Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arbutus1440 t1_is2tfee wrote

Because I immediately thought about the politics involved, and some high-profile examples of Republican administrations pushing against the EPA and endangered species protections, this surprised me a bit:

>Our data suggest that inadequate funding has persisted for decades, with no clear relationship as to which political party is in power.

48

batkave t1_is3vgd0 wrote

No that makes sense. Both parties are pretty greedy, just one more overt than the other.

20

TipTapTips t1_is42vax wrote

It's not that they're greedy but they all represent business interests who are the driving cause behind... pretty much every single bit of environmental issues going on.

There's no way all the cute forest critters can out-donate a multi-billion companies who will provide jobs and business opportunities to the politician's town. Some do better than others such as the parties that have environmentalism 'front and centre' (green parties) but it's not really something that will be easy to 'fix'.

21

NiceMarmot12 t1_is4fvuf wrote

A great example in my neck in the woods as a wildlife biologist is Greater Sage Grouse. Mining is big out west, and so is ranching. These animals should have been listed truthfully as endangered a decade ago and it still has yet to happen.

However, because mining companies would have more restrictions for land grabs, and ranchers would have more problems with preventing overgrazing in habitat for Sage Grouse it hasn’t happened yet, and until they’re almost gone it won’t.

It’s all about money and it’s sad

10

batkave t1_is5frb5 wrote

>It's not that they're greedy

I beg to differ.

2

KillerJupe t1_is4989l wrote

That is interesting but if you look at which party gave business more ability to lget more money in politics, it becomes pretty clear who the problem is. A litany of small changes by republicans every time they are in office has slowly been eroding away at the environment, Roe, and democracy makes democrats less effective every time they are in office. If conservatives can put the democrats in such a quagmire that nothing gets done when they are in power, the republicans just pick back up where they left off.

5

ZeykShade t1_is3zd7z wrote

This makes sense when you realize that there really is only one party in the US, they just wear different hats. They're both Corporate parties. The Democratic Party loves this kind of legislation, because they can point to it as the performative messaging without having to actually govern and enforce it or make it happen.

You only need to look at the prevalence of means testing every social program that would actually help people if it didn't involve three layers of bureaucracy that those who most need the assistance are forced to fight through before they can get it. This is by design. The politicians get to say they did something without actually having to execute the goal of the legislation. It's about the performance art and campaigns, not about actually helping folks for the most part. Lots of this is due to the fact that almost all of them work for their corporate donors and represent their interests above all others.

−6

readwaytoooften t1_is48pcf wrote

This is a truly stupid take. I'm not claiming either party is ideal, but one is actively trying to undermine democracy to stay in power while doing nothing with that power but pass laws and tax cuts that benefit only the richest of the rich. The fact I didn't name the party and you know exactly who I'm referring to proves the point.

The other party isn't great, and is represented by a range of people varying from corporate shills to people actually trying to do some good. But they can't do anything the corporate shills don't agree with because the other party is actively destructive and their voters would literally die if it bothered the other side.

The solution isn't to throw up our hands and declare them the same thing. It's to vote against the destructive party and vote in the primary for the non-corporate shills.

8

ZeykShade t1_is4atu5 wrote

One is a fascist party, the other is just making sure to never address the problems which aid the spread of fascism.

At no point did I mention giving up. I advocate for fighting fascists and those who are content with feeding it through their inaction.

If fascism eventually wins, most of those in the Democratic Party will side with the fascists to preserve their privilege and power.

One sure way to help the fascists win is to defend the captive opposition party that could, while controlling the executive and legislative branches, actively move to fight for the poor, exploited, and marginalized but instead blames a parliamentarian who they hired...

Voting for the Democratic Party is not fighting fascism. If you think it is, you're dim. No political entity that serves Capital can fight the spread of fascism. Capitalism in crisis is what leads to fascism. The Democratic Party in the US serves Capital ahead of humans.

Should you not vote for either party, no. Vote for the least capitalist that you can. If the only choices you have are capitalist, vote for the choice that harms the least number of people in the short term. Electoral politics won't save us. The primaries are engineered to only let us pick those candidates who've already been approved by the donors.

0