this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
163 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2809 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago

I don't see an issue with this, despite how this and other articles are trying to frame this. I'd be more upset if a national labor union wasn't trying to talk to all political parties and officials. That's literally their entire purpose, to act as a voice for their members to employers and politicians. Sticking their head in the sand because a party historically hasn't been helpful doesn't do anything. Trying to maintain an open dialog despite that history to try and change things is what they should be doing.

Trump historically has been anti-labor, and likely ain't going to change, but that doesn't mean you ignore the politician or the party entirely. Or even try to provoke them like some people seem to be advocating they do. That's just a stupid idea that creates irrational enemies you can't even talk to anymore, and that's the last thing you want when trying to lobby for your members.

The Teamsters asked to speak at both conventions, the DNC still hasn't responded. If anything, this says more about the DNC than many people seem to realize to be honest. Yet again they seem to be assuming certain groups will fall in line behind them just because they're the only other option. Ignoring things like voter apathy and that there's a decent chunk of people that only vote out of spite rather than for what they want, and blatantly ignoring their needs means turning a potential undecided or non-voter voters against them instead.

If we've learned anything over these last few years, it's that people are angry and will also vote against their own interests, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. We can't rely on logic and/or historical results or precedent to predict the future anymore. The old ways simply don't apply like they used to, that's been evident in so many polls being wildly inaccurate to election outcomes the last few elections.