Despite the widely-held belief that the Republican Party and the fossil fuel industry are natural allies, one of the world's most prominent fracking tycoons admitted Tuesday that, actually, his business has fared better under Democrats.
Another stunning Democratic Leadership Council success story!
After the Republicans co-opted the Dixiecrats through their "Southern Strategy" the DLC set its sights on the Republicans' corporate backers, abandoning workers and the environment. The Dems had just figured out there's no need to do anything for the people to win elections. All they need do is beat the Republicans.
Isn't "our" two-party system wonderful???
"Despite ample evidence that the drilling process is a danger to human and environmental health, and is a substantial contributor to global warming, Clinton surrogates derailed an effort to include language supporting a national fracking ban in the party platform."
This says it all.
And here is Obama himself (I know, he is the epitome of duplicity):
"No challenge--no challenge--poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night.
So how can voting for a candidate that is getting money from the fossil fuel industry, promotes fracking and as such is fast forwarding the demise of the biosphere be considered as a lesser evil candidate?
Willingly/consciously promoting $$$$-making behaviors that contribute to warming is a crime against humanity and ecocide. Those who promote fracking should be in prison----that would include YOU Hillary Rodham Clinton.
HRC and the DNC the lesser of 2 evils? REALLY?? What is the spectrum of evil? Someone please define.
wonderful!! how do i steal it? :O)
This distinguished citizen has made a fortune helping those near his operations commit protracted $uicide.
Right - more like "their" two-party system.
I should believe anything a "fracking tycoon" says about fracking? If he prefers the Repugs, wouldn't it make sense to blame fracking on the Dems?
Yes, I know that Hillary (and Mr. Biden's family) have financial interests in the fracking industry. It matters not which wing of the American War Party is in office when it comes to serving the fossil fuel industry...
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I've come to the conclusion that Democrats are worse than Republicans because Democrats pretend like they are your friend and then betray you. Whereas Republicans are more up front with the message that they don't give a damn about you. Progressives should totally boycott the Democratic Presidential Candidate.
This article is a bit misleading. Pretty much all bosses in the fossil industry (and their employees) except perhaps natural gas (which is taking advantage of new EPA regulations discouraging coal electric generation) are supporting Trump. Coal baron Bill Murray is even actively campaigning for him.
Hickenlooper (D -CO), a possible VP pick, is Mr. Frack in Colorado. He loves it.
If you calmly, and with logic rather than emotion, compare the policy proposals of the two candidates, then yes, Clinton is the lesser of the tow evils, and when it comes to the environment she is not really that evil at all compared to much of the world's leaders. Why would Hillary be so hated, and Trump so loved in my coal and fracking employment-dominated region if Hillary was going to be so good to the polluters?
Hillary would be a continuation of the Obama administration. That is not at all a good thing, but compared to Trump it is not a bad thing. Everything is relative, and while you may think things are bad now, they are nothing close to how bad they can get. Most importantly, people need to stop thinking that electoral politics can, for the foreseeable future, be a vehicle for progressive change. The main role of electoral politics is to prevent disastrous outcomes that would prevent or destroy any organizing for future change.
It is all about this concept that is seemingly incomprehensible to what passes for "the left" in the USA called "strategy" - particularly "long-term strategy". Strategy requires holding two thoughts in your mind at the same time. I it is a concept that was very familiar to the left in the old days - from the Wobblies going on back to Marx and Bakunin, but in todays US left, there seems to be this inability to think even minutes into the future, or think about things in non-absolute terms - holding two thoughts and pursuing a short-term and long term goal at the same time. For example, an army may retreat on the short term so that it may win the war in the long term. I blame this pathology of "impatient Manichaeism" on the internet - notably Twitter and Facebook, but plain old blogging contributes to it too.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This is the defining quote from this article: "Our goal is to educate them both on the importance of strong domestic oil and gas," which, he said, includes the need to grow the industry and access even more oil and gas deposits. It matters not to these sociopathic opportunist energy & mining moguls what party is in power because the smell of money is euphoric for all but the conscientious. As for the energy and mining industries, not much has changed since the advent of Standard Oil (Rockefellers) and the US Coal and Oil company (along with several other coal mining concerns) and myriad gold, silver, and uranium mining operatives in California, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, etc....currently, they all operate with impunity, lack of concern for environmental regulations (pay the fines and BAU), disregard for the health and safety of their workers, and their sole focus is to use up all natural resources to make huge profits.
And isn't it interesting the timing of Sheffield's "admission" about the industry flourishing under Dems as if the geopolitical world had nothing to do with price fluctuations, supplies, and demands.... Trump is his guy without a doubt.
The bread's buttered on both sides
How much longer do you think we have to hold this Manichean stance? Patience is not a virtue when the sky is, indeed, falling. And I ain't Chicken Little.
Strategizing at the very instant of an emergency costs lives and more. We've been offering strategies to leadership for fifty years. The clock's running out and leadership is deaf to its wind-down.
And this has been confirmed in latest news. Trump will put Oklahoma oil and gas multi-billionaire Howard Hamm in the Dept. of Energy spot.
Fracking certainly has its pollution and waste-disposal issues, but the generally science-illiterate US left seem to assign some kind of supernatural powers of Evil to it (as if other types of oil/gas and fossil fuel development are OK, apparently). Consequently, it is de-riguer that you must call for a complete nationwide ban on fracking (a completely impractical proposal at this point) to be accepted into their fold.
A similar unscientific attitude prevail regarding nuclear power - even though it is a very important technology in any fossil-fuel free future.
Jill Stein is not getting attention simply because the corporate-capitalist media has always ignored critics of capitalism (even mild critics like the Green Party). It is in their business interest to do so.
Additionally, the extremist-capitalist economic philosophy of the so-called "libertarians" is very popular among USAns - even those who are already suffering under this economic philosophy.
The left remains without a voice and totally disorganized.
Helping elect Trump and an even bigger Republican majority in congress is only going to make the sky fall even faster. The left is in the position it is today because of a total lack of organization, unity, and a total lack of a unified long-term strategy. From the mid 90s until the election of Bush, the left was unified and moving forward - remember Seattle, "Teamsters and Turtles together again", the massive unified anti-global capitalist movement, the World Social Forum, direct actions against Starbucks and other corporate targets, and coordinated organizing everywhere? If you don't remember it, I don't blame you - it is as if it never happened. With the election of Bush, it all fell apart as the left went into "reaction" rather than "proaction" mode. While Clinton's neoliberal policies spawned the movements of those days, Bush was even worse and sent the left into disarray - under recrimination from much of its would-be-allies for supporting Nader (yes, I was a big Nader campaigner back then) - then shifting into pure reaction mode with the Iraq invasion - which likely would not have happened has Gore been president.