• GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    193
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    This is extremely misleading. Fuck Trump 10000 times and kamala is the only sane choice, but stop trying to paint over reality to try and make her look like she’s not just a lesser evil.

    She didn’t just “not promise to solve 1000 year conflict” (which the genocide has been going on for the last 75 years),

    she did promise to continue funding genocide with American taxpayer dollars. (Of which the US has been giving and average of $5 billion in tax dollars and weapons to Isreal per year for the last 75 years, since they first invaded Palestine).

    We are voting for her because she is the lesser evil. We don’t have to be happy about it or stop criticizing her on her bad policies.

    Basically: Vote for Harris, but also fuck her for vowing to continue funding genocide. Trump would also keep funding genocide, and he’d also destroy what’s left of the west, on top of every other obvious reason he should never be in power again (and never should have been).

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 days ago

        The tragic thing about Nader was his activism basically proved to General Motors and later large American corporations in general that political engagement and and public opinion was vital. The corpos learned to fight grass roots activism with astro-turf until they were just as skilled as Nader’s acolytes, only with orders of magnitude more resources.

        Every time I see an Oil company do a commercial about their commitment to the environment I think of Ralph.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          24 days ago

          Similarly, Woodward and Bernstein showed the corporations how dangerous an independent press was.

          Back in Watergate Era, there were plenty of locally owned newspapers and TV stations. Today, thanks to ronald reagan’s assault on the Fairness Doctrine, we have six major media companies controlling what we hear.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      24 days ago

      What does third parties have to do with lifelong Dem voters wanting the Dem candidate to side with the Dem voting base on basic parts of the party platform like:

      1. No fracking

      2. Better healthcare

      3. Climate change is real and producing less fossil fuels is a good thing

      What you’re doing is insisting if you’re not 100% loyal to the candidate with a D by their name you really have an R.

      That’s the same fucking shit Republicans went thru and it ended up with trump.

      Why the fuck do you want to follow down the path of “never criticize the party, and always vote for them”.

      Please explain to the class why this time it will work out good for the party that takes that path.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 days ago

        It’s not that it will work out good (though in a sense, it has for the R in that they got what they actually wanted), it’s that if the Rs have ~50% ish support, no matter what they do, because of them going that route, the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          24 days ago

          Right and that makes sense…

          Unfortunately that’s not what Kamala is doing.

          I’ll say it till my face turns blue:

          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.

          That isn’t the only issue she’s to the right of the party on either.

          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.

          So then telling voters “all that matters is beating trump” it’s obviously bullshit because they’re not doing everything possible to beat trump.

          It ain’t complicated.

          Like you said:

          the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.

          That’s the opposite of what OP spends their time on, but considering a month ago they were intentionally spreading misinformation about when early voting started, I’m surprised the mods still let them post here.

          Every single “meme” OP posts is about how Dem voters should fight with Dem voters rather than band together.

          • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            24 days ago

            Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take, when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?

            It’s not the instant win you think it is.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              24 days ago

              Not the person you replied to, but 58% of Pennsylvanians support a ban on fracking. It really shouldn’t be surprising. Pennsylvania may be a great hub of fracking, but very few people actually benefit from the wealth it creates. Meanwhile, they’re the people actually on the ground, living there in the areas most affected by fracking. They know its effects better than anyone. It’s their ground water and their wells are being contaminated, all so a few companies owned by out of state wealthy interests can profit mightily. Plus, it’s not like Pennsylvanians aren’t also worried about climate change.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 days ago

              when the largest swing state this election has an economy that leans heavily on fracking?

              You’re confusing people and corporations…

              Pennsylvania voters continue to be split over fracking. A poll out this week, which surveyed 700 likely voters in September, shows 58% support a ban on fracking while 42% oppose 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 likely voters in PA want it banned…

              • someguy3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                24 days ago

                58% of likely voters in PA want it banned…

                Did the environmentalists show up for Gore? No they did not.

                Did the environmentalists show up for Clinton who said she’d have a map room to fight climate change? No they did not.

                Were the environmentalists going to show up for Biden after he passed green energy and ev policies? Polls said no they were not going to show up.

                Harris saying she’d ban fracking is an instant loss. She and everyone advising her knows this.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  24 days ago

                  Yep. When Democrats enact environmental policies, they don’t do it for the votes. Which makes Biden all the more commendable for his environmental action imo.

              • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                24 days ago

                When people are employed by those corporations, they have a vested interest in their livelihood not disappearing overnight.

                A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error. Without information on how they selected participants, I wouldn’t say that’s an overwhelming margin.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  24 days ago

                  When people are employed by those corporations,

                  The report finds that about 64,000 Pennsylvania workers are employed in fossil fuel-based industries such as natural gas drilling, coal mining, and supporting activities

                  https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2021/01/29/report-pennsylvania-stands-to-gain-243000-jobs-a-year-from-clean-energy-investment/

                  64k, not just fracking, that’s all fossil fuel jobs in PA.

                  There’s 12.7 million people in the state

                  0.5% of people in the state work any job connected to fossil fuels…

                  You’re confusing corporations and people homie.

                  A survey of 700 people leaves considerable room for polling error

                  You didn’t have to tell us you never learned about stats in any educational setting, but I appreciate the transparency.

                  700 is more than enough

            • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              24 days ago

              An economy that “leans heavily” on fracking? What sort of economy leans on destroying their water table? What did you say about the economies that “lean heavily” on coal mining?