Home | About | Donate

As Clinton Equivocates on Fracking, Sanders Has One Answer: 'No.'


#1


#2

Bernie is backed by 97% of climate scientists. Hillary is backed by 97% of banksters and corporatists (at least of those who call themselves Democrats).


#3

Here is the difference: HRC claims to ban fracking for political reasons; Bernie wants to ban fracking for the right reasons!


#5

Yes. It always slays me when "serious" people say things like, "It's high time for her to call for a ban." She'll only call for it up to the end of the primaries, after which time, she will sliiiiide back to her true position, that of loving and promoting it.

Don't ask her to ban it. Campaign for Bernie.


#6

As usual Hillary is slippery and very calculated with her words - always leaving wiggle-room to later claim "that's not what I actually said" - the mark of someone that has an alternative agenda!

The contrast between her equivocation and qualifications and Bernie's unvarnished answer is an unambiguous "N0"- as characterize so-many of their disagreements on policy!

Hillary was wedded to fracking as Sec of State, and that means wedded to the fracking/oil&gas industry - the fossil-fuel industry!


#8

I think many politicians and even some environmental organizations are hesitant to advocate a complete national ban on fracking because they are afraid that this would lead to increased coal burning to avoid an acute shortage of energy in the short term. Even the Sierra Club leaves it up to individual state chapters to take a position on fracking. The New York chapter was successful in getting a ban on fracking but since no high-volume fracking was taking place in New York there was no issue with regard to replacing natural gas with coal. So far Congress has not examined the issue of a complete ban on fracking. Without any review of the issue nobody really knows the short-term consequences of a total national ban on fracking. The US has been make great gains in reducing coal burning and certainly we should keep going in that direction until we reach zero coal burning.


#9

I said months ago, Hillary, like her Husband and Obama, will run a "seem to be" campaign, and that is exactly what she is doing. For those who find debating skills, gimicks such as her distortion about Bernie's motivation for voting against the auto industry bailout, she knew that the bill contained many horrible provisions which was the reason Bernie voted against it, yet she played the "are you still beating your wife" card. By the way, Bernie clearly said why he voted that way yet post debate analysis,by some, simply ignored his response. Some may be impressed with this kind of high schoolish debating club behavior, I'm not. Bernie won that debate in every respect--substance always wins.


#10

Truthout reports that Hillary's fossil fuel haul is $3.25 million, nothing compared to Ted Cruz but notable for a Democrat.

I'm perfectly willing to hear various updates and second opinions on the final cash amount, as it could be difficult to get a perfect figure.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35105-revealed-the-fossil-fuel-tycoons-trying-to-buy-the-us-election


#11

Even tho every Michigan primary poll puts Clinton ahead of Bernie, IF the Sandernistas come-out in force, that supposed Clinton lead may evaporate as we saw in some other states. Still many older people still are drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid and we must change that dynamic, especially among people of color.......


#13

It is CLEAR.
• Sanders opposes fracking because it is HARMFUL & DANGEROUS to People.
• Clinton opposes it because advisors say it will get her crucial votes.


#14

I am of the mind that being a lawyer should disqualify you from holding the highest office in the nation.


#15

The Crone: "I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."

Bernie: "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."

I put my fist in the air, pulled it back down and said, "BOOM!"


#16

Shillary is despicable. She will say and do whatever it takes to get into the Oval Office, a place of great power that she thinks is her due after her mediocre term as NY senator and her genuinely embarrassing and incompetent time as SoS. We really don't need yet another DINO in that office after 16 years of sellouts by her husband and Barry the Liar.
As to fracking and so many other issues involving the acquisition of "natural resources" I find her rhetoric in this debate the usual "seems to be" device that she has used before, For instance, she suddenly switched her long-running support for the TPP when that hurt her poll numbers. Sanders, of course, like with fracking, is against it. However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has informed us that if Clinton is the next president, she will support the TPP. I have no reason to doubt that.
HRC is an example of the way in which the Democratic party has betrayed the people who look to it as a hopeful alternative to the ruinous policies of the increasingly right-wing Rethugs.
What we got instead is the supplication by them to increasingly extremist positions and the downright obstructionism of the Rethugs. The result is that the DLC (which the Clintons helped form) and the DNC (under a sellout like Debbie Wasserman Schultz) have "triangulated" the party into ever greater levels of insignificance. This has occurred at a time when polls indicate that the majority of Americans are in support of a liberal social and economic agenda. There is an old saying that when you offer the people a Republican and a Democrat posing as a Republican the people will usually vote for the Republican. This is what has happened, at the national level and in the states. By accepting the whole idea of Dick Morris's "triangulation" in the 90s the Clintons and the Demos became DINOs and they tried to cover their tracks by adopting the phrase "Third Way" or "New Democrats".
It was BS as the 99% watched their possibilities slip away and the politicians on both sides of the aisle started playing the revolving door game from "public service" to the corporate world and back again.
Shillary is perfectly at home with this change and she and Bill have amassed a huge fortune because of it as they have sucked up to corporate interests and schmoozed with them at corporate conventions, etc.
I will never vote for this woman even though I would love to see a woman as the president of this country - just one more area where the U.S. needs to play catchup. If Team Hillary manages to
grab the nomination I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein. Now THERE is a woman of integrity, intelligence and honor. Of course, it would be a protest vote but I would walk way from the voting booth with a clear conscience. Aren't we all getting sick and tired of the "lesser of two evils" BS that is presented by the apologists for the Demos? Our political system has been hijacked and so many people just shrug and follow orders.


#17

I always liked the joke in the movie "Philadelphia" -
"What do you call a thousand lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?
A good start."


#18

In this regard she is a perfect Roosevelt Democrat. You have to make her do it. Of course to get Roosevelt to do something the people needed to rally. To get Clinton to do something you need to apply a cattle prod.


#19

Perhaps. I don't believe she would substantially change anything about fracking. She gets money from these people, and the private prison complex and Wall St., etc. She's up to her eyeballs in the whole corporate takeover. She'd have no reason to do what we want, once in, imho.


#20

Boom! is right.

Exception: please don't insult crones, as that word can mean an older, wiser woman, who helps those younger and less experienced. :O)


#21

Equivocate synonyms: prevaricate, evade/dodge the issue, beat around the bush, sit on the fence, hedge, hedge one's bets, quibble, fudge the issue, vacillate, shilly-shally, hem and haw, pussy-foot around. Yup, that sums ups HRC's rhetorical speechifying. :money_mouth:


#22

Sanders could have done better on some of the answers he gave--Black awareness-he was quoting a BLM person but it didn't sound that way when he said it-- he didn't explain enough that he supported helping the car industry----but I loved when he turned to Hillary and said it was" your wall street friends" who wanted a bail out.---This was a Democrat congress and president and they put the car money with the wall street bail out----why????

The part that I liked most but not mentioned of course was when he talked about meeting with people in Flint and various groups in the area but did not want to make a big deal of it-

Hillary Clinton is transparent-because if you listen she really says nothing.
And of course the next day the corporate media was doing all its hits on Sanders. Usually they ignore the weekend debates----maybe its because Sanders won three states over the weekend?
Chris Hayes is really earning his corporate kiss butt award- he did two hits on Sanders. He looked so proud of himself.

And just understand the car thing----that is the real Hillary Clinton.


#23

I was here (in Maine) and caucused for Bernie, and I'm one little part of his movement, even as only a delegate for Bernie --- but that and my $27 contributions are not enough.

I hate to be a Paine, but to really start our "Political Revolution", we all have to do more --- including Bernie.

Bernie can co-opt Hillary's entire message and her inane deceitful signs, "Fighting for us", and at the same time educate and expand his fellow citizen voters --- along with actually starting our "Political Revolution" if he really wants to --- in one simple declarative "shout heard round the world" with a campaign sign reading "Fighting against Empire".

If Bernie wants to actually win the presidency and more importantly actually start a non-violent Second American Revolution against Empire (again 240 years after the First, and only successful, American Revolution) --- then even at this midpoint in the primaries, and even if the 'super delegate' scam vote rigging appears about to bury him --- he can arise for the cause he has been fighting his whole life for, and simply declare that he is "Fighting against Empire", which in truth is what any real and serious meaning of the otherwise vague empty promise "Fighting for us" actually has to mean to accomplish anything!