• acosmichippo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    No one said there was.

    you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.

    I said a majority of voters in PA want it banned, and Kamala would gain votes there if she agreed with the Dem voter base nationally and wanted to ban it

    https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations

    58% of PA voters want it banned

    …which does not mean she’d gain voters from changing her position. How many of those people are voting for her anyway? How many would actually vote for her if she did change her position? you don’t know this, and neither do I, but I’m guessing they have a pretty good idea.

    What is Kamala gaining by being pro-fracking?

    Donations so she can try and convince the people who live by fracking and know how bad it is that they should vote for her anyways because Trump is probably fracking?

    Even if that works…

    You know that means they still have fracking in their backyards, right?

    Yes. I’m not arguing that it’s a good thing. I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.

    I can admit when I’m wrong, I really didn’t think it needed this much explaining.

    again some things are not as simple as you think.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      you clearly implied it by saying, “Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win”.

      That doesn’t say anything about non voters…

      How many of those people are voting for her anyway?

      If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?

      But why are you questioning every reason for why Kamala should match the party and ban fracking…

      And you can’t offer a si gle reason why she’s pro-fracking besides:

      I’m saying this is the way it is, and this is what they need to do to win in the system we have. If you want to fix the system, you need to vote D to gradually re-take SCOTUS and overturn shit like Citizens United that is fucking our politics with money.

      So are you just admitting that the reason both candidates in 2024 are pro-fracking is because they’re taking bribes in the form of donations?

      Like, and I hate that I have to say this:

      Just because trump takes fossil fuel bribes doesn’t mean Kamala does.

      Like, by that same logic you’re using to defend fracking, a foreign government can buy off the Dem party to support and find their invasion of sovereign countries…

      Because trump and the Republicans do it too.

      Is that what you meant to say or do you not even realize what you’re defending here?

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yes, in order to win in a shitty system, sometimes you have to do shitty things. Welcome to the real world.

        If 58% of PA voters were voting for her anyways, why is it still a battleground state?

        because there is more than one issue at stake in this election, and fracking ranks far down on that list for most people. there is also likely a significant amount of trump voters who are against fracking but would never change their vote to kamala.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          So you legit think it’s better to piss off voters and then use corpo donations to try and claw back some?

          Your priority isnt getting votes then, it’s getting donations. Donations that will need to be spent in an attempt to get back some of the votes we lost to get the donations…

          Nothing will ever get fixed if we do that.

          It’s just creating an extra step that pisses off the people we need votes from

          • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            it depends on how many votes, and how much money. You are just assuming the votes clearly outweighs the money, but you don’t have enough political experience or information to know that (and neither do I to be clear). But I guarantee you the Harris campaign has done the cost-benefit analysis. They could be wrong because nothing in politics is 100%, we’ll just have to see.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              But I guarantee you the Harris campaign has done the cost-benefit analysis. They could be wrong because nothing in politics is 100%, we’ll just have to see.

              Are you not aware of the overlap with the 2016 and 2020 campaigns?

              2020 we won by literally tens of thousands of votes, it worked but just barely and mostly because trump was already in office.

              The people running this campaign and the dnc don’t know what the fuck they’re doing. They’ve locked in as donations as a metric and only chase that one single metric, even to the point of ignoring votes.

              It’s ok to criticize them, we’re not Republicans

              • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                i’m not saying you’re not allowed to criticize them. i just doubt that you know better than they do. just because the elections are close doesn’t mean your strategy is better. they are fighting an uphill battle with the electoral college and too much money in politics, on both sides.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  i just doubt that you know better than they do.

                  If you look at who “they” are, it’s mostly the people who couldn’t beat trump in 2016 and barely beat him in 2020 after Sanders drug them kicking and screaming to the left in the primary

                  We didn’t get that this year, no one is dragging Kamala left…

                  They’re not “the best at what they do” except in raising donations, seriously, look I to the people running shit, they’re in positions of power because they brought in the most money, they’re always going to side with the money because their metric is how much they can bring in.

                  It is not a good way to run a political party, and most voters don’t even know it’s happening.