• the post of tom joad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    At the guy who tried to represent his union, that was 60% in favor of Trump so rather than endorse him declined to endorse any candidate?

    Yes we are in fact talking about the same person. AOC is stupid to call him out as his reasoning is sound and his non-dorsement helps the D party more than a trump one.

    Do you really think he should endorse Harris when his members are only 35% in favor of his doing so? I have a hunch his members would take issue with that

    • aalvare2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      But if your argument is that he went to the RNC as an appeal to teamsters who support Trump (aka not lefties), and that he is also choosing not to endorse either candidate on behalf of those teamsters, then that isn’t an appeal to further-left-than-democrats politics, it’s an appeal to centrism.

      My point then being

      Now she’s the one always punching left

      Doesn’t really make sense in this context

      • the post of tom joad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I suppose you have a point. Maybe punching left is not accurate.

        Thing is tho he didn’t go to the RNC l as an appeal to teamsters, he asked both RNC and DNC to be a speaker and only the RNC called back. DNC ghosted his ass.

        When at the RNC, he spoke about the importance of both parties to respect workers rights. He and other execs went to both camps (and biden before he stepped down) as they always do to try and extract promises in return for an endorsement.

        They didn’t get any promises from either camp though. He could have gone with his “constituents” polling numbers and endorsed Trump but he did not.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          He was the first acting teamster president to ever speak at the RNC, that’s a huge deal regardless of whether he was also expecting to speak at the DNC. Especially given how anti-union the republican party generally is.

          Either it was an appeal to conservative teamsters, or he himself is quietly moderate or conservative.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        If you understand ‘left’ to simply mean ‘democrat’, then sure? But I think in this context ‘left’ means ‘working class solidarity’.

        Teamsters shopping around with both parties makes sense when you understand their affiliation to be less about party allegiances and more about securing the best conditions for their union. Especially considering Teamsters refused to endorse either party even while their members seem to lean Republican.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I don’t simply understand ‘left’ to mean ‘democrat’, I’m aware that there are people left of democrats.

          Being “Left” encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class, but even specifically in this context, being the first acting teamster president to speak at the conference of a party that is historically anti-worker is…at best, naive. It could be seen as a way to pressure the GOP to care about unions, but they don’t care about unions, and speaking at their conference as a union president just gives a stronger surface-level impression to voters that they might.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            37 minutes ago

            Sure, it could be to pressure the GOP to care about unions, or it could be to pressure democrats to commit to more protections.

            and speaking at their conference as a union president just gives a stronger surface-level impression to voters that they might.

            A really good way to prove that democrats are more union friendly than republicans would be to commit to more union protections. That’s a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.

            Being “Left” encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class

            Not to a fucking union, there isn’t. Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is famously their most useful tool.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You don’t understand - I’m told that not endorsing Harris is, in fact, an endorsement of Trump

      Criticizing the democrats for something the Republicans also do is only something a Russian shill would do

      • the post of tom joad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I’m getting a little scared at how quickly they’re radicalizing. Lookit the DVs and ignorance of extremely recent history itt like for real it doesn’t seem like there’s brakes on this train. Hold me?

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Nah, this is more their normal speed.

          When their candidate was looking worryingly weak they were less militant about denying criticism because they couldn’t afford to discard leftist support (and they were feeling extremely insecure about their chances). Now that their polling is strong they’re returning to their usual ‘fuck them leftist losers’ attitude.