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"
The Teamsters president claims the vice president cut a union meeting short and declared she would "win with you or without you."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Doom! Dooooooom!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
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.
Please, no. We don't need more myopia from politicians.
Seems like the Teamsters would have been better running mates than a fucking Cheney
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 🙄
The same AOC who voted to break the rail strike two years ago? She’s a scab.
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.
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!
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.