289
"Voters are telling us what they want. We must crush their efforts."
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
289 points (88.7% liked)
Work Reform
17146 readers
780 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the New York Times fanning the flames to divide the left. [EDIT for clarity: Divide the left means divide the vote means Republicans in power]
I'm sure they interviewed actual people with real opinions like this, but these are the opinions they are choosing to highlight and thus shape the narrative.
Okay, I see your flag and all of that, but I'm gonna take this in good faith.
The New York Times and other media have an opportunity to cast the Democratic Socialist Party as the cool kids, and even if that doesn't align with the corporate Neolib agenda, it does allow them to make coalitions and leaves them to co-opt the DSP in the future.
TLDR, it is in the establishment Democratic Party's interest to encourage and support the DSP. The New York Times in mainstream media is refusing to frame the politics that way.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Happy to write "change" and "hope" on posters.
Not so happy to actually provide it.
the working class never sent them bribes. no bribes, no support.
I've honestly always kinda rolled my eyes at the, "they're the same party/working together" line as a trite bumper sticker.
But man, it really seems like they're the same party and working together, excepting like three or four individuals.
The ratchet effect has been going on long enough that the best case scenario is they're not competent when in power to get anything done.
Obama wing? I'd be much more okay trying to call it the Hillary wing or Biden wing. But even that is stupid. It's the corporate/oligarch-funded Democrats vs. the Democratic Socialists.
If you want to try and make your point, trying to tie Obama to the part of the party you're wanting to attack will not help your case.
Also, where did 'ascending democrats' come from?
A class war subtext from NY Times...
Because they're complicit
I love how people think the Democrats are exactly like the Republicans.
Republicans bent the knee to trump x1000
Obama faced stiff push back and was considered a progressive almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO. Obama is not the kingpin, he did not restructure the Dems or really change the overall party goals, he set expectations for more progressive administrations ahead of him and is part of the reason why establishment Dems can't seem to get a bite.
Say what you want, judge as you please but he opened up paths for other more progressive candidates than himself and if you're too stupid to analyze his term clearly, you probably voted for Trump at least once.
But he ended up actually not being a progressive.
What he did was show that “hope and change” (progressivism) was popular enough to win an election, which admittedly did pave the way for future progressive candidates. Even if he was just pulling the rug out from under his supporters.
He passed the biggest healthcare reform bill in decades in the checks notes few months he had full control of the legislature. Changes to it were hamstrung after Ted Kennedy died.
Did he prematurely triangulate in the hopes of getting Republican votes under the assumption that they were operating in good faith? Absolutely. But I think that was naivete, not a policy statement.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just what we fucking need, a split party when we need to focus on ousting the fascists.
It's exactly how we ended up with fascists to begin with
The party is split precisely about whether we really need to be fighting the fascists or not.
You can’t come together ignoring differences to accomplish a shared goal when the goal is not actually shared.
Because they are also deeply integrated with the bourgeoisie. Neoliberals will always favor fascism.
Because they help themselves and they aren't working class people
$15 million? Hasn't APAIC spent many times that much money in trying to fight progressives this year already?
Moderate Democrats can fuck all the way off and continue shitting the bed with their electoral results. They are losing relevance; they just won’t admit it.
No democrat supporting israel can be called moderate
load more comments
(4 replies)
The Obama Wing
Lol lmao even. OP is unhinged
Rahm Emanuel was Obama's chief of staff. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of State. His Vice President was Biden himself. His Secretary or the Treasury's resume is classic neoliberal.
Like, I can't even fathom how you would call this unhinged. Obama was firmly in the centrist/neoliberal wing of the party. He ran on hope and change, but he filled his cabinet with Clinton alums and Wall Street bankers. He ran under the banner of a progressive, but he governed under the same centrist banner as Clinton and Biden.
Did you forget how he wasted months of precious Congressional time by desperately trying to make the PPACA bipartisan? He let Republicans slow things down for months. He let them put all sorts of amendments into it. In the end, they all voted against it.
If Obama was famous for anything, it was surrendering in advance. This was a massive topic of discussion at the time. Obama was infamous for performative bipartisanship. He wouldn't propose a democratic version of a bill. He would start by magnanimously offering a compromise between the Republican and Democratic positions, hoping in vain to bring Republicans onboard. Republicans took his compromise-in-advance as weakness and never returned the favor.
Have you really forgotten history that quickly? Obama was a neoliberal to his core. It was his cabinet that negotiated the bailouts of the banks. Progressives at the time were arguing that any bailouts should be made contingent on keeping people in their homes, perhaps writing down the balances of underwater mortgages. Instead, the centrists in the Obama administration bailed out the banks and left working families to lose their homes.
Obama was firmly part of the neoliberal wing of the party, the same faction that's been ascendant since Clinton. So yes, it is literally the Obama wing of the party that progressives need to fight against. Remember, Obama wore the skin of a progressive, but he actually governed as a centrist.
And you're not even getting into his foriegn policy or his continuation of the, "War on Terror." Establishing the drone program as an unaccountable assassination tool of the Executive Branch? Collecting Americans metadata from tech companies without a warrent? Prosecuting leakers under the Espionage Act? You could credibly argue that he was further right than Bush on national security. Every time Trump subpoenas a journalist for their sources I think,."Damn, I wish Obama hadn't normalized this shit."
Don’t forget about keeping open the extrajudicial indefinite detention and torture prison.
Obama was such a fucking disappointment. After 8 years of Bush it looked like we were getting change and then he just kept things the same. He probably contributed more to my movement leftward than Bernie did.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Democrat president worked with the most famous democrats"
What's unhinged is people downvoting and throwing insults at people who say drone strike civilians Obama was a centrist neo-liberal.
Stop worshipping politicians. Obama was not nearly as bad as any replication in living memory, but he is not a progressive or a leftist, he's a neo liberal capitalist who serves the same class interests.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Because they are right wing, just less right wing than the nut jobs currently sticking up the government.
And they want that donor $$$ so pretend to offer us a choice between left and right instead of right and extremist right.
Because the working class have always held the real power, being the real reason work gets done, and as a result have always been the real enemy of the people in power and the real threat to their power. Some of them are just better at pretending, because they want to play "Good cop, bad cop" against us, and that strategy has been working really well for them lately.
Well, the NYT would say that.
The "moderates" love of money will cause them to lose even more money when a revolution starts and heads start rolling with it.
Pure disinformation.
Honestly I'm not sure if they're doing any better against us than they are against the people they're supposed to be fighting. Worse, IMO
I think we are seeing the NYT showing it's corporate left bias. Who does a fight between forces in the left benefit? Center left media. Didn't believe the hype. This is all just AIPAC reacting to losing the elections they are used to successfully rigging.
As said by others, the old guard of the Democratic Party is center-right capitalists with a little dab of populist civil reform and the thinnest wafer of labor. They will always be too obsessed with acting like refined gentlemen to deal with the existential threat of the MAGA movement and the Dems as a whole will never be as unified in their actions as the Republicans and their Christo-fascist, white nationalist, anarcho-capitalist, grab bag of hate, greed, and willful ignorance. Still, the time to make change is in the primaries, in November it’s a literal fight for survival. Better to stand in place than let the Guardians Of Pedophiles keep destroying everything.
view more: next ›