Comment

Comment on When and why did democrats begin supporting fracking?

Without evidence I will say it’s more likely that she has significant funding from the fracking industry and is under the thumb of rich executives. The difference is that they likely understand that supporting fracking could cost them the election, but they know that by not supporting it they lose a huge source of funding. They have weighed the costs, benefits and risks, and decided it a risk for taking.

A good solution is to get corporate money out of politics. There are narrow ways to achieve that, but a broad solution that fixes a lot of problems is to end corporate personhood. This organization has made steady progress toward that and I think is worth supporting. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_to_Amend. Considered signing up for their email list.

Another solution is more wisely voting. People don’t vote in primary elections, but they’re more important than the general elections. They determine what the field of candidates looks like. Vote in primary elections. You don’t necessarily want to vote in primary of the party you most align with though. An obvious example where you’d vote in a different party is if you live in a gerrymandered district. There’s a near 100% chance the gerrymandered party candidate will win. It doesn’t matter who the other candidated are. Vote for the least bad candidate in the other party. You won’t get everything you want, but you’ll get more than you would otherwise. It will also force the party to change.

That’s not the only time you’d vote in a party you dont align best with. Maybe you’re relatively happy with all of the candidates in a party, so why split hairs if you’d be ok with any of them? There are so many considerations that the only advice is to keep an open mind about party membership, evaluate where you make the most impact (not what looks the most like you) and **vote in every damn election, primaries included. **

source

Sort:hotnew top

fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
LOL. She needs Pennsylvania. That’s it.

source
- Kethal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  That does sound better doesn’t it? If I were a presidential candidate, I would definitely say “We support fracking because we need Pennsylvania” instead of “We support fracking because our campaign has accepted millions of dollars from the oil industry”.
  
  source
  - fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Any commentary I’ve heard is talking about Pennsylvania. It’s critically important to a win, and fracking is critically important to voters there.
    
    That said, can’t it be both?
    
    I’m sure both campaigns have accepted donations from loads of shady industries. Crypto is a salient example.
    
    Money wins elections, and the race being as close as it is I don’t care where the dems are getting their money from.
    
    I find myself saying this a lot, but if the left was going to win a convincing victory, they would have some scope for more progressive policy. There isn’t any room, and they don’t have that mandate.
    
    source
    Kethal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It corporations weren’t given the same rights as people, then we wouldn’t need to wonder what politicians’ real motives were.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
The fact of the matter is that the parties are arguing over a small slice of swayable or “undecided” voters in a small slice of states that are in play ie: “swing states” and each party is honestly focusing on a subset of swing states they think they can win.

The result is that their messages look really odd at times and don’t always line up with what the majority of their party want. Because the majority of their party are safe votes. They’re going after the wingnuts in the middle and on the margins, few as they are, dumb as they are.

This is a far more obvious explanation than “she’s in the pocket of Big Oil.” A lot of Pennsylvanians work for Big Oil. So there is more going on right in the light of day than the clandestine bribery which by your own admission you have no evidence for. Occam’s razor, here.

source
- Kethal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  I have no evidence of her motives. Campaign donations are public record, and she receives funding from oil companies. The idea that politicians are not swayed by finance is absurdly naive. And, regardless whether convincing swing voters is a part of the campaign’s consideration, it should be clear that influence from corporations is not am influence. Then we could sit here an take them at their word. As it is, it’s impossible to think that millions of dollars from oil companies is not affecting the decision to make a complete u turn on supporting fracking.
  
  source
  - scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Show me the millions of dollars from oil companies to the Harris Walz campaign which are public record. Actually provide your evidence, don’t just conjure it with words.
    
    source