Kamala Harris told Teamsters president she'd win "with you or without you"
Kamala Harris told Teamsters president she'd win "with you or without you"
www.newsweek.com
Kamala Harris told Teamsters president she'd win "with you or without you"
129 comments
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
-
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.
-
-
It was, though, at least in practice.
-
-
-
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.
-
Judging by their performance in the last three presidential elections with absolutely zero course correction, I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
Given the number of people in this thread stating they'll never vote Democrat again I don't expect that to change.
I'm pretty pissed at the system myself but in no way am I going to encourage more Republican leadership. Which is far far worse than what we would get otherwise.
It's really weird to shoot yourself in the foot just to spite your hand.
-
-
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."
-
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.
-
Exactly.
-
If that's what it takes to win then they should fucking do it, assuming democrats even want to win.
-
The GOP, unlike the DNC, absolutely care what their voters think. That's the whole point of the culture war project.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
You have a moronic take. I understand the federal government's inner workings better than Trump and I've served 0 terms as president.
-
-
Please, no. We don't need more myopia from politicians.
-
-
Seems like the Teamsters would have been better running mates than a fucking Cheney
-
Don’t worry, next election they can get Hitler’s grandson or Putins niece to help them campaign. That should get the average everyday person to come out and vote for them! Everyone loves relatives of super powerful war criminals, right?
-
Honestly, yes they are the best. Especially when their politics aren’t all that different from the mass murderer.
-
-
-
The silver lining of 2024 is watching Kamala's entire political career implode from her own hubris. She's now resigned to HRC hot-potato status that only further polarizes the Dem base.
If the Dems had any sense they'd be distancing themselves from her entire campaign, indefinitely.
-
The silver lining of 2024 is watching Kamala's entire political career implode from her own hubris
That was the silver lining on her FIRST presidential run, but the DNC didn't let it happen then and probably won't now.
A woman of color representing several different groups of people and who will pretend to be progressive sometimes but always change her mind into whatever the donor-determined party line is?
She's catnip to a Dem leadership desperately trying to compensate for not caring about the working class by pretending that optics equal substance 😮💨
-
That about sums it up
-
-
Unfortunately the democrats have no sense, which is why they have ghouls like hillary clinton continually floating around in the background even after she lost against a clown and everything she touches turns to shit.
-
They have sense- sense to understand that they don't need to win. With the GOP as a boogeyman, they know that even more donations will come in, and they don't actually have to govern, or produce any kind of effective legislation. It's why even when the Dems control the majority of the House, nothing gets done, and why there are always just enough Dems willing to cross to Republican positions to defeat any real progress.
They're just Controlled Opposition at this point, and that probably started in the 90s with Clinton and sucking the Corporate teat with gusto. Even now, we have crones like Pelosi at 84 fucking years old who refuse to do anything other than punch downward at her own party members. The entire party needs to be scrapped.
-
-
-
Unless it's aoc or bernies sanders. I'm not voting blue ever again. Actually crazy they** lost to orange, again
-
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
-
Everything about her campaign was delusional 🙄
-
-
It's just shitty because what real alternative is there? You either go all-in on the Conservative fuck-train or you attempt some desperate form of damage control by voting for the moderately more palatable option. There's no in-between in the US that isn't a symbolic losing bet.
-
The same AOC who voted to break the rail strike two years ago? She’s a scab.
-
-
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.
-
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!
-
-
Delete this gang 🙏
-
129 comments