Do the teamsters rank and file believe Trump is better for workers than Harris? Or more generally Republicans better than Democrats? Oren implies that's the case and that they are correct. While I agree that both are bad it seems Harris/Democrats are objectively not as bad as Republicans/Trump. The criteria being which party supports the material well-being of workers more than the other. I'd like to understand why that's wrong, if it is.
I think you are just wrong to limit the options of union endorsement to the "polling of members" and the (probably false) claim of union presidents endorsing based on a personal whim.
My own union assembles the candidate voting records (if they served in Congress) and their public statements on the legislative issues the union has taken a position on. That information is made available to all union members and they are encouraged to read, analyze and communicate their views with their local union President (locals are small enough that all members know their local President). There are then two meetings, first with all of the local union presidents and then with the National Executive Board, which take a vote on endorsement.
I wonder what corporation polls its shareholders before they send big bucks to their favorite candidates?
And as for Harris and NAFTA, she rightly made the point that Trump's renegotiation was weak tea. Voters were promised big changes and got just a minor update of NAFTA under Trump, with Nancy Pelosi going in after the fact and single handedly getting Mexico to make additional concessions after the Trump negotiation.
I don't follow the NFL or NBA, but the concept here is clear and usefully illuminates an element of capitalism, or whatever our current political economy is.
Ride-height devices on bikes in MotoGP is a similar example that comes to mind.
I appreciate the fact that you refer to a "market based economy" rather than a capitalist economy. Big difference. A market based economy can potentially work for the many; a capitalist economy only for the few.
Your critiques of our political-economy resonate with me much more so than your efforts at advocacy and persuasion, which, unfortunately, appears to be the reason for the recent reorganization of the division of labor at American Compass in this election year.
Your recent foray, for example, into cleaning up JDV’s rhetorical disasters lacked the intellectual balance which you so devastatingly applied to Wolferism.
Winning a seat at the table and winning an argument are two different things. The latter features the human interaction that conservatives crave. And the latter relies on a liberal preference for substituting language for judgment.
Do the teamsters rank and file believe Trump is better for workers than Harris? Or more generally Republicans better than Democrats? Oren implies that's the case and that they are correct. While I agree that both are bad it seems Harris/Democrats are objectively not as bad as Republicans/Trump. The criteria being which party supports the material well-being of workers more than the other. I'd like to understand why that's wrong, if it is.
I have always maintained that if you let me pick the base year, I can win any data based argument.
I think you are just wrong to limit the options of union endorsement to the "polling of members" and the (probably false) claim of union presidents endorsing based on a personal whim.
My own union assembles the candidate voting records (if they served in Congress) and their public statements on the legislative issues the union has taken a position on. That information is made available to all union members and they are encouraged to read, analyze and communicate their views with their local union President (locals are small enough that all members know their local President). There are then two meetings, first with all of the local union presidents and then with the National Executive Board, which take a vote on endorsement.
I wonder what corporation polls its shareholders before they send big bucks to their favorite candidates?
And as for Harris and NAFTA, she rightly made the point that Trump's renegotiation was weak tea. Voters were promised big changes and got just a minor update of NAFTA under Trump, with Nancy Pelosi going in after the fact and single handedly getting Mexico to make additional concessions after the Trump negotiation.
Rockstar Owen Cass is my main homie…
I don't follow the NFL or NBA, but the concept here is clear and usefully illuminates an element of capitalism, or whatever our current political economy is.
Ride-height devices on bikes in MotoGP is a similar example that comes to mind.
I appreciate the fact that you refer to a "market based economy" rather than a capitalist economy. Big difference. A market based economy can potentially work for the many; a capitalist economy only for the few.
Keep it up, Oren.
Your critiques of our political-economy resonate with me much more so than your efforts at advocacy and persuasion, which, unfortunately, appears to be the reason for the recent reorganization of the division of labor at American Compass in this election year.
Your recent foray, for example, into cleaning up JDV’s rhetorical disasters lacked the intellectual balance which you so devastatingly applied to Wolferism.
Winning a seat at the table and winning an argument are two different things. The latter features the human interaction that conservatives crave. And the latter relies on a liberal preference for substituting language for judgment.
Best,
J
It’s a typo. Meant “know” instead of now.