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

    I already said that the Dems believe they can court some of the pro-frack without losing the anit-fracks

    58% want to ban, they don’t need any pro-fracking votes…

    This is common everywhere fracking has been done, the people that live around it don’t want it.

    And Dem voters across the country don’t want.

    So Kamala being pro-fracking is zero gain of votes, and hurts the environment making climate change worse.

    I asked for a valid reason, it’s apparent you won’t give one. There’s no point in anything else if you still don’t get it.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      No the problem is you need to define valid for everyone else. You not liking a valid reason doesn’t make it less valid. Clearly this word means something different to you in this context.

    • I asked for a valid reason, it’s apparent you won’t give one. There’s no point in anything else if you still don’t get it.

      Here’s the valid reason:

      So Kamala being pro-fracking is zero gain of votes

      No, this would gain some votes. Moderate Republicans who can’t stomach the other guy are looking for reasons to make an exception and vote Dem, and this is one of them.

      Being anti-fracking wouldn’t take votes away from the GOP voters, but would get those votes who are otherwise voting for Stein and such. Since there are other plans in play to convince those voters to go to Harris instead, aiming for the never trumper votes makes sense here.