231
submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] yesman@lemmy.world 174 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 71 points 1 month 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 40 points 1 month ago

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

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 30 points 1 month ago

They named it that so it would get confused with similarly named laws that protect the rights of workers.

[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 month ago

right to work laws "protect" workers from unions forcing them to pay dues so: yes.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

If a truthful name were required, it'd be "right to free ride" or "right to scab."

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

We could have gotten Right-To-Work off the books?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago

The elections over why are you still running cover for that fucking loser

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] orclev@lemmy.world 86 points 1 month 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.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 53 points 1 month ago

Judging by their performance in the last three presidential elections with absolutely zero course correction, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month 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 23 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago
[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago

The GOP, unlike the DNC, absolutely care what their voters think. That's the whole point of the culture war project.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

The GOP, unlike the DNC, absolutely care what their voters think. That’s the whole point of the culture war project.

Of course they care about what voters think. They need to know what to say to lie to them. It doesn't mean they'll actually intact policies that will help Americans. The most working class Americans might get is minorities being subjugated more, which for some is a win.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hark@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 63 points 1 month 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 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[-] DeadWorldWalking 15 points 1 month ago

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month 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 18 points 1 month 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

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

So what are you going to do about it? Keep on reciting your learned-helplessness narrative, or fight back?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] demizerone@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month 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.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

California has term limits for state officials. It has worked out exactly as @demizerone@lemmy.world has said. It's just another stupid quick fix that actually makes things worse. You get a revolving door where elected officials are always looking for the next place to jump, and it disproportionately empowers the party officials who can offer those steps up the ladder. You love the DNC? That's how you get even more of a dead hand in control of elected officials.

But as for fitness tests, those can be too easily gamed, and whoever administers the tests will now have extreme political power with no responsibility. So that's as bad an idea as the literacy tests for voting in the US south used to be, and for the same reasons: selective enforcement and corrupt application of the rules.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 28 points 1 month ago

Seems like the Teamsters would have been better running mates than a fucking Cheney

[-] AriesAspect@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

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

[-] MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 month ago

If the next dem candidate doesnt run as an anti-establishment candidate, and call out the party leaders that have done such a terrible job, they will lose again and again and again etc.

For one thing someone eventually has to admit that Bill Clinton is a creep who should not be praised anymore. The fact that the Kamala campaign used him as a surrogate in 2024 is delusional

[-] AriesAspect@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Everything about her campaign was delusional 🙄

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

Specifically in how we chose a candidate after Biden stepped down.

[-] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Which is too say, how we didn't choose...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 7 points 1 month ago

Not forcing that old genocidal fuck to step down earlier is probably a bigger issue

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month 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!

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Kamala would have compromised with unions if she was the better alternative.

[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

If you honestly believe Trump is better for Unions, or for just about any normal people, you're not paying attention.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Kamala honestly believed not compromising with unions would be better than Trump winning

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

that's cool, they're already union and do not give a fuck about the wagies that will now have to union under Republican rule. they got theirs.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
231 points (100.0% liked)

News

24232 readers
3523 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS