Home | About | Donate

‘Get A Life’: Clinton Bashed Anti-Fracking Activists During Private Labor Meeting

‘Get A Life’: Clinton Bashed Anti-Fracking Activists During Private Labor Meeting

Kevin Gosztola

At a private meeting with the Building Trades Council, Hillary Clinton bashed environmentalists who oppose natural gas fracking and insist the United States must keep all fossil fuels in the ground. She said these environmentalists need to “get a life.”

A transcript of a part of the meeting, which took place on September 9, 2015, was published by WikiLeaks. It was attached to an email from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s account, which he claims was hacked.


She supports nuclear AND fracking? Thinks environmentalists should ‘Get a life’?

And the Donald thinks climate change is a hoax?

Don’t pick your poison, pick your cure: Dr. Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka 2016


Gosztola sez: “Clinton said she wants to get the ‘right balance’ …”

" … but enough about my bank account." (Cue ‘We came, we saw, he died’ laugh track)


Being second to none at selling favors, the Clintons have ALWAYS gotten the “right balance” in their banks accounts.


Even the national Sierra Club is often at odds with the Club’s grassroots activists. Environmentalists have been divided over the use of nuclear power to address climate change. They have also been divided over fracking for natural gas. Clinton’s views seem to be consistent with those of many environmentalists. She isn’t a populist so I would not expect her to be aligned with the populists she is complaining about. She is definitely pro-environment but she will not please all environmental activists.

Well, we’re ALL pro-environment…I mean, we live in it, right? The issue is what kind of environment. My problem with this little article is that there is a subtle distortion in play, because the author took the sentence he thought would get the fires stoked and then played it throughout his article, even though it was used out of context. A look at the comments show that his strategy was effective indeed.

As sec of state, Clinton was propounding fracking globally.


Well Hillary, you know, many scientists - who probably know more about climate change, fracking, and, you know, pipelines - than even someone as brilliant as yourself, you know, do actually think that we just might be, you know, destroying our planet to the extent that it might be, you know, uninhabitable, or at least majorly compromised, you know, by the time your granddaughters’ kids are adults. I guess that’ll be okay, though, because by then we’ll have, you know, colonized many other planets, and future generations of Clintons can, you know, rule those planets, too.

Might I suggest that while you think environmentalists need to get a life, perhaps you need to get a good grammar book, and stop peppering all your speeches with so many "you knows? You know what I’m saying?


“Get a life.” ~ Hillary Clinton

“Let them eat cake.” ~ Marie Antoinette


Obviously your nephew is not in a high enough tax bracket to deserve political representation.

(I am, of course, being sarcastic – but it’s the truth as far as the ruling class are concerned)


She may think we don’t have a life and half of us belong in a basket of deplorables but she takes center stage in my basket of despicables.
Her description of her two faces in one of her speeches is classic. The Clinton’s have lied, cheated, and broken the law all through their time in politics. There is nothing about this wench that should appeal to any voter.
Jill Stein is my choice and I feel good about it.


WHAAAT??? "We’ve had two problems [with nuclear power] that people know about: Chernobyl, which was a disaster and [inaudible], and you know Three Mile. Right, those were the problems we had. We’ve come a long way from there.”
So is she saying … Fukushima never happened !!! A formerly prosperous twenty-mile area is evacuated and unfit for life and radioactivity keeps leaking into the ocean five years later, but we can’t even say the word Fukushima??? I guess she means that “we’ve come a long way” at keeping these disasters and their aftermath out of the public media. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton, I hope someday you do “get” life in the sense of getting a clue what “life” on this planet requires.


Clinton has a different view than the activists because she has different priorities. Her priorities are based on climate change. Because of that her top priority is reducing coal burning as that causes twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as burning natural gas or oil and also releases far more toxic substances. The top priority of the anti-fracking activists seems to be based on local pollution. For them reducing coal burning has a lower priority and in fact a nationwide ban on fracking would dramatically increase coal burning.

Huge leap/assumption that we’re all pro-environment. Most people are “pro-environment” as long as it doesn’t get in the way of their fossil-fueled lifestyle.


But is she for potable water and breathable air for the hoypeloy?

But y’know…
Y’may be right, y’know.
Too bad for us hoypeloy who prefer a planet not needing to be, y’know, terraformed first.

Fracking pollutes the air and the ground water, as well as river water when pipelines fail…which they DO. There is nothing benign about fracking. It also causes very serious subsidance and is being blamed for earthquakes where such occurences were almost non-existent previously. We’re wrecking the Earth and permanently altering our eco’niche along with a passel of other creatures’ for dirty fuel, Period…


Exactly. The type of environment these people favor is one that continues to support their chosen lifestyle.

I am one of the many, many people who worked countless, unpaid hours for a fracking ban in Secretary Clinton’s own state of New York and who are continuing to work to make the switch to sustainable energy sources. I am personally offended by the remarks quoted in the above article, and I am offended also on behalf of all of my fellow activists who gave so much of themselves to the fight to ban fracking–a goal that we were told was “impossible.”

Clinton’s alleged remarks were made in September, 2015. Yet in December, 2014 Gov. Cuomo banned fracking in New York. Gov. Cuomo reached this decision after Acting New York State Dept. of Health Commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, concluded that he would not want his own family to live in a shale fracking region. Even prior to the December, 2014 decision to ban fracking statewide, numerous towns within NY had used zoning laws to ban fracking within their borders–an approach whose legality was affirmed in June, 2014 by the highest court in the state.

So by the time that Clinton’s alleged remarks were made, opposition to fracking had gone mainstream in her own state (as well as other regions), and a scientific consensus had certainly been reached that business as usual was not going to protect us from the very dire effects of global climate change.

Many, many people worldwide were and are working to protect their homes, families, and indeed, the entire planet from the continuing harm caused by dependence on fossil fuels. This gargantuan task should not be made even more difficult by remarks such as those quoted above; in recent days these remarks have been cited over and over again in conservative media in an attempt to marginalize environmentalists and validate pro-frackers and climate-change deniers.

If Clinton did not make these remarks, she should publicly disavow them; if she did make them, she should apologize to everyone who is working in good faith to save our one and only planet. Instead of criticizing us, she should be enlisting our aid: if/when she wins this election, she’s going to need all the help she can get to tackle the deadly serious issue of climate change. This fight will not be won within the confines of Washington, D.C. It will be won only if the majority of us work together; marginalizing each other is going to lead to catastrophe for all.


Yes, different priorities, as in, her grandchildren will not be growing up on a gas field.