Politicians often recalibrate in the face of shifting public opinion and circumstance. Across two decades in elected offices, Vice President Kamala Harris is no exception.
Death penalty stance: She said she’d never seek it, and never did. Later, when her job was upholding standing law, she said she’d uphold existing rules and did that, even if she didn’t want to, because it was her job. That’s a good thing.
Shifting opinions can be good but in her case it’s all about being elected. I actually agree with her on the ban of fracking. It should be banned or limited.
Well yeah, it’s literally politics, the point is to get elected. If she sat there and explained to the general electorate how the webwork of backroom coalitions and pork barrel conveyor belts actually worked, the fence sitters and side liners she’s trying to engage with would just complain and vote for the candidate with a much simpler message: “Vote for me and you’ll never have to vote again”
At some point you have to take a stance and explain your stance. That is what she has failed to do. She jumps from one stance to the next stance to the next stance.
I am a Republican but I hate fracking. It jacks up the water supply. I am big on the environment and if someone has a compelling platform, I could vote for that.
There’s a big difference between “I won’t ban it” and “drill baby drill”. It has a lot to do with those backrooms and conveyor belts I was talking about earlier, but the short version is: She probably would if she could, but if she says that, a bunch of frackers in Pennsylvania won’t vote for her because they are single issue voters.
That’s the puzzling thing about conservatives - the utter inability or unwillingness to discern anything as other than binary, black or white. Harris isn’t going to ban fracking overnight, sure. That would be economically uintenable. On the other hand, the velveeta treason weasel would eagerly sell out national parks to allow fracking.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
People are supposed to change their minds as they learn things. It’s part of growing as a person.
But congratulations on finding a topic that everyone can upvote.
Death penalty stance: She said she’d never seek it, and never did. Later, when her job was upholding standing law, she said she’d uphold existing rules and did that, even if she didn’t want to, because it was her job. That’s a good thing.
Shifting opinions can be good but in her case it’s all about being elected. I actually agree with her on the ban of fracking. It should be banned or limited.
Well yeah, it’s literally politics, the point is to get elected. If she sat there and explained to the general electorate how the webwork of backroom coalitions and pork barrel conveyor belts actually worked, the fence sitters and side liners she’s trying to engage with would just complain and vote for the candidate with a much simpler message: “Vote for me and you’ll never have to vote again”
At some point you have to take a stance and explain your stance. That is what she has failed to do. She jumps from one stance to the next stance to the next stance.
I am a Republican but I hate fracking. It jacks up the water supply. I am big on the environment and if someone has a compelling platform, I could vote for that.
If you like the environment, you need to stop voting for Republicans, full stop.
The other guy’s stance on fracking is Drill, baby, drill!
That her stance as well. SHe wants to continue fracking. I am not a single-issue voter either. Most of her ideas will screw up the economy as well.
There’s a big difference between “I won’t ban it” and “drill baby drill”. It has a lot to do with those backrooms and conveyor belts I was talking about earlier, but the short version is: She probably would if she could, but if she says that, a bunch of frackers in Pennsylvania won’t vote for her because they are single issue voters.
That’s the puzzling thing about conservatives - the utter inability or unwillingness to discern anything as other than binary, black or white. Harris isn’t going to ban fracking overnight, sure. That would be economically uintenable. On the other hand, the velveeta treason weasel would eagerly sell out national parks to allow fracking.