ZeykShade t1_is4atu5 wrote on October 13, 2022 at 5:00 AM

Reply to comment by readwaytoooften in Analysis of US Endangered Species Act finds species are protected too late, with too small populations, and with insufficient funding, undermining the Act's effectiveness by thebelsnickle1991

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.

ZeykShade t1_is3zd7z wrote on October 13, 2022 at 3:10 AM

Reply to comment by arbutus1440 in Analysis of US Endangered Species Act finds species are protected too late, with too small populations, and with insufficient funding, undermining the Act's effectiveness by thebelsnickle1991

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.