. That’s not even remotely true. What happened is a lot of people who would have voted for Harris stayed home, while a lot of people that normally don’t vote at all decided to vote for Trump.

            Democrats could actually win an election or two by running the Republican playbook of lying through their teeth. It more or less worked for Obama who talked a big game then delivered on very little of it. But ultimately that would be a losing strategy. Democrats are not like Republicans, they not only want to hear policies they agree with, they expect to see them implemented.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              You seem to be assuming that people who were going to vote for Harris decided to vote for Trump.

              I’m not. Those voters stayed home. The ones that voted like to be lied to. A Democrat candidate can choose to lie just like Trump does. Same voters in play. These are the ones that vote and elect presidents.

              Democrats could actually win an election or two by running the Republican playbook of lying through their teeth.But ultimately that would be a losing strategy.

              Trump was elected twice on this. So clearly it works.

              Democrats are not like Republicans, they not only want to hear policies they agree with, they expect to see them implemented.

              Its as you said, Democrats won’t vote for it, but a Democrat candidate doesn’t need Democrat votes anymore to get elected. If you just need to make every opportunistic empty promise to get elected (as Trump did), then that is clearly the winning strategy now. This is what Americans want. They voted for it.

              • orclev@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                No they still need Democrat voters. Republicans won because their supporters vote for anyone with an R next to their name no matter what policies they have, so their lies are to convince the gullible morons that don’t really care about the party affiliation, they just want things to be better (and are too stupid to realize Republican policies will do the opposite). Neither parties core supporters are enough to win an election on their own, they need all of them plus some of the independents.

                That’s what Trump did, he got all the Republicans plus a chunk of independents. If Democrats tried the same playbook and then didn’t deliver on their promises they would lose the votes of the core Democrat voters and without them the independents aren’t enough to win the election. Republicans are a party of loyalty. The party goes above everything else. Democrats are a party of ideals. If you fail to demonstrate the ideals you lose the votes. That’s why it would ultimately be a losing strategy for the DNC. They’d win a few elections but when it became apparent they’re full of shit the Democrat voters would stop showing up.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  So you’re saying the winning strategy for Democrats is completely throw out policy ideals and adopt a “loyalty first” strategy which the GOP did and won the presidency, congress, and control of the supreme court? I hadn’t considered that, but it appears to work, so I can’t disagree with it.

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Most of the thread seems to take this lesson. Which is crazy.

        They would literally rather have a pandering candidate who just lies to them to get their votes and then does nothing after then a candidate who is transparent about what they can and cannot do, and pushes realistic change that can actually be achieved within their term.

        This country is fucked, because the voter base is comprised of morons. The education system has failed this country and there really isn’t any turning back now. If entire generations lack critical thinking ability then they lack the ability to make good choices, and are unable to see past their nose, never mind vote.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        If that’s what it takes to win then they should fucking do it, assuming democrats even want to win.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t understand this.

      The statement made means “are you with me or not, I’m not going to stop on your behalf”

      And generally the campaign trail was pro workers rights, the activism history was for workers rights.

      So it sounds like teamsters had something else going on? It seems like this thread is reading it wrong.

      • theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        …Biden and Harris broke multiple strikes.

        Yeah, great, they advocated for the PRO act the same way they advocated for m4a or a ceasefire in Palestine.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Term and age limits for all elected politicians serving all levels. Two terms and 65 is the maximum age to enter the election. In addition, get rid of the Electoral College.

    The union members who voted for Putin’s Sock Puppet do not realize the damage they are going inflict on the US blue-collar sector.

    • DicJacobus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      America’s fate is sealed, the country we’ve known, flaws and all is done. Before it was an Oligarchy pretending to be a Democratic Republic, Now its just going to stop pretending, America’s going to resemble Russia in the 90s for a bit as the country gets carved up by corporate interests and gangsters in suits

    • demizerone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Term limits mean the only people left in washing that understand the system are lobbyists and consultants. As for age, there should be twice annual fitness tests after the age of 65. There are some geezers that are still very capable mentally.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Any system based on medical or intellectual tests is doomed to fail. There’s a reason we had to end literacy tests. Any test has to have people that design, administer, and grade the test. Age limits are a crude and blunt instrument, but there is a reason we use them for other matters of politics in the early stages of life. We have a voting age, not a voting competency test. And we have minimum ages for House, Senate, and Presidency eligibility. Yes, you could try to write qualifying exams for these positions, but the history of literary tests shows how that would go. Age is a crude instrument, but it is objective. You were born on certain day, and assuming accurate public records, that is a fact that isn’t open to interpretation. It is clear and unambiguous.

        An age limit for high offices makes perfect sense. If we can have minimum ages, we can have maximum ages. And any argument for why maximum ages won’t work would also apply to minimum ages, yet our constitution is based on minimum ages, not fuzzy ability tests.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You have a moronic take. I understand the federal government’s inner workings better than Trump and I’ve served 0 terms as president.

            • aaa999@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              term limits give even more policy setting power to elon, a guy who is rich but not elected

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                That’s not really true, Elon’s “position” already doesn’t have a term limit. Even if he supports it doesn’t automatically make it bad for us or good for him, you need to support your argument.

  • AriesAspect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unless it’s aoc or bernies sanders. I’m not voting blue ever again. Actually crazy they** lost to orange, again

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m sure the alternative will be much better for unions, right guys? After all, demolishing the foundations of the country is fine as long as it teaches that one politician that she could have been better!