> The people voted for people in favor of this though, so I'm getting mixed messages.
Voting for something and then experiencing significant detrimental effects is not "mixed messages." It is, instead, at least a warning for others to consider.
The implication of "voting for something means you knew what was going to happen" is disingenuous at best.
> The implication of "voting for something means you knew what was going to happen" is disingenuous at best.
Oh certainly. Voting for $thing and then being genuinely surprised when $thing happens to you is a story as old as voting.
It's not that they knew they would be the ones drawing the short straw, it's that I lack sympathy for people who vote for someone to hold the short straw, and then are upset when it's them.
> It's not that they knew they would be the ones drawing the short straw, it's that I lack sympathy for people who vote for someone to hold the short straw, and then are upset when it's them.
People get lied to all the time. Often the liar is someone who lies by omission, such as telling people "here's a no-risk way to get 'easy money', just sign here" and neglects to mention long-term implications.
Now if you want to say something like, "well, they should've known better!" or "everyone knows fracking ends badly!", then that explains your self-proclaimed lack of sympathy.
To that I posit...
If one of your family members had this happen to them, would you have the same indifferent stance?
If your grandmother said, "I wanted the money to put into your daughter's college fund", would you still be devoid of sympathy?
It's unfortunate they are going through this.
The people voted for people in favor of this though, so I'm getting mixed messages.
https://greenecountypa.gov/elections/Default.aspx?PageLayout...
> It's unfortunate they are going through this.
> The people voted for people in favor of this though, so I'm getting mixed messages.
Voting for something and then experiencing significant detrimental effects is not "mixed messages." It is, instead, at least a warning for others to consider.
The implication of "voting for something means you knew what was going to happen" is disingenuous at best.
> The implication of "voting for something means you knew what was going to happen" is disingenuous at best.
Oh certainly. Voting for $thing and then being genuinely surprised when $thing happens to you is a story as old as voting.
It's not that they knew they would be the ones drawing the short straw, it's that I lack sympathy for people who vote for someone to hold the short straw, and then are upset when it's them.
> It's not that they knew they would be the ones drawing the short straw, it's that I lack sympathy for people who vote for someone to hold the short straw, and then are upset when it's them.
People get lied to all the time. Often the liar is someone who lies by omission, such as telling people "here's a no-risk way to get 'easy money', just sign here" and neglects to mention long-term implications.
Now if you want to say something like, "well, they should've known better!" or "everyone knows fracking ends badly!", then that explains your self-proclaimed lack of sympathy.
To that I posit...
If one of your family members had this happen to them, would you have the same indifferent stance?
If your grandmother said, "I wanted the money to put into your daughter's college fund", would you still be devoid of sympathy?
You're missing the point if you think it being my family would change anything.
The events of the article took place before, not after, last election.
The county in question continues voting for this, before and after it happening to them.
All the good intentions in the world don't get them a free pass for failing to learn.
Correct source appears to be https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07102025/pennsylvania-tow...