Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

maiios t1_j9thgbz wrote

Politicians like to make us think that our choices are between the Republicans and Democratsb so we keep giving them our attention and money. But once you realize that the real divide is between the ultra wealthy and everyone else, and that both parties are in the pocket of the ultra wealthy, then you start to realize why there isn't as much meaningful change between elections.

And what do the ultra wealthy want? They want police that will use violence to keep the rest of us in check, and put people in cages.

Why do you think that Biden has basically kept Trump's immigration policies, even after that was such a travesty that he campaigned on? Why did Mr Blue Collar Scranton Union guy basically union bust the railroad workers?

Don't be fooled. Both sides are using culture wars so we don't realize what's actually going on.

13

lucasbelite t1_j9tn0pv wrote

While I don't disagree with the notion that both parties pander about certain issues and don't live up to the talk, your comment is oversimplifying. The idea that the ultrawealthy behind gated communities with their own bodyguards and private polices forces care about the homicide rate in cities or Baltimore is just laughable.

More than 70% of Baltimore residents don't want to defund the police. Because drum roll, violence and homicides affect the non-wealthy the most. However, a lot of the wealthy do benefit from private prisons. But again, it's mainly pushed by one Party which goes against your idea both parties are the same, not to mention the industry is small (and Maryland has none). The vast amount of the rich make money from rent and us buying products being outside cages. They don't need cages to make money. As if the margins are that great when in instead you can make them work 7/hr in most States and increase their rent while they pay for everything they need and get public subsidy.

Also, in this political climate the last decade or so it's equally laughable to say there is no difference in the parties. You can sit here all day and talk about RoevWade, an insurrection, infrastructure spending, regulation, education spending and healthcare, and the score of other issues that show drastic difference in their agenda and priorities. But yes, historically speaking the past few decades, there has been little movement on labor rights as the rich pour money into campaigns.

And the example you gave about no difference in immigration? You might not see a difference, but it's definitely an issue the right sees as they constantly attack him on it and drag the Republican Party further right. As if anybody was under the illusion that Biden, who performed a record amount of deportations under Obama was going to open the borders or something? Not to mention as soon as he got into office he signed a flurry of executive orders about it as if he did 'nothing'.

I'm not even a fan of Biden, but it's just silly. Because the Republican party is literally blocking any legislation on immigration reform as democrats constantly try to bring it to the floor. The President doesn't have unlimited power. And that goes for a lot of legislation and issues, because if you look at the actual bills, you'll see what the priorities are and how they drastically differ.

18

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v8r2g wrote

>But yes, historically speaking the past few decades, there has been little movement on labor rights as the rich pour money into campaigns.

I'd actually argue that following labor taking blow after blow from the 90s-2000s, there's been a massive labor push back.

Unionization efforts and popular support for unions are the highest we've seen in decades.

5

JupiterBass t1_j9uom27 wrote

It might be a hot take but a lot of the problems in Baltimore, minority communities, and many cities across the country would be solved by a bottom up solution rather than top-down one

The city can pour millions of dollars in any program or such for policing, education, parks and recs, and such but that still doesn't address the culture that a lot of the people from these high crime areas come from. Does Baltimore have a robust outreach program that can address the dysfunction and trauma that some of these people come from? I'm gonna look into it myself...

Addressing these issues with policy, and funding, and whatever else more so feel like band aides and covering up larger issues that are very complex...

If its a bottom-up solution, then that would be people getting into the neighborhoods, locally organized groups and such, but it seems like a cyclical problem when a lot of people who are either from the areas or the city/state in general might not even wanna try going there and doing work. Like wasn't a dude who was working close in the area shot a few years back?

I suppose either/or wont work...I feel like a mix of these band aide government solutions and local organization would do the trick...but thats over years. Baltimore didn't become this way over night and we can't expect change over night either...not without displacing a bunch of people at least

6

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9tln3h wrote

Completely, the East Palestine train derailment is a perfect example and could absolutely happen in Baltimore. Government officials let corporations escape necessary protections to prevent an incident like that from happening. In addition, Government officials stepped in to get rail workers back to work without getting the basic benefits. So the rail company raked in record profits while not equipping the cars with proper brakes and understaffed and overworked train crews.

Corporations, Big Pharma, and others are manipulating us and our government on both sides while we argue over trans rights, race relations, and abortion rights. Oh and UFOs...

Let's not talk about our military supplies and funds being sent over to Ukrane to pay for everything in their country. Or the trillions of dollars missing from the pentagon. Or the millions our government officials get from insider trading. Or the backdoor deals Biden and his family has put forth. Or the backdoor deals Trump has benefited the Saudi prince. There's more going on if you just pay attention.

−9

lucasbelite t1_j9u7ysn wrote

But it's not a perfect example. It's very easy to say both parties are the same. Because both parties are captured by the rich. But they are captured by different billionaires in different industries, so it's more nuanced. And have very different priorities and issue capture because they have very different voting blocks. And even though a common denominator is labor rights that they hesitate on, one Party still leans on the side of supporting workers.

So in this particular example when it comes to regulating safety in manufacturing or transporting hazards, there is a clear difference. Because deregulation did occur in rail when Republicans had control.

Or even in the case of labor in rail, look no further than Biden immediately telling congress to pass legislation to adopt a labor agreement with a 24% pay raise and healthcare benefits. After a stern warning, 137 Republicans voted against it, only 8 Democrats. 96% of democrats supported. 37% Republicans. That's a huge difference.

And when democrats pushed for a provision to increase increase sickpay days from one to seven, it passed along party lines, with only 3 Republicans supporting it. That would never pass today now that the house has switched control. How is that not a difference?

I'm all for admitting similarities where they exist, but it drives me crazy when people pretend there is no difference when their are so many.

There's a reason why the right rails against tech billionaires and the left rails against oil billionaires. Because despite the rich supporting both parties, they also fight their own battles along party lines and voting blocks. And the mere nature of having to depend on voters to win elections creates pressure to support certain issues.

So there is a clear difference in regulating manufacturing, transporting hazards, and labor benefits. A quite obvious difference when you consider who benefits and the voting block that supports them.

7

maiios t1_j9uu27o wrote

If the democrats supported unions, then they would have let the collective bargaining process work out instead of basically forcing the workers to accept the owner's proposal. The pay bump was agreed on, but the workers wanted more time off, and they really didn't get that. But the politicians and news media played it as a win win.

3

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9uak8l wrote

There are differences in that regard but still the same. They cater to the corporations that gets them reelected.

The dems just hide it better saying that they can relate to working class. But keep in mind who is always taking the beating. It's never the rich. The ones making the laws are the rich.

They aren't going to pass a law they can't loophole through or around.

−2

lucasbelite t1_j9ujula wrote

You responded to the only point I capitulated on. That there's a lot of money in our politics and it obviously influences decision making. But it influences in different ways, and I explicitly said labor is an issue that has less difference, because of that reason, however, voting blocks still create a small one.

Otherwise, feel free to explain this. I work in Montgomery County. Sick leave is mandated and minimum wage is $15.65/hr. State minimum wage will rise to $15.00/hr by 2025 Statewide.

A short drive to PA right over the border where democrats don't have a trifecta of control in Goverment and haven't in quite sometime, the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I'm soooo sure it's just a coincidence. Drive 30 minutes North of Baltimore and cross state lines and the minimum wage drops in half, for one simple reason. The difference in Party.

You can pretend all you want that there's no difference. But it's pretty obvious, especially when you look at who is obstructing what, when things don't get passed. Because it only takes one chamber or an executive to block progress. But when you actually look at proportions of roll call votes and the stark difference on how different areas that have a trifecta of control by either party and where they focus their priorities and it's pretty damn obvious.

4

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v9a2o wrote

>Let's not talk about our military supplies and funds being sent over to Ukrane to pay for everything in their country.

You mean all that old equipment from 40-30 years ago that we just kept in warehouses collecting dust?

2

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9vbclv wrote

Please let me know your source.

−1

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9via5i wrote

The source is the equipment they're being given.

The Abrams they're getting? They're not the modern variant, they're the OG variant that is still being tooled down before its sent overseas.

HIMARS? Cold War tech.

M117 APCs? 90s.

Javilens and Stingers? Cold War.

RAAM systems? Cold War.

Switchblade Drones? They're modern tech, but they're single use, and they only got 700.

TOW missiles? Cold War.

Bradley's? Cold War.

HARM missiles? Cold War.

HMMWVs? Cold War.

M113 APCs? EARLY Cold War.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

I could go on, but it's pretty clear the vast majority of the weapons systems we've sent to Ukraine are very outdated to anyone with even a passing knowledge of them.

What source do you have that they've been getting primarily cutting-edge edge tech? Cause if we're dragging our feet to give them F-16s I find the idea that they're getting the best of our newer equipment a tad silly.

2

6flightsup t1_j9vjmts wrote

FiM 92 Stinger: entered service in 1981 HIMARS: entered service 20+ years ago BGM71 TOW: entered service in the 1970s Just three bigger ticket examples. Old.

2