36 ms·
The democrats are/were historically the pro-worker party. Yet here we have a major player from a recent administration managing a PR strategy opposing worker or
by notJim 7y ago
The democrats are/were historically the pro-worker party. Yet here we have a major player from a recent administration managing a PR strategy opposing worker organizing efforts. It should make one question whether that party is still run by people who support workers.
- tw04 7y agoBut he wasn't a "major player" - he was a press secretary. While we can assume he's a Democrat, the role has nothing to do with policy and more-often-than-not is filled by someone who's just good at being a flak jacket. Scaramucci was Trump's Press Secretary - he also worked for the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Claiming his current worldview is in any way reflective of the Obama Administration is a reach... at best.
- michaelsitver 7y agoScaramucci was his comms director. Big difference. The position of press secretary is one of the most important in the West Wing (It's been diminished a bit in recent years, but there is absolutely a policy component).
- m0zg 7y agoThey haven't been a pro-worker party for a couple of decades now. As exemplified by their stance towards globalization, protectionism, and illegal immigration. Their poorest, most pro-worker presidential candidate is a geriatric multi-millionaire with three houses, and the party perfers someone with dementia and deep ties to China even to him.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago"The democrats are/were historically the pro-worker party." This hasn't been true for a few decades. they are now the party of the well educated professional class.