Oh look, Clinton just picked up her 16th union endorsement

[Godhumor]

WASHINGTON: The insulators union has endorsed US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, raising the Democratic front-runner's tally of national labor endorsements to 16 unions representing 11 million workers.

International Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers President James McCourt said in a letter to Clinton, reviewed by Reuters, that the union recognised her "strong support for fundamental labor standards" and "recognition of the significant contributions of our members to energy efficiency."

...

She now has the backing of 16 unions that collectively represent some 11 million workers. Roughly 14.6 million workers - about 11.1 per cent of the workforce - are union members, according to US government data.

Some of Clinton's endorsements include influential unions such as the AFSCME, a public employees union with 1.6 million members, and the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, which has about 2 million members in a variety of professions that range from nursing to janitorial services.

-------

http://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/hillary-clinton-secures-another-union-endorsement-bringing-total-to-16/articleshow/50022453.cms

Hillary's ground game come the GE will be massive.

[ibegurpard]

1. lol

A good ground game requires enthusiastic foot soldiers.

[msrizzo]

6. Which she has

As you will all find out😄

[ibegurpard]

24. Where were they in 2014?

Leadership endorsements do not equate to foot soldiers to knock doors, make phone calls and raise money.

[Cali_Democrat]

76. Where were Bernie's in 2014? nt

[ibegurpard]

106. what does that have to do with anything?

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drinking?

[bigtree]

2. but, but what about the *rank-and-file*!

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

...because we all know union leadership doesn't represent the rank-and-file workers.

At least, that's what republicans have been telling us for decades as they work to undermine unions.

[Agschmid]

8. Actually it's happening a couple posts down...

Right here in DU, you don't have to go anywhere to see unions being undermined.

Luckily it's not that effective.

[NCTraveler]

3. Damn near every group on the left is unifying for Clinton.

It's beautiful to watch.

[Godhumor]

5. Unions representing over 75% of all unionized workers have already endorsed her

That is massive. Even if Bernie got every single other endorsement from a union, he'd only have 1/4 the labor support of Hillary.

Pretty sure that flies in the face of a lot of narratives people want to drive about Hillary.

[Hortensis]

109. Wonderful! Critically, 100% of unions endorse Democratic.

Every worker, union admiring or not, should take strong note of that and what it means.

[Number23]

132. And I think that explains the constant shrieking from certain people on this web site better than

anything anyone has ever posted.

Damn near every group on the left is unifying for Clinton.

Because after filling this place, Twitter, Facebook and other mediums up day in and day out about how she's a fascist tool for the 1%, a warmonger, a corporatist, an empty pantsuit etc. etc. etc., the endorsements, the polls and every single reliable measure show those efforts have been an absolute and utter waste of time and effort.

Everything points to unprecedented levels of support for this particular candidate. People who love her can see it. People who hate her can see it. Even people that are still fairly "meh" (such as myself) about her can see it. And all of the breath holding and foot stomping won't change a thing.

[2pooped2pop]

4. union leader endorsement

not so much union member endorsement.

[MaggieD]

9. Why would rank and file members support Bernie?

He wants to increase their taxes, and replace their great insurance plan with a government plan.

[2pooped2pop]

10. because they know that Hillary

is only using them to get what she wants and then will fuck them over.

[MaggieD]

11. What evidence is there that she "fuck them over"?

Please be specific.

[2pooped2pop]

12. she is a corporate shill

she will always do what is good for the corporations. She will throw the little people a bone and act like that's all she could do. But in the end we all lose. This more of the same shit is how it got so bad. Acting like we can't do anything so we might as well take that bone.

[MaggieD]

14. Be specific

What has she done for "corporations" that should lead union members to believe she is a "corporate shill"? I know you folks like to throw that around but why don't you ever have anything to back it up?

[2pooped2pop]

16. lets just start with where she gets her money

she owes them and she will repay them.

[MaggieD]

17. It's illegal for corporations to donate to candidates

So try again.

[2pooped2pop]

18. yes, they use pacs

but it is coming from corporations

[MaggieD]

19. No, you're thinking of Super Pacs and those aren't to candidates

PAC donations also come from individuals, not corporations.

So again, what has she done for corporations that would qualify her as a "corporate shill"? Please be specific.

[2pooped2pop]

20. I just did a search right here on du and there are many many articles on it

perhaps you could read those.

[MaggieD]

23. You did he research on DU? LOL!

I think what you're saying is "I got nothing."

Oddly, that is exactly what ends up being the case every time I ask a Bernie supporter to provide a specific example that shows her to be the "corporate shill" you all constantly accuse her of being. It's ridiculous at this point.

[2pooped2pop]

31. no, i said it's that easy to find yet you want me to go bring it to you

get it yourself.

[MaggieD]

52. It doesn't exist

I've asked every poster who makes that charge for specifics for months and months. Crickets. Every time. Just like your response. You got nothing.

[2pooped2pop]

62. OMG

It doesn't exist? lol You don't want to admit that there is a shit load of baggage with Clinton and nothing is going to get better if she is elected. All you have to do is a simple search and there are hundreds, probably thousands of examples of her baggage and she did not get nick named weathervane because she likes weather.

[MaggieD]

75. If there is a "shit load"

Why can't ANY of you produce some evidence rather than just baseless smears? Huh?

[2pooped2pop]

79. not your service dog.

u could look it up but we both know what you will find plus probably a whole lot more than u could even imagine.

[MaggieD]

101. Again, if there is a "shit ton" of evidence, why is it....

That NO Bernie supporter can ever, ever, ever tell us what that evidence is?

Pathetic.

[MADem]

67. Extraordinary charges--like the ones you made--require extraordinary proof, which you--not

your interlocutor--are obliged to provide.

[2pooped2pop]

82. me? I'm not obligated to do a damned thing.

once something is common knowledge especially. It's almost like telling me I need to prove to you that the sky is blue and why. My answer would still be to look it up your own damned self.

[MADem]

115. No, this is not a "blue sky" example. FWIW, the sky can be grey, too, so that point fell flat.

Again, you make the charge, you provide the proof.

The fact that you're having trouble defending yourself, and arguing about it, rather than just simply "putting up" as they say, tells us more than you realize.

[2pooped2pop]

117. lol, the sky can be grey too. Perfect

[floriduck]

51. Maggie, Maggie, Maggie.

My last employer, a corporation, asked us as employees to contribute to their PAC for their support of business-related political contributions. Our PAC contributed to individual candidates. It happens, even if you refuse to believe it. Your stubbornness may be part of your selective beliefs.

[MaggieD]

54. Bernie loves PACs

Most of his funding from his senate campaigns came from PACs. Did you not know that?

[Duval]

58. He isn't doing that now, MaggieD.

The same cannot be said for Hillary. I'd also like to see some links to support your claim that "Bernie loves PACs".

[MaggieD]

73. They financed his senate campaign

Has he "evolved"? I'm always amazed at how little his ardent supporters know about him.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cid=n00000528&cycle=2014

[MADem]

116. Cough. Nurses United for Patient Protection. They've already spent a half million on him.

And they're not done yet, either.

[leftofcool]

83. There is a difference in pacs and super pacs. Google it.

[Godhumor]

21. Maggie, you know the answer.

It is because she's not Bernie.

[2pooped2pop]

22. My family have been union members for over 40 years

everyone I know is in a union. They do not like Hillary. They do not trust Hillary. The ones who's union leaders have endorsed Hillary are pissed as hell and will not vote for Hillary.

[Godhumor]

26. That's nice. I have membership in three and work with two more

And the majority that I talk with like and support her.

[2pooped2pop]

29. well good for them but not one that I know does.

not one. I would say it's very close to hate.

[MaggieD]

27. Well everyone I know in a union LOVES Hillary

The union people I know don't want their taxes increased and their excellent healthcare replaced with government healthcare. And they have taken notice of Bernie's lack of achievements and lack of congressional endorsements. He has no political power and they know it.

[turbinetree]

81. I am on a government health care..........................

it's called Medicare and I have been "means " tested to get it when I turn 65, that is in my opinion outrageous.
I pay 105 dollars a month to have a 80/20% government plan.
Then I have to pay for Medicare part D, what a scam that is, having to get the drugs that are not being negotiated by our government but from a oligarchy, so that they set the price.

While my wife who is not on Medicare has to pay over $360 a month, tell me which one is better.

I am Not being condescending but which program saves people money?

And just think, with Medicare you don't have to tell them what your age is (they already know, you have to be 65), now presently, still under this health care system in this country---------------has just a tinge of discrimination when you fill out the health forms----------you are means tested, still to raise the "insurance premiums, because now, they can't deny you if you have a pre-existing condition, so now they use age as a means to set your premiums.

The overheard costs of Medicare are about 4-7%, while a for profit healthcare is around 17-26% (Now), use to be 80% or higher. This is the Oregon costs:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5037dc7ac4aa52a2f9107b23/t/51cbc736e4b0ff1650b63945/1372309302121/HCAO-Fact+Sheet+%233+Overhead+Costs+of+Health+Care+V2.pdf

When some looks at there pay check they see exactly how much they pay into Medicare (2.9% flat tax, no matter how much money you earn in your pay check) is better than paying for a for profit health care out of your pocket to subsidize a health care plan, that means less money in you pocket on top of the Medicare.

As for endorsements and his (Sanders) lack of political power, he started and helped formulate the Progressive Congressional Caucus in the house, I know this copy is from Wikipedia, but it really says a lot

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by six members of the United States House of Representatives: U.S. Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Thomas Andrews (D-ME), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Additional House Members joined soon thereafter, including Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Then-U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first CPC Chairman. Bill Goold served as Staff Coordinator for the Progressive Caucus in its early years until 1998.

The founding CPC members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, and the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response in the early 1990s. More importantly, on January 3, 1995 at a standing room only news conference on Capitol Hill, they were the first group inside Congress to chart a detailed, comprehensive legislative alternative to U.S. Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Contract with America, which they termed "the most regressive tax proposals and reactionary social legislation the Congress had before it in 70 years." The CPC's ambitious agenda was framed as "The Progressive Promise: Fairness."



Honk-------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[MaggieD]

92. Maybe better for you, but not for union members

Which is the point of discussion in this thread. Again, no surprise that unions don't support Bernie. And it would be nice if we could all stop pretending the "rank and file" support him. The majority do not for the reasons I have mentioned.

[turbinetree]

112. I have as a individual...........................

been a UNION member for over 40 years, and I have never supported anyone that did not support the values of a union.
We have the international of the unions doing the same thing they did when Reagan was out running his campaign.

It is the "rank and file" that determine what is in the by laws it is the "rank and file" that determines if they will vote out the leadership, It is the "rank and file" that makes the union not the international.

I think you are wrong.
This issue isn't about taxes, it is about the leadership placating there desires to do what-----------------they have lost over 28% of there membership by supporting Third Way DINO'S, and they have lost those memberships based on a U.S. Supreme Court that has been gutting union membership since Reagan and putting in DINO's and republicans that say they support the consumer, that is a lie, they support the money and the power of the money

Look no further than who was selected to represent the majority on this right wing court when it comes to the issue out in California, --------------Alito.
And has a union member my goal is to have everyone under Medicare-----------------its cheaper, I am a consumer, and if my leadership doesn't see that then they need to be voted from there position

And has for Sanders, he's been walking the walk for the "rank and file" I have yet to see Ms. Clinton on a picket line

[demigoddess]

74. you are believing republican propaganda,

republicans want you to believe this. It is the only way they know to fight her. That and supporting Carly Fiorina.

[2pooped2pop]

127. please

it is obvious.

[Hoyt]

126. It's a heck of a lot easier to get wage and benefit concessions from corporations doing well.

[2pooped2pop]

86. weathervanes have to turn

and turn and turn and turn.

[MaggieD]

95. So all you have is a baseless smear - correct?

Yep.

[modestybl]

100. Elizabeth Warren explains how HRC fucked over the middle class...

"... she takes money from those groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as HER constituency..."

If it isn't Bernie, I won't vote for HRC... she will be more than accommodating to the big banks and the Repubs...

[shenmue]

33. Wow

Would you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[2pooped2pop]

38. my mother is dead

thanks though

[riversedge]

50. Is that your crystal ball? It is broken. Just saying.

[RoccoR5955]

36. That is pure propaganda

The net to a tax increase and "government insurance" would be more money in their pockets with at healthcare package comparable to the one that they already have.
They would pay less for insurance, less for deductibles, less for prescriptions, and have a small tax increase.
THIS union member applauds Bernie's plan!

[2pooped2pop]

41. yep

and Hillary has a proven record of changing her plan. And she will dump them all for her corporate friends.

[RoccoR5955]

42. This is totally true

You know it, and so does everyone else who has tracked Clinton's history of doing this.

[MaggieD]

46. Please be specific about "her history of doing this"

I eagerly await your response.

[RoccoR5955]

49. I am not your homework doer.

Google is your friend here.

[leftofcool]

85. In other words, you've got nothing.

[2pooped2pop]

89. in other words

there are many many many collections of the Hillary baggage out there. It is easy to find. It is common. Do your own search on it. There are really too many to choose from and you will probably find out a lot more than you want to know about your sacred Hillary.

[Sheepshank]

107. I did a search....not finding anything. If you want to *prove* specifics

or if any of the posters want to support their statements, instead of using unsubstatiated allegations, they will have to provide the proof. Why are you asking others to do your homework for you? That makes no sense.

[RoccoR5955]

94. Wrong!

I am not your personal research assistant. That is all.
Try this link for starters, and DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH!
I don't have links to issues that I was witness to while she was senator here in NY.
Here's the damn link: http://bfy.tw/36R3
WTF is so hard about it?

[2pooped2pop]

110. they can find it.

anyone can find it. They don't want to find it and want to force you to spend your time being their lap dog. They think it's funny. The Hillary camp is very worried that people don't like her now any more than they did her last failed attempt.

[dpatbrown]

114. I agree.

As I'm reading this thread, and from past threads, its a waste of your time. But before they ask me for specifics, I agree, look it up themselves. All of us have read many, many examples of her ties to corporations ( tons of it).

[2pooped2pop]

118. one of them told me the sky can be grey too

when I said asking me to prove Hillary has corporate ties is like asking me to prove the sky is blue. I damned near really did roll on the floor.

[MaggieD]

44. Nope - it's reality

You're hanging your hat on a falsehood. The programs Bernie is proposing are not free. It's naive to think they are.

[RoccoR5955]

47. Nobody said that they are free.

I didn't say that they are free, did I? I did say that people would have to pay a small increase in taxes for them, so I am not hanging my hat on a falsehood.

[2pooped2pop]

48. yes and I suppose Clinton is gonna pay for her plans with her own money?

It's never free but Bernie will at least work for the people, not for the corporations.

[MADem]

66. Oh, stop making sense! Your logic is ruining the fun!

[MaggieD]

71. LOL!

[upaloopa]

57. Would one of you please tell me what benefit

would a labor leader get from endorsing someone over the wishes of the membership?

I think it is just more denial on the part of Bernie folks to keep up that meme.

[RoccoR5955]

98. Kickbacks.

And don't ask me to cite instances. Many are swept under the rug, and you know it!

[BlueMTexpat]

60. That is such a crock.

But keep repeating it if it makes you feel better.

Union leaders are generally reacting to the wishes of the majority of their rank and file members. Here is one example of how it works. http://iftweb.ift-aft.org/docs/1274-default-files/fact-sheet-on-how-local-1274-endorses-candidates.pdf?sfvrsn=0

For a good read on this subject, check out this url: https://newrepublic.com/article/123560/why-is-hillary-doing-so-well-with-unions

It all comes down to union efforts to secure their status politically, according to Dissent contributing editor and frequent labor writer Richard Yeselson. “These days, if a Democratic incumbent (on either the local or national level) says most of the right things about labor, the union will endorse that candidate even if there is an ostensibly more leftwing candidate in opposition,” Yeselson explained in an email, “that’s because unions, weaker than ever, are terrified of losing their clout with the likely winner.” Yeselson pointed out that betting safe is something of a tradition for unions even when their circumstances are not particularly compromised, noting that “even at their most powerful in the immediate postwar period, many labor leaders—having been unable to stop passage of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, decisively win major strikes, or reach an accord with business—worried that unions needed the government buttressing in order to maintain their power. Unions thus mostly endorsed incumbent Harry Truman, rather than the leftist third party effort of Henry Wallace.” Some observers were critical of the decision, but Yeselson noted it “wasn’t much different than the ones made today: don’t pick a candidate or a party you don’t think is going to win.”

Any individual who has been a member of the Democratic party during most of that person's career is always going to be seen as a surer bet with other Democrats or constituencies that have consistently been Democratic than someone who only began identifying himself as a Democrat when he got into the 2016 Presidential race, however appealing that person or his message may be. It's as simple as that.

Reasonable people can differ about whether that is a good thing or not. But it is a fact.

[yardwork]

7. That's gonna burn. /nt

[SidDithers]

13. Inb4 facebook page comments...nt

Sid

[Iliyah]

15. K & R

[DCBob]

25. Insulators clearly know the difference between hot and cold.

And they know Hillary is HOT, HOT, HOT!

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. Good. She will support unions and their goals.

[ibegurpard]

34. She hasn't so far

No reason to believe she will start doing so now.

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. LOL

[Jester Messiah]

53. Pfft. Like hell.

She'll fuck them over at the first opportunity. But at least she greased the right palms to get the endorsements, so she's got that going for her.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. Pfft, LOL

[Jester Messiah]

56. What a stunningly well reasoned rebuttal! You've convinced me! [nt]

[Hekate]

61. Specific proof of bribery, please. ("greasing palms" is bribery)

[Jester Messiah]

68. Denied.

Historically informed speculation, more likely than not given her historic patterns and donor list. And as this is not a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion, it will suffice.

[leftofcool]

88. Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please provide proof that a man like John Lewis was bribed to endorse Hillary. Prove it or self delete.

[Jester Messiah]

93. Oddly I feel absolutely no compulsion to do as you tell me.

So why don't you take a long walk off a short pier?

[MaggieD]

96. It's always the same story when pressed for evidence...

.... to back up the 24/7 baseless smears. You got nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I have seen this hundreds of times here. When challenged to defend their baseless smears Bernie supporters have nothing. How telling.

[Jester Messiah]

102. Evidence is not required when offering opinions and analysis.

What is telling is that you would require a courtroom's standard of evidence in order to even hear a dissenting opinion.

[MaggieD]

104. Yes it is

[Jester Messiah]

108. What a fascinating opinion. [nt]

[MaggieD]

111. Fact free analysis and opinion would never be published

You realize that, right? There is a reason for that. Apparently that escapes you.

[Jester Messiah]

119. Wow, good thing I'm not trying to get published!

I'm just opining on a website, same as you. And I can state whatever opinion I happen to hold, same as you! And my opinion, informed as it is by my observations and deductions, is that Hillary is a lying slimy corporate stooge who will sell out her allies for any momentary advantage.

[MaggieD]

120. Here is the bottom line

If you really believe you have no obligation to back up "opinions and analysis" with any sort of facts, whatsoever, then don't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously. I sure won't.

[Jester Messiah]

121. I will take that into utmost consideration.

Here is my serious face so you know I'm for serious:
:-|

[MaggieD]

122. I don't care what you do

I'm just pointing out that your comment about not being obligated to include facts is foolish.

[Jester Messiah]

123. Aw. Does this mean we're not friends?

Now I am sad.

[NurseJackie]

30. Phenomenal!

The more and more and more this happens, the easier it is for me to understand why Bernie's fans are so visibly angry and frustrated.

With each new endorsement, and with each new poll, we can also expect an uptick in the poo flinging and gratuitous attacks and insults.

Wait for it ... in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[Helen Borg]

37. It must be hard...

For someone who feels so entitled to become President to wake up each night and wonder whether this will be a 2008 repeat...

[NurseJackie]

59. I doubt it. She's looking ahead, not backward.

But considering how completely awful Bernie's poll numbers are, and how simply dreadful his endorsements are, it's very easy for me to understand why his fans are looking backward and clinging to the fantasy of "just-like-2008".

It's been discussed repeatedly, and MineralMan's level-headed and unemotional analysis of the facts (both past an present) and his comparison of the numbers (past and present) are very astute.

Another poster recently commented that it's time for Bernie's fans to start preparing themselves. If they do, then the tension levels drop and we're all the better for it. If they don't, then, oh well. There are likely to be some here who will enjoy the schadenfreude spectacle.

[Helen Borg]

124. Ahead like in 9/11?

[NurseJackie]

125. Ha! :-D

[RoccoR5955]

32. It seems that the union bosses like her

I wonder what the rank and file have to say about this.
They are not allowed to vote on such endorsements, so I wonder how valid that they are.
I am a member of AFSCME, and nobody ever asked me who I would rather support in the primaries. To me it is clear that the bosses of our union have made the decision for us, without feedback from the workers themselves, because every AFSCME worker that I talk to would rather they endorse Bernie than Hillary.

[Hekate]

64. Union members elect "the union bosses" don't they? Seems like you have some control. nt

[ismnotwasm]

70. I actually like and respect my "union boss"

She's a great leader and fun to talk too. Sat with her at the convention--and she filled me in on specifics I didn't know about.

[jalan48]

35. This certainly must mean Hillary will oppose the TPP at every turn.

Stay tuned for reality.

[PatrynXX]

39. ho hum bunch of anti union heads endorsing Clinton

meanwhile we complain about NRA not listening to it's own members about Gun Control

[SmittynMo]

43. This is fucking utterly amazing

[RandySF]

45. K&R

[JaneyVee]

63. K AND R!

[BrainDrain]

65. meh.....

so what?

A union endorsement means very little in this day and age. Long gone are the days when a union could "deliver" the votes for whom-ever. But considering HRC's bent for cronyism..she might actually believe these mean something tangible.

[ismnotwasm]

69. K&R

Excellent news

[workinclasszero]

72. Unions love Hillary!

[lunamagica]

77. Unions for Hillary! YAY!

[highprincipleswork]

78. Ground games, unlike endorsements, depend on the rank and file

We'll see.

If she wins the nomination, which isn't yet decided, we'll see if the rank and file ponies up to get behind her.

If she wins the nomination, not yet decided, I hope for all our sakes that they do.

In the meantime, I think it's too bad that this is just one other instance where the people do not have the say.

[workinclasszero]

87. Unions are democratic organizations

that vote for their leadership.

How did union members vote in leadership that does not represent the wishes of the majority of the members??

Doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

[highprincipleswork]

128. I'm a member of many unions.

I'm a member of many unions. DGA, MPEG, SAG-AFTRA, IA Local 472, I reckon that's enough.

Sure, I vote for union leadership and join in order to do the work I like to do. However, how the union leadership votes on matters like this, and many other issues that strike closer to home, often, often, often does not represent what I and many other want. We're part of the union to secure union jobs. Union leadership? Watch "On the Waterfront". I won't say it's exactly like that, but it often isn't far apart.

[workinclasszero]

129. Used to be only right wing sites would attack

Unions and their leadership. Now unions are attacked and called corrupt on democratic underground.

So sad, never thought I'd see that here. SMH

[highprincipleswork]

130. you inflate my argument unnecessarily

Calling me names, trying to denigrate what i ve to say is beneath the site and the discourse.

I see you call yourself workingclasshero. Do you belong to unions? Do you disagree with me that the leadership pretty much does what they want in these matters, definitely does not generally seek our opinion when deciding who to endorse?

All I'm saying is that it makes perfect sense to me that union leadership might support a candidate that the vast majority of their rank and file do not. They are lobbying for political power, and doing it the best way that they envision.

Now there are many of us who see a different opportunity. A leader who is more like F.D.R. than anyone in recent history.

Sure, I'd like him to grow even more like F.D.R. than he might currently be. But there is room for that growth. And his heart and his longtime actions are absolutely in the right place and absolutely on the side of the unions. There is no way that union rank and file can be blind to that.

So, I'm just saying, don't take the actions of the leadership of the unions as speaking for the rank and file. We're just attempting to hold onto our jobs, and part of the union for that reason. They don't reach out, generally, to ask us who we support!!!

[workinclasszero]

131. I find it fascinating that as soon as a so called

Socialist candidate for the Democratic nomination starts losing big time his followers suddenly become anti union.

You cannot say it's the corrupt union bosses etc like right wing republicans have done for eons and have any credibility whatsoever.

Unions hold democratic votes for leadership posts. What exactly are Bernie Sanders supporters implying against unions now?

[highprincipleswork]

133. I am completely and absolutely pro-union

I believe also absolutely that your accusations are way off the mark, based on anything that I have said and anything I believe. You did not answer my question as to your own union membership, nor my several questions as to whether or not you think the union leadership consults with their membership on matters of this sort.

You might also consider that we're meant to be on the same team. Innuendo and distortion of what I say does nobody any good. I'd like to think I am not doing that with what you are saying, but I take great offense at your accusations, suggestions, and distortions of what I am saying.

Furthermore, I don't believe Bernie Sanders has started to lose in any way. He had next to no chance from the start, considering all the forces aligned against him. It's a miracle of people believing in what he has to say and how he has conducted himself that has lead him to be at least a strong contender.

Yes, I would like him to win. I'm sick of giving away the store and making crummy deals. I've seen presidents like F.D.R. in history, with forces no less strong armed against him, do great things. I'd like to think that someone doing the right thing and saying the right things can still resonate with the human hearts of the majority of Americans in order to win the presidency and to govern from that point of view.

Please do not distort my point of view anymore.

[workinclasszero]

134. Yes I have been a union member

And God knows I wish I still was. I just hate that unions are great for the last seven years or so but now that the majority of them are endorsing Hillary all the BS followers are crying corrupt union bosses just like the republicans.

That's wrong and it hurts the union movement to have democrats turn on them when their favorite candidate is losing out on the endorsement race.

It helps no one but the teahaddists that want to destroy this country.

[highprincipleswork]

135. we're not acting to hurt the unions you know, just representing what we feel to be the rank and file

I appreciate the graciousness of your last response, and yes, we're in this together, and we apparently both believe strongly in unions.

Yes, I'm all-in for Bernie Sanders, and I do have a belief that union members if polled would probably lean more than 50 % his way. Totally non-scientific feeing about this. But I do see what people who seem to be members post when their leaders go another way. And then there are videos like this out there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017312364

I'm for anyone who truly supports the unions and acts in their behalf.

Thanks, and here's hoping we both get that union work, or something like it, equally good or even better.

[Fearless]

80. *crickets*

[dpatbrown]

84. WHY?

"Oh look" Why do you choose to be so antagonistic?

[Godhumor]

90. You consider "Oh look" antagonistic?

In the current environment of GDP, "oh look" gives you pause?

[dpatbrown]

113. I sure do.

[MisterP]

91. union leadership endorsement

[Starry Messenger]

97. K&R

[randome]

99. It doesn't matter! I mean, sixteen is nothing! I mean, this is a small union!

I mean, the real union members (aka the true Democrats) don't agree!

I mean, they don't know her like we do!

And finally: Meh. Numbers. What do they prove?

Did I miss anything?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[brooklynite]

103. Yes you did...

They're too stupid/blinded by the MSM to vote in their best interest. Always a popular choice around here.

[brooklynite]

105. Make that 17...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251870324