this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1045 points (78.5% liked)

Political Memes

5487 readers
3312 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.

I'm skeptical that there's a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking. And if there are people claiming that, I don't believe they would be voting even if Kamala did come out against fracking anyway. Everyone knows Trump would be much, much worse for the environment than Kamala, and to refuse to vote over one single environmental issue is either very dumb or completely disingenuous.

It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.

because, unfortunately, donations are important. It's a shitty system, and this is what they have to do to win in the system.

It ain’t complicated.

actually it is.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m skeptical that there’s a huge swath of voters refusing to vote just because of fracking

No one said there was.

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

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?

actually it is.

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

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

we're going in circles, I have already addressed all these points.