The reason they capitalised INVESTORS is because she said the industry doesn't fund her directly. Which is technically true...
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The reason they capitalised INVESTORS is because she said the industry doesn't fund her directly. Which is technically true...
What a fecking disturbing ad.
But you surely see what I'm getting at? It's not the caps part, 3 million doesn't sound as catchy as MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
I wonder how soon it will be that they can just run ads saying "Don't vote for X, he's a cnut"
2016 will be the year we had the worst presidential candidates, I'm getting in a point after all the my wife's better than yours (ok trump won) shitty fight between trump and Cruz I don't have a clear candidate I would say -he/she better and I'm voting for that person. I want a political revolution not an actual revolution and when Clinton won I didn't care that much because he was a good president but this year - Houston we have a problem, Hillary is not good and she's probably the most corrupt candidate we had in years, trump is showing he never though he could be in this position and Cruz should hit the road and sale Bibles, we have bad years coming.
Are you saying Hillary Cinton is somehow more corrupt than Bill Clinton? Love to hear your reasoning.
when last has the GOP had a good presidential candidate Barros?
She's more corrupt than him and she has 2 brothers with a long story in corruption.
Bush dad wasn't bad but I would say regan was a good president.
So 2016 isn't really a watermark year then
I read this in a Charlie voice from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and it was rather entertaining.
*sell
Exactly. And not just employees but hedge fund managers who are heavily invested in fossil fuels. And that 1st article doesn't include her PAC at all (which is the focus of the link I posted)
Errhm... Not really.
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/...-the-Smears-Hillary-and-Fossil-Fuel-Interests
300k amounts to 0.2% of the total her campaign raised this cycle so far. And the 3.25 millions in the Priorities USA SuperPAC were donated by 2 individuals, none of them can be described as 'heavily invested in fossil fuels', when the investment amounts to 1% of the hedge fund. Sussman invested in wind energy as well. For comparison, Sanders's top the list in donation from defense contractor and agriculture business. Undue influence?
This witch hunt is becoming ridiculous.
I agree that the 1.3 millions from bundlers and lobbyists doesn't look good, but reality of the situation is no campaign will turn away money, even Sander's, unless it's a PR catastrophe (private prison industry). The rest I don't agree with. 300 k for her campaign and the 3.25 m for Priorities USA were from individuals. They have their own agency. $2700 a head scarcely seems enough to get the attention of a candidate.
Environmental groups donated 4.5 times that amount to her campaign, and substantially more than Sanders's counterpart. They'd have enough assurance to do that.
As for fracking:
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/37/fracking-and-the-climate-debate/
Eh? Fracking is rather safe.
It's not even controversial to call it unsafe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2016/03/earthquakes-injection-wells-usgs
https://m.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDis.../an_analysis_on_hillary_clintons_fossil_fuel/
So the 1.2 mil seems shaky as well.
So the 1.2 mil seems shaky as well.
The human rights campaign has endorsed her, despite her being a passionate ex-supporter of DOMA and one of the last Dem converts to marriage equality, she is endorsed by PP despite not supporting their position on abortion...
I'll answer the article later.
bullshit
This is the (sourced, unlike Vice) article about her contributions:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/
She is a candidate of the status quo, to the right of Obama on foreign policy, and the same or slightly right on most other issues. Instead of trying to paint herself as a radical like Sanders, she should have gone for a flat strategy of competence/experience.
Her most radical days were as a lawyer straight out of college. Since then she has been a part of a huge law firms, a governer's wife, the first lady, a pro-business, pro-war senator, a pro-war, (pro-fracking too) SoS.
Edit:
Running as the establishment would have avoided some interesting questions. Money doesn't buy influence. Why did she stop taking pvt prison money (she still takes some from their lobbyists) with a strong statement against the industry? Why did she get angry at these reports about fossil fuel money? Why did she criticise Obama in 2008 for taking fossil fuel money? Why are the industries she talks badly about giving her money?
Instead, as the establishment candidate, she could have said: "I will be good for the economy including these interests, which is why they contribute to me"
Her most radical days were as a lawyer straight out of college. Since then she has been a part of a huge law firms, a governer's wife, the first lady, a pro-business, pro-war senator, a pro-war, (pro-fracking too) SoS.
Edit:
Running as the establishment would have avoided some interesting questions. Money doesn't buy influence. Why did she stop taking pvt prison money (she still takes some from their lobbyists) with a strong statement against the industry? Why did she get angry at these reports about fossil fuel money? Why did she criticise Obama in 2008 for taking fossil fuel money? Why are the industries she talks badly about giving her money?
Instead, as the establishment candidate, she could have said: "I will be good for the economy including these interests, which is why they contribute to me"
Last edited:
Ask Oklahoma
They've gone from near zero seismic activity to something like 6000 earthquakes a year to lead the US!
The reddit thread I posted addressed that article, so did NPR, FactCheck.org.
Ask Oklahoma
They've gone from near zero seismic activity to something like 6000 earthquakes a year to lead the US!
Those effects are from oil production, not fracking. Fracking just a buzzword, and Bernie is an idiot for wanting to ban it.
Fracking is a shorthand for hydraulic fracturing. The 1st link I posted was about hydraulic fracturing.
This is from the second:
Have to agree. In most of Europe, the UK, Canada she would be a moderate conservative. Her strength would have been to higlight her experience and indicate she was the best person for the job. Instead she has tried to out flank Sanders on the left and all it is done is give credibility to Sanders . If the party wants a progressive they will go for the real thing in Sanders.
On another note I see where Sanders supportors have been protesting at Clinton' s rallies. She seems to have taken a leaf from Trump's book, claiming that they only come to disrurpt and has had them ejected. Didn't get much play in the liberal press, but when Trump does it, the press goes wild.
what experience does she have other than being a water carrier for Wall Street? She was a pretty average to shitty SoS.
on the protests, there is no liberal press. Just a corporate press.
Do you have a source for that claim? I understood it was from pumping fracking waste water back into the wells.
I know what it is. I have extensive education and experience in geology, geophysics, and 'fracking'. It's the entire process of production and wastewater from it (oil wells don't just produce oil, they produce massive amounts of water. Much more so than from the fracking process).
Like I said, fracking is just a buzzword. I'm not saying developing oil reserves isn't detrimental or that it isn't causing earthquakes, but it's not the fracking that's doing it.
Hell, one anti-fracking article from the website MotherJones you posted had a picture they labeled a 'fracking rig,' which is remarkable as there is no such thing as a fracking rig. These 'journalists' have very little knowledge about what they're talking about. Nor does Bernie.
Reddit:
Fair enough.
The problem with her is that her money comes from bundlers and lobbyists rather than the industry itself, making it harder to track.
Opensecrets.org: 900k from lobbyists, 300k from oil&gas (Bernie: 11k and 50k respectively). It is possible that Greenpeace did their research in the affiliations of those lobbyists.
Then there is a whole long list of specific examples in the Greenpeace article, and also here, from last year. Combining them:
So, the very well-sourced wiki page is false?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing
Again, it's specifically titled hydraulic fracturing.
Which as I understand refers to pumping high pressure water to widen cracks, so that oil can then be pumped out. A number of compounds are used in this water to help the process and often contaminate surrounding sources. Destabilising the rock with this water leads eventually to the (observed and predicted) earthquakes. Which part of this is buzzwords and which is fact?
this is what I have understood too.
pretty crazy to question the harm this is causing to the environment and to drinking water.
The very article you posted listed only three known earthquakes from fracking. The majority come from disposal wells, which is mostly from production not fracking.
The contamination comes from poorly cased or cemented wells during production, not fracking.
It's the process as a whole that is damaging. Fracking is just the easiest part to target because the public has just started hearing about it and doesn't understand it, thereby easier to make it controversial.
The Sanders fracking experts in here....Do you have a source for your claim then? All the sources I have seen recently (an done from the 60s) indicate that returning the waste water to the wells is the cause. Not the fracking itself but returning the water.
Edit: never mind. I missed the part where you said waste water. I think we are saying almost the same thing I just didn't know about the waste water from non-fracking.
But why has Oklahoma seen such a huge increase in seismic activity? Near 0 in 2009 to 6000 today? Has oil production gone up as well?
Last edited:
Nothing to fear from fracking, nor the haliburton loophole that exempts it from certain restrictions of the safe water drinking water act and clean water act, and most drillers do not have to divulge the dangerous chemicals they are spreading. The scientists who are very anti fracking and not beholden at all to the fracking companies are just pulling shit out of their ass. And certainly Bernie Sanders has no scientists as ecological advisors. He also pulls shit out of his ass because he´s a communist. Josh Fox´s Garland was total bullshit propaganda - the fracking companies will assure you. No earthquakes in Oklahoma.
Look how cool it is for the environment
Look how cool it is for the environment
- Status