politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Finally some political leadership. Now get UAW and teamsters and longshoremen on board. The teachers and nurses. The rest will fillow
The guy is a mayor, and finds himself on the national stage. He is now a target of trumps. Staying in the public eye is self preservation. Not saying it can't lead in the right direction.
That said, the major unions are run by poloticians as well. And laws don't favor them on this. So they will stay out of it unless you get some new little guys who get elected to leadership by claiming they will do these things. But trump supporters are common enough in such unions that it would be challenging for that to happen. It's more likely the unions unofficially join in after critical mass is achieved. Thier leaders don't want to go to jail.
The UAW I could see getting onboard, but the Teamsters are so full of MAGA members and Trump loving leadership, I'd be astonished if they did.
I think you misunderstand teamsters. Why do you have this perception?
I have this perception from:
I'd love to see those right-wing members come to their senses and vote to join a general strike, but I just don't see it happening. They even voted not to strike while negotiating their UPS contract, which resulted in (IMO) only modest improvements, and couldn't even secure AC units to be retrofitted to their trucks to prevent people dying of heatstroke.
See I knew this would be the first one coming. Sean O'brian took the time the RNC afforded him and delivered possibly the most progressive speech in the history of US political conventions. Not one of the most, but possibly the most progressive speech of all time, perhaps even eclipsing Roosevelt. They were offered a platform, they took it and did what they wanted with it, uttered not one iota of support for Trump or Republicans. He literally called corporation's economic terrorists.
Since it happened there has been a bad faith interpretation on the part of some "leftists", especially here, that because he took an opportunity afforded to them, it makes them "bad person", because they utterly lack the curiosity to find out anything more than what their initial, team-sports reaction is. The reaction you are demonstrating says nothing about Sean O'Brian; it says everything about you.
As well, the Teamsters went on to not endorse Trump, even though it was the Republican convention they were invited to.
You didn't address any of my other points.
I'm basing my opinions on repeated examples of Teamster leadership failing to fight back against the establishment, not 'sports-team' reactions.
With those statements, O'Brian is publicly stating that he still thinks he can reason and plead with an out-and-out proven anti-labor party that just destroyed federal unions. That makes him either naive or an idiot, and for his sake I hope it's the former.
We need all unions to come together as one movement to effectively fight this dictatorship from taking power, but based on previous evidence, a significant portion of the Teamster membership are unlikely to want to join that fight (obviously, some will, but they will be in the minority).
You're ignoring that a majority (60%) of its membership are conservative, and not endorsing Trump doesn't make it much better, since that lack of endorsement of Kamala (whom I don't even like, but clearly was the harm reduction option) only speaks to the fact that they have so many right-wing members, the leadership had to fence-sit in fear of not getting elected again by their pro-Trump members.
If you're a left-wing Teamster trying to steer your brothers and sisters away from MAGA, then more power to you. But don't delude yourself that the Teamster leadership or right-wing members are going to be the ones leading the charge against this regime.
I would love to be proven wrong, but at best I could see them hopping on the bandwagon if the winds change and the regime begins to implode on itself.
Because they were stupid points and not worth addressing, so they were dismissed. You're mad because someone didn't put on a jersey and cheer for your team.
Alternatively, If the Democrats wanted to get the teamsters endorsement, why didn't they do more to show that they would be a pro-labor, anti-capitol party, as O'Brien laid out in the speech he gave (which you seem to be entirely ignoring the contents of). This same argument applies to the Muslim vote, to the progressive vote, to all the blocks that the Democrats failed to make appeals to in this election cycle because the they thought they needed to run on was "Trump Bad", while constantly silencing criticisms of their own inadequacies.
What you are doing here is just repeating the same, failed logic that handed Trump 2024. And instead of blaming the people who actually had the power to change things, you want to blame "someone else". Democrats could have invited Sean O'Brien to the convention, since they hadn't endorsed, and see what they had to say and asked what it would have taken to get the Teamsters endorsement. Likewise, they could have given Palestinians a voice at the convention and asked them what it would take to keep them in the fold. And we can go on down the line.
But reality is that Democrats are the failure here. Not any other party is to blame other than the Democrats themselves for the outcomes of the election of 2024. If they wanted the Teamsters endorsement, they needed to do more to show up for it, and they chose not to.
And that knee-jerk, team sports, emotional response was exactly what I had hoped you would put on display, and it makes it all the more clear we should be dismissing voices that are only in this for their own validation.
Voters do not owe the Democratic party jack fucking shit, and the Democratic party owes its voters, literally everything. If the Democratic party, and the card carrying Democratic party member, have not gotten this through their thick, Blue No Matter Who skull, the Democratic party will never be fixed.
As I said in my previous response, I'm not fan of the Kamala, nor the democratic party for the very reasons you mention. But to frame it as the Teamsters withholding their endorsement for the same reasons that leftists refused to vote for Kamala is disingenuous.
Democrats are neoliberals, they'll never be anti-capital (hence their failure), but they certainly weren't as anti-labor as the Republican party.
You keep trying to paint my views as a simplistic sports team analog, but it doesn't hold up. I'm pointing out real gripes with Teamster leadership and the depressing state of the membership, which I wish weren't the case. I am not randomly smack talking them because I'm on some other team (do you think I'm in the UAW? I'm not).
I'm not blaming anyone. I doubt an official Teamster endorsement would've made a difference in the election. I'm pointing to it as a prime example that the base of the Teamsters is conservative enough that taking an overt leftist stance is likely political suicide for Teamster leadership.