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!
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
161 points (83.1% liked)
News
23651 readers
2514 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
So Bernie shouldn't be a politician anymore?
Probably a fair trade to remove half the mummies in congress and get younger more progressive people in there. Bernie is getting on in years, we should be supporting potential replacements regardless.
elon is arguing for term limits
Ok, and?
term limits give even more policy setting power to elon, a guy who is rich but not elected
That's not really true, Elon's "position" already doesn't have a term limit. Even if he supports it doesn't automatically make it bad for us or good for him, you need to support your argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
A major union head went on Tucker Carlson's podcast... gross. Harris could have done more to appeal to workers, but this dude can't paint himself as a neutral politically-impartial leader!
Yes because politically neutral means only going on democrat podcasts.
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.
Excuse my ignorance on American doublespeak, but does the "right to work" just mean the "right for companies to employ scabs"?
They named it that so it would get confused with similarly named laws that protect the rights of workers.
right to work laws "protect" workers from unions forcing them to pay dues so: yes.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
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.
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.
...Biden and Harris broke multiple strikes.
Yeah, great, they advocated for the PRO act the same way they advocated for m4a or a ceasefire in Palestine.
Judging by their performance in the last three presidential elections with absolutely zero course correction, I wouldn't hold my breath.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
view more: next ›