A major union head went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast… gross. Harris could have done more to appeal to workers, but this dude can’t paint himself as a neutral politically-impartial leader!
It’s not that the union head should be neutral. The head of a union should be openly and unapologetically pro-union. Going on a podcast and agreeing with someone who is right-wing extremely anti-union, is a very bad and traitorous look for the head of the union.
…besides Sanders who has no power, the green party which has no nonlocal power, and the various even smaller third parties which have even less power, there’s no one people union to talk to.
Eventually you will need to wrestle with the basic fact that as a union leader or member, you’re an enemy of the state and will always be trying to convince anti union people to support you. That’s the point of a union in the first place. If Dems had any chance to be in power, union heads would be cozying up to them.
Strikes suck for everyone, what happens when the strike fails sucks even more regardless of if you pick violence or not, avoiding that is ideal, even if it means talking to people some randos on the internet find distasteful.
It’s imbecilic to make a comment like this when someone is making it explanation of something else.
If all you have to say in this thread are childish insults and attacks, degrading from the conversation and not contributing to it at all, leave the platform, no one wants you here. Go back to Reddit.
OK I don’t have a dog in this regatta, but I gotta say you making a comment calling out someone providing nothing but insults that itself contains nothing but childish insults that also contributed nothing is fucking amazing.
I would say this is some peak reddit right here, but I don’t really think its an insult or care enough about another website to invoke its name.
Lmfao you are gonna love the next four years. Unless youre rich, then you actually are going to love the next four years. Probably a pot more than four years i suspect
I’m gonna hate the next four years because the dems ran a candidate that they knew couldn’t win and idiots like you shouted at people who pointed this out and called us trump lovers
Yes, democrats are vegetative. You can see my comment history, im the first one to point that out. But you are even worse than democrats if you actually thought that trump was the winning option.
Yes Trump bad, that’s why I want the dems to run a candidate that isn’t a delusional failure so that we can keep Trump from doing bad things. The only way that “good” people can stop bad people is by winning power.
I agree. Now that we are not in an election year, it would be a good idea to attempt to do something about that. But spreading division in an election year is why we now have the worst possible outcome. Thats the glory of the two party system and the illusion of choice.
The second line doesn’t logically follow from the first - you’re talking about a relatively better option all the way to that top line and then you switch from “better than other” to “good” - it’s like going about how in a choice between being knifed twice versus being knifed just once the “just knifed once” is good in comparison and then jumping from that to saying that getting knifed once is good.
Even beyond that totally illogical jump, the other flaw of logic is treating each election as a unique totally independent choice whose results have no impact on the options available on subsequent choices - I.e. that who the Democrat Party puts forwards and who the Republic Party puts forwards as candidates in an election isn’t at all influenced by how the electorate responded to previous candidates they put forward in previous elections - it is absolutely valid for people to refuse to vote for Kamala to “send a message to the Democrat Party” (I.e. to try to influence the candidates the party puts forward in subsequence election) and it’s around the validity or not of risking 4 years of Trump to try and get an acceptable Democrat candidate in at the end of it that the discussion should be (and there are valid points both ways) not the hyper-reductive falacy you seem so wedded to.
Choices in the real world are a bit more multi faceted and with much more elements and implications than that self-serving “simpleton” slogan the DNC pushed out in its propaganda which you are parroting.
Nah, thats the logical reasoning of a non two party system. Youre acting as though we actually had a choice, or that democrats would ever capitulate to their base. I hate kamala as much as the next guy, biden was even worse. But what other option was there? Vote Trump, dont vote, vote third party. All of which were a vote for Trump. There was ONLY one correct option in this election.
If you guys want a decent option, get rid of the two party system, because democrats will never seek to actually improve anything. But they will always be the better choice so long as Americans dont grow a backbone. Which is unrealistic.
I think it’s fair to say that, notwithstanding the badness of Trump, the Democratic Party needs vast improvement if it’s going to be part of an effective opposition to Trump and his gang of MAGAfascist oligarchs and lumpen God-bothering thugs. I’d even go so far as to say that, if any resistance emerges beyond finger-pointing and bleating, it won’t originate with the Democrats.
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.
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.
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.
Excuse my ignorance on American doublespeak, but does the “right to work” just mean the “right for companies to employ scabs”?
They named it that so it would get confused with similarly named laws that protect the rights of workers.
right to work laws “protect” workers from unions forcing them to pay dues so: yes.
If a truthful name were required, it’d be “right to free ride” or “right to scab.”
We could have gotten Right-To-Work off the books?
Well, nah. 'cause congress would have to pass it before the prez could sign it.
A major union head went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast… gross. Harris could have done more to appeal to workers, but this dude can’t paint himself as a neutral politically-impartial leader!
Yes because politically neutral means only going on democrat podcasts.
It’s not that the union head should be neutral. The head of a union should be openly and unapologetically pro-union. Going on a podcast and agreeing with someone who is right-wing extremely anti-union, is a very bad and traitorous look for the head of the union.
…besides Sanders who has no power, the green party which has no nonlocal power, and the various even smaller third parties which have even less power, there’s no one people union to talk to.
Eventually you will need to wrestle with the basic fact that as a union leader or member, you’re an enemy of the state and will always be trying to convince anti union people to support you. That’s the point of a union in the first place. If Dems had any chance to be in power, union heads would be cozying up to them.
Strikes suck for everyone, what happens when the strike fails sucks even more regardless of if you pick violence or not, avoiding that is ideal, even if it means talking to people some randos on the internet find distasteful.
Why would a union head be expected to be politically neutral?
Because in the US there isn’t a prounion party, so it’s pointless to just cozy up to one or the other.
The elections over why are you still running cover for that fucking loser
It’s imbecilic to make a comment like this when someone is making it explanation of something else.
If all you have to say in this thread are childish insults and attacks, degrading from the conversation and not contributing to it at all, leave the platform, no one wants you here. Go back to Reddit.
How can you still be defending a campaign that failed so miserably. It failed, learn something from that or get used to losing your whole life
OK I don’t have a dog in this regatta, but I gotta say you making a comment calling out someone providing nothing but insults that itself contains nothing but childish insults that also contributed nothing is fucking amazing.
I would say this is some peak reddit right here, but I don’t really think its an insult or care enough about another website to invoke its name.
Lmfao you are gonna love the next four years. Unless youre rich, then you actually are going to love the next four years. Probably a pot more than four years i suspect
I’m gonna hate the next four years because the dems ran a candidate that they knew couldn’t win and idiots like you shouted at people who pointed this out and called us trump lovers
“Anyone who wants the Democrats to win against Trump is actually a Trump supporter!”
I hated hearing it in 2016, 2020, and 2024
Yes, democrats are vegetative. You can see my comment history, im the first one to point that out. But you are even worse than democrats if you actually thought that trump was the winning option.
Are you claiming that trump didn’t win?
🤦
I’m going to assume you are being intentionally obtuse. Its very simple.
Trump bad.
Any other option good in comparison.
Arguing good option bad means you are arguing in bad faith.
Yes Trump bad, that’s why I want the dems to run a candidate that isn’t a delusional failure so that we can keep Trump from doing bad things. The only way that “good” people can stop bad people is by winning power.
I agree. Now that we are not in an election year, it would be a good idea to attempt to do something about that. But spreading division in an election year is why we now have the worst possible outcome. Thats the glory of the two party system and the illusion of choice.
The second line doesn’t logically follow from the first - you’re talking about a relatively better option all the way to that top line and then you switch from “better than other” to “good” - it’s like going about how in a choice between being knifed twice versus being knifed just once the “just knifed once” is good in comparison and then jumping from that to saying that getting knifed once is good.
Even beyond that totally illogical jump, the other flaw of logic is treating each election as a unique totally independent choice whose results have no impact on the options available on subsequent choices - I.e. that who the Democrat Party puts forwards and who the Republic Party puts forwards as candidates in an election isn’t at all influenced by how the electorate responded to previous candidates they put forward in previous elections - it is absolutely valid for people to refuse to vote for Kamala to “send a message to the Democrat Party” (I.e. to try to influence the candidates the party puts forward in subsequence election) and it’s around the validity or not of risking 4 years of Trump to try and get an acceptable Democrat candidate in at the end of it that the discussion should be (and there are valid points both ways) not the hyper-reductive falacy you seem so wedded to.
Choices in the real world are a bit more multi faceted and with much more elements and implications than that self-serving “simpleton” slogan the DNC pushed out in its propaganda which you are parroting.
Nah, thats the logical reasoning of a non two party system. Youre acting as though we actually had a choice, or that democrats would ever capitulate to their base. I hate kamala as much as the next guy, biden was even worse. But what other option was there? Vote Trump, dont vote, vote third party. All of which were a vote for Trump. There was ONLY one correct option in this election.
If you guys want a decent option, get rid of the two party system, because democrats will never seek to actually improve anything. But they will always be the better choice so long as Americans dont grow a backbone. Which is unrealistic.
I think it’s fair to say that, notwithstanding the badness of Trump, the Democratic Party needs vast improvement if it’s going to be part of an effective opposition to Trump and his gang of MAGAfascist oligarchs and lumpen God-bothering thugs. I’d even go so far as to say that, if any resistance emerges beyond finger-pointing and bleating, it won’t originate with the Democrats.
I wholeheartedly agree.
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.
Fucking thank you.
deleted by creator
It was, though, at least in practice.