• @bestnerd
    link
    21
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    That’s a really weird take for someone who looks to be trying to run in the ‘28 race. Why this stance over all the others you’ve taken? This would have been a grand slam policy along with the others he’s approved this minth

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      He also vetoed a few other progressive bills. He’s gone from a “politically uninspiring, but at least he’s got fight” to “no, thanks” with this active hippy punching shit. He didn’t even need to do anything, passively signing bills that were voted on by his legislature wouldn’t blow back on him at all, but he’s actively signaling hostility to progressives because he wants to curry favor with people that oppose them.

    • queermunist she/her
      link
      fedilink
      -18 months ago

      How is it weird? Unions will endorse him no matter what he does because he’s running against the red team, might as well fuck them over.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          -128 months ago

          Some people seem to think that Democrats need to actually do things to keep the unions loyal, like American politics is about trading favors and negotiating alliances. In reality all the Democrats need to do is point at the Republican boogeyman and the unions fall in line.

          • @bestnerd
            link
            -28 months ago

            I agree. The dems need to show more to the unions. But if they do that then they lose the donations from the bigger corporations. No matter what it’s a lose lose game for the workers

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              -6
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              A labor party would definitely have less money to work with, but more volunteers and their volunteers would more enthusiastic.

              It would get ugly, though. America’s government doesn’t like labor parties.