American Politics

[ninjabot]

I think it is ill-advised from a leftist perspective, but i struggle to officially judge the democratic choice of another person (including the vote for Trump) from above. I do not see how that would benefit anyone, it tends to just make people angrier and more stubborn and undermines the idea of democracy itself.

I can't let that slide, because the democratic choice of another person doesn't just effect that one person. It effects all of us. I should have a say in a decision you're making about my life. You would never tell a woman that they shouldn't have a say in some man voting against their reproductive rights would you?

Anyone I talk to who expressed they do not want to vote, I try to convince them otherwise. But condemning someone as stupid, bad for his own cause, evil or whatnot for their honest view just does not bode well with me. Because I do not think that is how anyone fighting for anything good wins.

I agree depending on if I view the person as redeemable. If I don't, then I'll use debate to signal to the audience how bad their ideas are. And sometimes that requires insults and inflammatory language, because ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. I treat them the same way I do theists when I'm in a religious debate. Because they're both being dogmatically stalwart.

As a leftist, I want Kamala Harris to win very, very dearly (you can believes me that). But that will only happen if enough people make that choice on their own, we are not going to able to harass them into it by shaming (and we shouldnt want that, either). And as a wider worldview, even if we lose, I personally would not want to think ill of the people (people, not pundits) who stayed at home or voted Trump. I would want to fight for them to make a different choice next time (not just regarding the next election, but the next time they could fight for something good).

I know we can't harass Leftists into voting for Harris via shaming. It's why I only harass the people that I already know are a lost cause.

Bottomline: I would rather have people join leftist organizations and spend effort there than arguing with trump supporters or Pro Gaza/no Harris crowds.

Then you should endeavor to make these organizations seem all-inclusive. From the rhetoric you use, and the way you carry yourself. This isn't a knock on you, it's a knock on the Far Left:


Like avoiding shit like this.

 

[shionoro]

Then you should endeavor to make these organizations seem all-inclusive. From the rhetoric you use, and the way you carry yourself. This isn't a knock on you, it's a knock on the Far Left:

I think I do not want to tone police others. However, I would never condone it if people in some organization I am in or working with would call for or condone violence like in the example above. That stance is not always easy to maintain, because people right now have a far easier time calling for volence than they used to. (for example, being in Germany and being both against seeing russians as Orcs that should not have rights and also against calling Ukraine a Nazi country is not easy to balance).

It is the same with Gaza. I am not going to disregard someone's opinion or stance completely because they say things they shouldnt (because their core issue might still have a point, even if they lose themselves in violence or lies), but someone who thinks that 7/10 is "resistance" is not my ally and I would not trust them. Neither is my ally or someone i would trust someone who thinks that what Israel does in Gaza is self defense.

The left radical group I am in basically has as its very basic foundation that we want to reach working class people by providing aid in housing/work/unemployment struggles, even if they vote for conservative or right extremists right now, as long as they do not actively harm or harass anyone in our group and focus on the subject matter. I think that is a very productive way to move forward, because that way, you can actually reach people who are completely disenfranchised and often not even voting or otherwise taking part in democracy.

 

[ninjabot]

I think I do not want to tone police others. However, I would never condone it if people in some organization I am in or working with would call for or condone violence like in the example above. That stance is not always easy to maintain, because people right now have a far easier time calling for volence than they used to. (for example, being in Germany and being both against seeing russians as Orcs that should not have rights and also against calling Ukraine a Nazi country is not easy to balance).

I'm not tone policing. I literally linked you a tweet about a pro-Palestinian saying they'd vote for Kamala if she'd funded the murder of 200,000 Zionist Jews. It's not tone policing to say you're a bad person if mass-murder is a requirement for your vote. Even dumbfuck Brianna Joy Gray tried to hush their rhetoric.

It is the same with Gaza. I am not going to disregard someone's opinion or stance completely because they say things they shouldnt (because their core issue might still have a point, even if they lose themselves in violence or lies), but someone who thinks that 7/10 is "resistance" is not my ally and I would not trust them. Neither is my ally or someone i would trust someone who thinks that what Israel does in Gaza is self defense.

I'm a thousand percent in agreement with you on both of these points.

For anyone that cares: a bunch of hosts on the different The Line network (youtube Atheism/Secular Humanism activism podcast shows... super left-leaning) podcasts weigh in on who they think is going to win based on how things currently look.

 

[shionoro]

I'm not tone policing. I literally linked you a tweet about a pro-Palestinian saying they'd vote for Kamala if she'd funded the murder of 200,000 Zionist Jews. It's not tone policing to say you're a bad person if mass-murder is a requirement for your vote. Even dumbfuck Brianna Joy Gray tried to hush their rhetoric.

Fair point. It can sometimes be hard to differentiate, but if someone is calling for or condoning the killings of civillians (including settlers), that definitely goes too far.

My personal assessment of the election rn: It is very close, which means the polls lose meaning as the smallest polling error could make the result swing widely. It is not unlikely that one side wins big just because of the slightest error. It might be wishful thinking, but I think we might rather face a polling error pro Harris than pro Trump. The hardest thing to poll is whether someone will actually get out and vote/register, because that goes beyond intention.

And I think Republicans do not have a very good reason to do that (Trump is not as funny as he used to be, he is also not new anymore) while democrats have (abortion rights, the fear of authoritarianism). Now, whether that will be enough is another question, but I think so and I hope so.

 

[kkck]

And DJT stock is now back in the high 40s... If trump sold now he'd be a bonafide billionaire. What a crazy world we live in.

 

[ninjabot]

 

[M3J]

Are you asking why Democrats are supporting the Democratic presidential candidate 8 days away from the election? Is this a real question?

VEHEMENTLY

For anyone with common sense, it does not make sense for Harris to keep going after moderates and republicans and having the support of some of the worst politicians. It looks like she either doesn't know who her demographics are, or she's revealing who they actually are.

Because I do not think Trump is going to stop genociding, and vice versa, supports a lot of authoritarian states that commit war crimes (Israel being one of them, but also Russia). And that is only one topic. Trump is going to push the world into a more authoritarian one, worldwide. And we know that authoritarian states are even more prone to violence, outward and inward. It definitely cannot be said that a vote for Trump leads to less bloodshed in Gaza or anywhere else.

Personally, I think that people spend to little time thinking about politics outside of the election. Real change comes from the bottom and from within, via grassroots movements, civil engagement, protests and dialogue among the population. That will be true no matter who of the two gets elected. For example, the fight for climate change will have to be led by normal people, partially against whoever will win (because they will partially align with the corporations that drive climate change). But under Kamala Harris, who partially also aligns with unions and climate groups, that will be way easier because there are more options to sway her and less incentive for her to use authoritarian means against protestors. The same is true for Gaza.

Some are exaggeration of what Trump will do.

And USA has had people trying to do grassroots movements, but politicians have to actually listen or care for it to work.

And DJT stock is now back in the high 40s... If trump sold now he'd be a bonafide billionaire. What a crazy world we live in.

I mean, it's not a surprise, anyone could see that coming.

 

[shionoro]

And USA has had people trying to do grassroots movements, but politicians have to actually listen or care for it to work.

Politicians will never listen to anything except power. However, that is not the end of possible democratic/leftist movements. The aim in my country in the leftist community right now is to build up longterm structures rather than pursuing shortterm causes (like ocupy or BLM), which are meant to be able to exert real power when things are looking more promising for leftwing causes (they are not right now).

The current concrete goal is to include the working class back into leftwing discourse, as in, we want to get disenfranchised people who are not voting right now or are even voting rightwing parties to join our common causes, for example by fighting huge landlords together.

The problem we saw with many popular and successful labels like BLM is that there was no real "after" getting widespread support that could channel the power that was unleashed, thus it dissipated without a lot of meaningful change. Thus the work to be done is to be ready the next time such a moment arrives.

 

[ninjabot]

VEHEMENTLY

For anyone with common sense, it does not make sense for Harris to keep going after moderates and republicans and having the support of some of the worst politicians. It looks like she either doesn't know who her demographics are, or she's revealing who they actually are.

Then I don't think you understand what common sense is. Common sense is voting for the Democrat candidate because you're a Democrat. Because they want to avoid things like this:

Odessa, TX Just Put $10,000 Bounties On Trans People Using The Bathroom

The new city ordinance passed 5-2 in Odessa, is a new phase in anti-transgender legislation, and could be an early look at anti-trans bills in 2025.

www.erininthemorning.com

 

[xi0]

You know, these single-issue voters can't seem to make up their mind. They want to say "I can't vote for a pro-genocide candidate, so I'm not giving you my vote." But then they also wanna say "By the way, if you lose, it's not because I didn't vote for you, it's because you wouldn't sacrifice moderate votes for me."

Even weirder, they tend to only harp on a potential loss. "It's your fault for not trying to earn my vote." But what if she doesn't lose?

What if she wins?

Good

Though I'd still like to see these mythical "moderate voters" that the Harris campaign has such a hard-on for. If anything, people who describe themselves as moderates don't really vote based on issues in the first place. Republican Never-Trumpers certainly don't.

Justified criticisms against Palestine? Terrorism bad. I think. Another? Pick better people to govern in your name. It's hard not to hold you responsible for the actions of Hamas if you don't condemn their actions.

Is "terrorism bad" supposed to be intentionally reductive? Do we not understand why it happens or that it's very often a political designation? Or are we also willing to acknowledge what the IDF does as terrorism and by sheer numbers far more destructive? Are they then also worthy of condemnation and our attitudes towards Israelis and the value of their lives in our eyes contingent on that? Are we willing to acknowledge the kind of conditions that result in a reactionary emancipatory force like Hamas and what role the Israeli government has played in that? Or is religious extremism hand-waved if the US state department pretends it's acceptable and compatible with our values?

And most importantly, does any of this justify killing 10% of the population of Gaza, the majority being women and children?

Whether you're willing to agree with my point or not, hopefully it's been made.

You're god damn right they will because these people (aka me. I'm these people) know you get worse from Trump than what you're getting already. I could just as easily say Leftists will be attacking Dems for not trying harder to earn their vote while Trump is doing this shit too, but it's a dumb point because if this was ACTUALLY something Leftists feared happening they'd just fucking vote instead of letting perfection be the enemy of good.

Idk if you actually associate yourself with people like that or not, but this is basically how they come off -

 

[ninjabot]

Good

Though I'd still like to see these mythical "moderate voters" that the Harris campaign has such a hard-on for. If anything, people who describe themselves as moderates don't really vote based on issues in the first place. Republican Never-Trumpers certainly don't.

So when I asked "what it means" I meant "what does it tell us about Harris' methods that she still won with the strategies you guys kept complaining about." You could say she won in spite of bad strategy, but everyone else is gonna see it as us being right all along. That the moderate vote is worth more than the Leftie vote, because at least there are votes there to be had, whether they're voting on issues or not.

As for where are they? Much like in 2020, Republicans come out in droves in early voting, while Democrats are coming out as a steady drip feed throughout, including through mail-in voting. That's why looking close early isn't a real indicator of a win for Trump. They're blowing their load early.

Is "terrorism bad" supposed to be intentionally reductive? Do we not understand why it happens or that it's very often a political designation? Or are we also willing to acknowledge what the IDF does as terrorism and by sheer numbers far more destructive? Are they then also worthy of condemnation and our attitudes towards Israelis and the value of their lives in our eyes contingent on that? Are we willing to acknowledge the kind of conditions that result in a reactionary emancipatory force like Hamas and what role the Israeli government has played in that? Or is religious extremism hand-waved if the US state department pretends it's acceptable and compatible with our values?

And most importantly, does any of this justify killing 10% of the population of Gaza, the majority being women and children?

Whether you're willing to agree with my point or not, hopefully it's been made.

We? Probably not. But I've acknowledged it for a year now. I'm reductive because I'm fucking done giving people the benefit of the doubt on this shit. Me denouncing the IDF and claiming I'm not an Israel supporter was intended to coax out honest discussion on the matter, but I was done after I was accused of being an Islamaphobe (M3J) who was calling for the glassing of Palestine (you).

And no, none of it justifies it. No one in here's ever claimed that what Israel is doing is justified. Not caring enough about Gaza isn't a tacit endorsement of what happens there. I will just never care enough about Gaza to make life worse here in order to fix it.

Idk if you actually associate yourself with people like that or not, but this is basically how they come off -

I can't argue with how you feel. I can only clarify his/our stance: You're making life worse for yourself to fail at making life better for Palestinians, if you're protesting by abstaining from voting.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 29, 2024, Original Post Date: Oct 29, 2024 ---

 

[M3J]

Politicians will never listen to anything except power. However, that is not the end of possible democratic/leftist movements. The aim in my country in the leftist community right now is to build up longterm structures rather than pursuing shortterm causes (like ocupy or BLM), which are meant to be able to exert real power when things are looking more promising for leftwing causes (they are not right now).

The current concrete goal is to include the working class back into leftwing discourse, as in, we want to get disenfranchised people who are not voting right now or are even voting rightwing parties to join our common causes, for example by fighting huge landlords together.

The problem we saw with many popular and successful labels like BLM is that there was no real "after" getting widespread support that could channel the power that was unleashed, thus it dissipated without a lot of meaningful change. Thus the work to be done is to be ready the next time such a moment arrives.

What politicians will listen to is their wallets, and if the left start getting more violent and more likely to hurt politicians' wallets, then we might get somewhere. It's hard though because of the way people, especially the working class, are brainwashed to be for corporate and/or against each other and poor people.

Then I don't think you understand what common sense is. Common sense is voting for the Democrat candidate because you're a Democrat. Because they want to avoid things like this:

Odessa, TX Just Put $10,000 Bounties On Trans People Using The Bathroom

The new city ordinance passed 5-2 in Odessa, is a new phase in anti-transgender legislation, and could be an early look at anti-trans bills in 2025.

www.erininthemorning.com

No it's not. Common sense is campaigning to the left and Muslims to get their votes, not to republicans and moderates to get very few votes. Most politicians would not keep bragging about getting the support of the very people that are ideologically the opposite of them, or promising to work with such people.

your so-called common sense is what's hurting the Dems, according to the projected polls.

Idk if you actually associate yourself with people like that or not, but this is basically how they come off -

This is one of the most accurate things I've seen. I hope libs see this and understand why Harris's momentum has slowed down considerably.

But ninjabot comes off like this to a T

I can't argue with how you feel. I can only clarify his/our stance: You're making life worse for yourself to fail at making life better for Palestinians, if you're protesting by abstaining from voting.

??

It's like you're ignoring what Palestinians are currently going through under Biden and Harris. Biden and Harris are literally allowing the genocide to happen and have said they will continue to do that while lying about trying to get a ceasefire to happen. Harris is also hinting at not making life any better when she cares more about getting the Cheneys and Bushes on her side over the left.

 

[shionoro]

What politicians will listen to is their wallets, and if the left start getting more violent and more likely to hurt politicians' wallets, then we might get somewhere. It's hard though because of the way people, especially the working class, are brainwashed to be for corporate and/or against each other and poor people.

I do not think violence can hurt politician' wallets and the left typically has a hard time (thankfully) to be as violent as the right. Even a militant Gaza supporter maybe fights an armed a cop, but mostly he is going to say militant things on the internet. People on the right however to things like January 6, attacking Pelosi's husband with a hammer or generally, back in the corona time, mass outrage for the smallest things. When it comes to capacity for violence, the people that are willing to do it are not typically fighting for a wealth tax.

"more violence" does not seem like a useful take to me here. Also, violence against whom? With what goal and which structure to back it up?

 

[M3J]

Violence against politicians will have them realizing they're not safe from their bullshit. Cops, politicians, IOF soldiers, etc think they're safe, hence why they do so many horrible stuff.

 

[shionoro]

Violence against politicians will have them realizing they're not safe from their bullshit. Cops, politicians, IOF soldiers, etc think they're safe, hence why they do so many horrible stuff.

Do you pursue violence yourself?

 

[ninjabot]

Do you pursue violence yourself?

See? Do you understand the point I was making earlier with that tweet I linked you? This is the kind of shit that makes Democrats comfortable ignoring Leftists in America. It's because they're crazy. They're radical. If Kamala were to try to appeal to people like this, it would scare away the average Democrat. And yet every post in here that M3J drops that isn't a direct response to me, is him claiming that Kamala's gonna lose the race, and the only thing that can get Kamala to win is if she'll try to pursue the votes of the Left instead of moderates, independants, and Republicans. If Kamala is seen cozying up to people like this, it's going to scare away the people that want to get away from the batshit insane rhetoric like Trump is most known for. No one wants a Leftist version of Trump.

Hasan is killing Twitch right now. They've lost so many advertisers because of the antisemitism and terrorist apologia he's been signal boosting lately. It's also why Hasan was kicked out of the DNC. No one wants to be affiliated with people like this.

No it's not. Common sense is campaigning to the left and Muslims to get their votes, not to republicans and moderates to get very few votes. Most politicians would not keep bragging about getting the support of the very people that are ideologically the opposite of them, or promising to work with such people.

your so-called common sense is what's hurting the Dems, according to the projected polls.

Trading Jewish votes for Muslim votes isn't a strategy, it's a waste of time, and it's dumb. Trading moderate votes for Leftist votes that aren't even votes because Leftists don't vote, isn't a strategy, it's dumb.

But it doesn't matter. A week isn't enough time to change anything. Either Kamala wins and proves me right that Leftists have no voice/power and will continue to have no voice/power into the near future until they can CHILL OUT... or Kamala loses and Leftists still don't have any power in the future, because they'll be the scapegoats blamed for throwing the election because they wouldn't fall in line.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 30, 2024, Original Post Date: Oct 30, 2024 ---

??

It's like you're ignoring what Palestinians are currently going through under Biden and Harris. Biden and Harris are literally allowing the genocide to happen and have said they will continue to do that while lying about trying to get a ceasefire to happen. Harris is also hinting at not making life any better when she cares more about getting the Cheneys and Bushes on her side over the left.

And Trump said that he'd tell Netanyahu to "finish the job". You got two Dems saying they'll try to fix it. Maybe they're sincere. Maybe they aren't. But you've also got one Republican saying he'll motivate Netanyahu to KILL EVERYONE IN GAZA.

You either don't care about Palestinians, or you hate Democrats more than you love Palestinians.

 

[shionoro]

See? Do you understand the point I was making earlier with that tweet I linked you? This is the kind of shit that makes Democrats comfortable ignoring Leftists in America. It's because they're crazy. They're radical. If Kamala were to try to appeal to people like this, it would scare away the average Democrat. And yet every post in here that M3J drops that isn't a direct response to me, is him claiming that Kamala's gonna lose the race, and the only thing that can get Kamala to win is if she'll try to pursue the votes of the Left instead of moderates, independants, and Republicans. If Kamala is seen cozying up to people like this, it's going to scare away

I do think tho that the average Leftist is not like that and that centrists themselves quite often make comments that put off everyone else. And lets get real: If Kamala loses, of course the pro Gaza crowd will be blamed, even if all of them vote for her. That was true with Bernie bros and Clinton, too, even tho they voted for Clinton with a better percentage than disappointed Clinton fans voted for Obama back then.

So what people like Hasan say is horrible, but I also do not think it is quite fair to equate that to leftism itself.

I can give you one example of a clear thing Democrats did that I found very dishonest and offputting. Teamsters Boss O'brien requested to speak both at the republican and democrat summit and denied endorsing any candidate. That does make sense because quite a lot of working class people in the Teamsters union are pro Trump. The current democrat campaign claims to be pro unions and pro workers rights, however that seems to only be true if they get an endorsement back. They did not reply to O'Brien's request and he did not speak. If you were a working class person in a union who is undecided but could be swayed by democrat's pro union stance, you would rightfully be in doubt after that.

Harris can dance up and down about Trump loving unpaid overtime, dishonesty will always be perceived as a bigger sin than saying something that is openly fucked up.

Democrats might not often employ violent rhetoric, but they often can be very dismissive (including, but not limited to about the pro Gaza cause), costing them votes. And I think that is a way bigger factor than some Jill Stein voters, especially if they want that outreach to undecided moderate voters.

 

[ninjabot]

So what people like Hasan say is horrible, but I also do not think it is quite fair to equate that to leftism itself.

I agree. I got carried away by not clarifying that not all Leftists are radical. That said, that is what society at large (in America mind you) imagine when you say the word Leftist.

I can give you one example of a clear thing Democrats did that I found very dishonest and offputting. Teamsters Boss O'brien requested to speak both at the republican and democrat summit and denied endorsing any candidate. That does make sense because quite a lot of working class people in the Teamsters union are pro Trump. The current democrat campaign claims to be pro unions and pro workers rights, however that seems to only be true if they get an endorsement back. They did not reply to O'Brien's request and he did not speak. If you were a working class person in a union who is undecided but could be swayed by democrat's pro union stance, you would rightfully be in doubt after that.

I disagree here. Democrats are usually pro-union to a fault, and Kamala hasn't claimed that she would change that. A vocal endorsement doesn't actually change policy positions or the culture of the political party at all. Even worse it's sounding like Kamala was snubbed first and she replied in kind. He made the request first, and the campaign declined. Right?

Harris can dance up and down about Trump loving unpaid overtime, dishonesty will always be perceived as a bigger sin than saying something that is openly fucked up.

I dunno... I think context matters.

Democrats might not often employ violent rhetoric, but they often can be very dismissive (including, but not limited to about the pro Gaza cause), costing them votes. And I think that is a way bigger factor than some Jill Stein voters, especially if they want that outreach to undecided moderate voters.

Absolutely, that's what's happening right now: Leftists don't want to vote for her because of Gaza. There vote is a worthwile sacrifice though because it's a balancing act. You have to weigh the value of one demographic over the other. And whichever demographic votes more and is more plentiful deserves your attention the most if your objective is to get the most votes possible.

 

[shionoro]

@ninjabot But when you are saying "weigh the value of one demographic against another", aren't you saying that other demographics are witholding their vote to get influence, too? Elseways it would be a nobrainer to cater to radical groups because the rest will vote blue no matter who, right?

There is also a larger point here: It is unacceptable to think about voters as cattle thatneeds to be weighed in value. At least if someone is pro democracy. I am well aware that this is done, and it yields results on the short term, but even if democrats win every election from now on, that leads down a very dark path. Why are people so disenfranchised and do not belive in politics and the state anymore? Because at every single election since decades, they either had to vote the lesser evil or were outright lied to because it tested well with focus groups. This can't work forever. A democracy which constantly tries to force people to vote for someone they reject and makes this the !be all end all" democratic act is not a real democracy.

When pro Gaza supporters crash a Kamala rally and shout things, Kamala Harris said "YOU WANT TRUMP???", and that might seem like a good argument, but it is really one of the worst she could have chosen right there and then. Because that is just the kind of ignoring the issue that compels people to crash rallies in the first place.

I disagree here. Democrats are usually pro-union to a fault, and Kamala hasn't claimed that she would change that. A vocal endorsement doesn't actually change policy positions or the culture of the political party at all. Even worse it's sounding like Kamala was snubbed first and she replied in kind. He made the request first, and the campaign declined. Right?

Kamala Harris was not snubbed. She was not endorsed. That is a different thing. The very idea that O'brien HAD to endorse her is already a very condescending viewpoint on unions. If democrats claim to be pro unions, they should be pro union even if a union boss endorses Trump and let the boss speak on behalf of his union. Everything else is just tribalism and obviously leads to mistrust among those union members who are not explicitly pro democrat already.

And largely, democrats were not pro union to a fault. Obama has been a mixed bag for unions, while Biden was pretty pro union (more than his fellow democrats). Obama largely remained silent in pro union battles https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...nd-labors-relationship-status-its-complicated . He was not anti union, but he didn't risk anything for them.
It isn't so much that union members think democrats are their enemy, but it can hardly be said that democrats always took unions serious and heard their voices. So Kamala has something to prove, it is not a nobrainer. And if you do not invite an important union boss to speak at your event, even tho he wants to, just because he did not endorse you, then you are signalling that you are only pro union if they slap your back.

 

[ninjabot]

@ninjabot But when you are saying "weigh the value of one demographic against another", aren't you saying that other demographics are witholding their vote to get influence, too?

Yep!

Elseways it would be a nobrainer to cater to radical groups because the rest will vote blue no matter who, right?

Not everyone is an ascended paragon of moral supremacy as I am. There are moderates that would abandon the Democratic vote if they felt the party they were proud of for generations started to look like terrorist-sympathizing radical anarchists.

There is also a larger point here: It is unacceptable to think about voters as cattle that needs to be weighed in value. At least if someone is pro democracy. I am well aware that this is done, and it yields results on the short term, but even if democrats win every election from now on, that leads down a very dark path. Why are people so disenfranchised and do not belive in politics and the state anymore? Because at every single election since decades, they either had to vote the lesser evil or were outright lied to because it tested well with focus groups. This can't work forever. A democracy which constantly tries to force people to vote for someone they reject and makes this the !be all end all" democratic act is not a real democracy.

That may have been an abrasive way of wording it, but at the very least politicians see voters as a number on a ballot and little more. At least until they gain said votes. Then, the politicians who care (they do exist) will take that victory and run with it, accomplishing their agenda as best as they can. But you've got to win first, and then worry about the specifics later. It's the unfortunate destiny of a 2 party system. There's no room for nuance or taking risks. Not until you've taken the power needed to do so.

Kamala Harris was not snubbed. She was not endorsed. That is a different thing. The very idea that O'brien HAD to endorse her is already a very condescending viewpoint on unions. If democrats claim to be pro unions, they should be pro union even if a union boss endorses Trump and let the boss speak on behalf of his union. Everything else is just tribalism and obviously leads to mistrust among those union members who are not explicitly pro democrat already.

I'll take what you're saying at face value and agree that's kinda fucked up. I don't however, see that as grounds to view the party itself as anti-union. Too much history to come to that conclusion.