2024 Elections

[Vrede too]

Does anyone think the Ohio CATastrophe could put the state in play?

I don't know what those who know what they're talking about think, but I'm pretty sure it will make the margin a lot lower. Look at Iowa, and they don't even have cat stew.

What do you know about Iowa?

[O Really]

Cut trumps lead to 4.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/iowa-trump- ... -sept-2024

[GoCubsGo]

Cut trumps lead to 4.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/iowa-trump- ... -sept-2024

Des Moines Register poll, they're generally very good.

[Vrede too]

So here's some questions for you. Which party has a long and continuing union-busting history and wants to kick the teeth out of the NLRB?

GQP, but does the NLRB have any teeth remaining?

Which party has generally supported unions and has at least one president who joined union members in the line?

That former Dem activist made a pretty strong case that Dem support for unions and the working class in general has been insufficient. Despite Dems sometimes being in power we've still seen the dissolution of union influence and the enormous rise of the uber wealthy.

Which presidential candidate do the majority of teamsters support?

I can see where many wonder what the DNC has done for them lately. Then, like it or not Dolt .45 has had some appeal for poorly educated Whites.

Idiots.

Us?

[O Really]

Support being "insufficient" is one thing. Active attempt to destroy is another. But consider: it's not primarily government legislation that has reduced unionization. A lot is losses in heavily unionized industries, such as steel, coal, automotive, transportation. A lot is loss of value in union membership such as reduction of apprentice opportunities. A lot of it is loss of interest in unionization. But bottom line, when non-governmental union membership is 6%, Dems aren't going to win any elections giving sufficient support and they aren't going to get enough help out of them.

From the White House Council of Economic Advisors:

The current level of energy and momentum is a shift after a long period of decline in unionization in the United States. Union membership peaked in the 1950s at about one-third of the private sector workforce, but is just over 6 percent today. Globalization, technological change, and employer concentration are commonly cited as key factors, eroding union power and increasing employers’ bargaining position relative to workers. However, many economists have pointed out that these factors do not fully explain why unionization in non-tradable sectors has fallen at a similar rate, or why unionization is lower in the United States than other Western countries. Other potential causes for declining worker power include institutional changes within the United States–particularly the breakdown of pattern bargaining in the 1980s, the expansion of right-to-work states, outsourcing and industry concentration of low-wage workers, greater employer opposition to organizing efforts, and decreased enforcement of labor laws.

[Vrede too]

Several of those factors are ones that the Dems could have impacted. I'm not smart enough to say what they could have or should have done differently, but I can understand why workers and some of the middle class feel abandoned.

[O Really]

Several of those factors are ones that the Dems could have impacted. I'm not smart enough to say what they could have or should have done differently, but I can understand why workers and some of the middle class feel abandoned.

Yeah, not everybody knows the difference in correlation and causation.

[Vrede too]

Insufficient effort in defense of unions and the working class IS causation.

[O Really]

Insufficient effort in defense of unions and the working class IS causation.

A couple of examples would be nice. While you're working on that, consider that the current NLRB is 4 Dems 1 Repug, and, recovering from Trump's damage, have ruled union-favorably frequently, including reducing the time required between petition and election (giving employers less time to fight), and being generally tough on TIPS unfair labor practice violations (Threaten, Interrogate, Punish, Surveil). Dems get in, rule one way; repugs get in rule against. Meanwhile, red states are anti-union and Dems can't do much about it. Exactly what is it that you and the author would like the Dems to do that would be sufficient and legal?

[GoCubsGo]

There may be some enthusiasm this cycle.

[Vrede too]

Insufficient effort in defense of unions and the working class IS causation.

A couple of examples would be nice. While you're working on that, consider that the current NLRB is 4 Dems 1 Repug, and, recovering from Trump's damage, have ruled union-favorably frequently, including reducing the time required between petition and election (giving employers less time to fight), and being generally tough on TIPS unfair labor practice violations (Threaten, Interrogate, Punish, Surveil). Dems get in, rule one way; repugs get in rule against. Meanwhile, red states are anti-union and Dems can't do much about it. Exactly what is it that you and the author would like the Dems to do that would be sufficient and legal?

Reliance on the top like NLRB is not enough. As you've pointed out, the real issue is the lack of private sector unionization. Solidarity and forward-thinking would have meant heavy Dem involvement in recruiting, organizing and decertification elections. Instead, the Dems have been sucking up to the very fat cats that stymie unions.

[O Really]

Seriously? You think the Democratic party organization should be participating in recruitment, etc.? How would that work? They could be more vocal in supporting union issues, but other than as individuals have no direct role. And it's the governments role to protect lawful rights, enforce current law, and pass good legislation. It's not there no. To put their thumb on the scale for 6 per ent of the private workforce.

[Vrede too]

Seriously? You think the Democratic party organization should be participating in recruitment, etc.? How would that work? They could be more vocal in supporting union issues, but other than as individuals have no direct role. And it's the governments role to protect lawful rights, enforce current law, and pass good legislation. It's not there no. To put their thumb on the scale for 6 per ent of the private workforce.

At the grassroots level the Dems can put together teams of volunteers for any union activity. I never got asked despite my heavy involvement with the Party. So, yes to recruitment, etc.

There are reasons why the Teamsters think they can get away without endorsing and why so many White working class males voted for DonOLD. They don't see the Dems as supporting them in any practical way.

[O Really]

Well, about half my side of this discussion is just advocating for some devil, but what do you suppose would actually make them happy? Something that's legal, reasonably attainable considering that Dems rarely have both houses at their disposal, and something that wouldn't create excessive heartburn for the 94% that aren't union members. States could get rid of "right to work" laws, but Dems don't have majorities in most of those states. Seems the only avenues are legislation and regulation, both of which have substantial obstacles. I imagined myself telling Kamala what she should offer/promise/plan that would help and came up empty. Maybe it's not unions per se - maybe it's as you mentioned "working class males." What would you do?

[Vrede too]

Well, about half my side of this discussion is just advocating for some devil, but what do you suppose would actually make them happy? Something that's legal, reasonably attainable considering that Dems rarely have both houses at their disposal, and something that wouldn't create excessive heartburn for the 94% that aren't union members. States could get rid of "right to work" laws, but Dems don't have majorities in most of those states. Seems the only avenues are legislation and regulation, both of which have substantial obstacles. I imagined myself telling Kamala what she should offer/promise/plan that would help and came up empty. Maybe it's not unions per se - maybe it's as you mentioned "working class males." What would you do?

Top down is good, and I can't presume to improve on Kamala's economic agenda. However, I think there needs to be a more fundamental commitment from the Dems at all levels to economic justice. This will naturally mean reducing the 1%'s influence relative to the 99%. I'm not holding my breath. No one has effectively halted the 50+ year transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the uberwealthy. Without that, as Marx would tell us, nothing else matters.

[GoCubsGo]

It's a binary choice.

You here people say "I need to know more about her", which is bullshit. They're espousing their own laziness because she hasn't been force fed down their throats and most of the answers are a click away if they bothered clicking.

[O Really]

Yeah, it's funny the ones who want more "policy detail"
Immigration: I'm going to get Congress to pass the bi-partisan immigration bill that Trump sabataged and I'm going to sign it. Here's what it will do..."

Anyway, her main policy is she isn't going to be Trump in any way shape or form That's good enough for me.

[Vrede too]

It's a binary choice.

You here people say "I need to know more about her", which is bullshit. They're espousing their own laziness because she hasn't been force fed down their throats and most of the answers are a click away if they bothered clicking.

https://x.com/MollyJongFast/status/1837443197209137430

Not sure who the guy is but KH has a huge Issues section on her website. Granted, the Israel section isn't so detailed as to answer what she would do about a Hamas-led Palestinian state, but why speculate on all scenarios? We aren't even close to a 2-state solution yet.

[Vrede too]

Article

This is not a good pitch.

Seriously?

Abortion, The Economy, Jobs, Voting Rights and on and on and on.

My human rights.

This BS worked in 2016. We lived through four years of Donald Trump - including the first ever non-peaceful transfer of power. We live it. We’re not turning back.

Democracy itself, you two-bit wannabe dictator.

Trump says, "Vote for Donald Trump. What the hell do you have to lose? What do you have to lose?"

Your life, for starters. Trump killed hundreds of thousands of Americans by mismanaging COVID. You could also lose your freedom and democracy, not to mention your job.

My social security and health insurance?

More scathing tweets at the link

[Vrede too]

It's a binary choice.

You here people say "I need to know more about her", which is bullshit. They're espousing their own laziness because she hasn't been force fed down their throats and most of the answers are a click away if they bothered clicking.

Trump Calls MSNBC Host A 'Bimbo' After She Makes Case For Voting Against Him
Donald Trump flipped out on Truth Social over Stephanie Ruhle's appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher."