• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours 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
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours 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
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours 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
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours 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
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours 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
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours 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
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                12 hours 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.