It was a remarkable moment Monday night at the Republican National Convention, surely creating some amount of confusion among longtime Republicans, when Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, delivered a stemwinder of a speech in prime time. He called former President Donald Trump a “tough S.O.B.”

Even the teamsters are showing up.

    • psvrh@lemmy.ca
      201·
      9 months ago

      He’s delusional if he thinks that a Republican administration wouldn’t be multiple times worse, and Vance has about as much conviction as a weathercock.

      I’m reminded of Democrats that plan to sit out this election because of their party’s failure on Palestine. Motherfucker, do you think Donald “bomb them back to the Stone Age” Trump, the man Netanyahu prefers, is a better choice?

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      83·
      9 months ago

      First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      —Martin Niemöller

      You’ve got to be pretty goddamn stupid to think Nazis are leftists.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              2·
              9 months ago

              100% agree, thinking I’ll deprogram a brainwashing victim with some internet comments would be delusional.

              I just don’t want to see anyone sourcing Dinesh as suggested reading without pushback. I don’t want a low information individual to get sucked in by far-right propaganda.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                33·
                9 months ago

                Here is a partial list of racists democrats that voted against the civil rights act of 1964 ( there were alot of dems that voted no and I got lazy)and when they stopped being reps/senators.  If the parties switched these guys wouldn’t be representing the racists democrats up to 2010.

                George William Andrews 1972 Robert Emmett Jones 1972 Armistead Selden 1968 Wilbur Mills 1976 James Trimble 1966 Robert Sikes 1978 Charles Edward Bennett 1992 Dante Fascell 1992 Paul Rogers 1978 Don Fuqua 1986 Sam Gibbons 1996 George Hagan 1972 Phillip Landrum 1976 Robert Stephens 1976 William Natcher 1994 Joseph Waggonner 1978 Otto Passman 1976 Gillis Long 1986 Jamie Whitten 1994 Lawrence Fountain 1982 David Newton Henderson 1976 Roy Taylor 1976 Joseph Evins 1976 John Patman 1976 Herbert Roberts 1980 Olin Teague 1978 William Poage 1978 James Claude Wright 1989 Robert Byrd 2010 James Eastland 1978 Sam Ervin 1974 Russell B. Long 1987 John L. McClellan 1977 John Jackson Sparkman 1979 John C. Stennis 1989 Herman Talmadge 1981

        • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
          92·
          9 months ago

          And Lincoln hated conservatives.

          It’s hilarious that you want me to read “the truth” by a convicted fraudster and conspiracy theorist.

          Also, you didn’t address what I said because you know I’m right and you’re an intellectual coward. So which is it?

          You’re beyond parody.

            • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
              101·
              9 months ago

              But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live”; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object”, fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty”; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live”. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

              Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel?

              Lincoln at Cooper Union

              Read a goddamn book