Home | About | Donate

Humane Society Warns: Trump Presidency is a 'Threat to Animals Everywhere'


Humane Society Warns: Trump Presidency is a 'Threat to Animals Everywhere'

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

A Donald Trump presidency would be a "threat to animals everywhere," warned the political arm of the Humane Society, which on Wednesday announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton with the launch of a new ad campaign that highlights the Republican nominee's abysmal record on animal protection.


That's a leopard, not a cheetah. Can you fix the caption?


The Sierra Club has identified environmental damage (including to animals) that TPP will likely beget. Anybody who reads financial news knows that the writers have already received Clinton's assurance that TPP will not be stopped. Clinton and Trump both threaten the world's animals, including many homo sapian animals,

Anybody genuinely concerned about animals is voting for the Green Party. The Humane Society is doing a tremendous disservice to animals by not endorsing Jill Stein for POTUS.


If native people could coexist with wildlife, why can't we? Is killing wildlife a prerequisite for "civilization "?


The Humane Society's endorsement is not about killing wildlife, it IS an organization coerced into making an endorsement to put them in good standing with the next POTUS...a protection racket of sorts that has created a coalition of the coerced endorsers disguised as a coalition of the willing.


I don't like Trump at all but, as has been mentioned already, this and other articles (almost everywhere now) are too extreme in their attempts to demonize him. It feels like they have increased in number and there is a new level of desperation while the failings of the supposedly lesser evil one are ignored to an even greater degree.

I don't feel much comfort or confidence in Hillary's statements on protecting animals and wildlife - more vague nothingness.

Both "candidates" are revolting.


I don't see what's too extreme about pointing out Trumps likely appointments or other stuff he wants to do. Myran Ebell, who Trump wants to appoint to the EPA, is a leading climate change denier and is a member of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He wants to rollback environmental laws and emissions regulations. If progressives don't want to accept that Trump will appoint folks like that to executive branch agencies, then that's just ignoring reality. But hey, Hillary wants to start WWIII.


It would be (somewhat) interesting to know how you decide which posts to comment on - those of you that respond to negative comments about Hillary in a pro-Hillary way without really elaborating on what you believe are Clinton's attributes. The responses are mostly variations on a theme - she isn't as bad as Trump - and they are getting monotonous.

As one person reminded me, posts with this theme are mainly to misdirect and distract. It was a good reminder.


Exactly, except you're missing the second part of our message: Why trying to get stein is not worth the risk of trump.


I've commented plenty of times on Clinton's attributes, but typically the responses I get are usually something about how she's a neoliberal Warhawk with a corrupt foundation and can't be trusted because she likes trade deals or some such. And when I note that Bernie thinks he can work with her, that he will be the most progressive budget chair we've had in the Senate in a longtime, and I think it's worth it to give him a shot, I'm usually told he's a sellout who'll get stabbed in the back because of "X" reasons. Sometimes I'm even told Trump will be better because of trade, some version of heightening the contradictions, or some silly notion that voting out of fear is a priori wrong.


. Trump policies will worsen environmental issues, for starters, he is a loose cannon who already made it loud and clear that he supports more (injudicious) extraction of fossil fuels i.e. Fracking. For example: He has repeatedly endorsed fracking, revitalization of other fossil fuel industries. Trump also approves Keystone XL pipeline. - One of many, many sources

. Hillary is a neoconservative (supportive of regime change, imperialist). - Source: Consortium News. I posted that because I wanted to highlight the severe impact on the environment regarding wars, what seems to be "Unending Wars," and that also requires massive amounts of fossil fuels to power the military - Source: Consortium News . And I should also mention that TPP is an environmentalist worst nightmare. Source: Common Dreams. Hillary was for TPP, she called it the "Gold Standard, in trade agreements" but since entering the elections she then claims not to support it. Source: Consortium News.

I provided more sources (independent news) to support my comment regarding Hillary, the reason being is due to "Corporate Media" (propaganda), which is widespread and aplenty.. That is the sad reality. Now read this article: US Media as Conduits of Propaganda - Article written by award winning investigative journalist, Robert Parry (Consortium News)

. Gary Johnson, he supports Fracking and other injudicious methods regarding extraction of fossil fuels. - Source.

. Jill Stein, she is the only candidate that respect the environment 100%. For example, she will end Fracking and oil pipelines, and do far more good for life, help prevent further extinction of species, and genuinely care for the environment. - Source


Again, no Clinton attributes...

You're missing the point that this system is corrupt and Clinton is being forced upon us. The biased media, by slanting information and stifling opposing opinion and options, along with the rest of the corrupt and colluding establishment are perpetuating the problem - exactly as they intend to do. Clinton's neoliberal/neocon policies (that aren't being focused on in the "debates", in the headlines, or in the "news") will be detrimental for the earth and the majority of society regardless of the justified or unjustified demonization of Trump.

She needs to be held accountable now (or months/years ago), not after the upcoming election. She should not have a free pass just because Trump is a buffoon.

We can all continue to argue about Bernie's motives and those of the Democratic Party (I personally think he was forced to leave the race) but if we lived in anything remotely considered a democracy, we would have Bernie running now instead of HRC - a candidate people actually liked and agreed with. We would also be allowed to hear the platforms of other candidates currently running.

Vote Stein.


Bernie was "forced" to leave the race because he lost. It was dissappointing, but I saw it coming from miles here in California. It seemed like every woman I worked with over 40 was voting for her. They weren't loud about it, but they're reliable voters. Meanwhile, some of the younger twenty-somethings who I was trying to get out in my office, who touted the close polls (the ones showing Clinton way ahead were wrong for some reason) didn't bother to vote. And I'm talking at least seven out of ten folks. You typically get "forced" out of a race when your voters take days off to attend rallies but don't show up.


"Trump Presidency is a 'Threat to Animals Everywhere'"
Yeah but so are dentists, and the Obadrone blocked his extradition back to Africa to stand trial for killing Cecil. Seems to me those 3 (thwimpie, bush-dark and palmer) are all a basket of deplorables!


I'm sure you did!

Of course they were wrong; flawed or biased sampling and polling methods will do that. And the incorrect polls were used to influence public opinion - a win win for Team Oligarchy. Face it, most people don't like her or trust her. She is a bad candidate - at least for the people.

Regardless of the corrupt narrative you've decided to accept and promote, with either the undeserving Republican or the undeserving Democratic candidate the animals of the earth (including the human ones) will continue to suffer - they don't deserve that.


That's just baloney. Every poll that showed a tight race was trumpeted till the cows come home. The ones that showed Clinton well ahead generally made the back pages of the papers. Here's just one example of one of the close polls getting the hype:


Close elections get clicks and sell papers. Just look at how the LA Times covered their poll, which actually showed a 10-point likely voter lead for Clinton just before the election:


To get the close election story, rather than report the poll based on likely voters, as is standard accepted practice, LATimes used a specious metric of voters eligible to participate in the primary. That's not usually done for a reason.

It would have been nice if Bernie won, but he just didn't have enough voters turn out. As I noted above, that was definitely true with what I saw in my life.


While some polls showed her lead narrowing, they always claimed she was ahead - some consistently saying by double digits. Almost all of news outlets prefaced the poll results by saying even if the polls were close it didn't matter because she would still win. Then, of course, there was the AP announcement, that all major media outlets picked up, indicating she was the nominee before the CA polls even opened. The media consistently mentioned that she had already turned her attention to Trump instead of Bernie by that point and even before the NY primary. The media were biased in their reporting to influence voters, that cannot be legitimately denied, and it has contributed to making a mockery of our political and voting systems. The overall number of people that vote in this country is dismal - maybe partly due to the lack of influence they feel they have given the propaganda and twisted information they get from much of the media as well as the fact the many of the politicians cater to the moneyed interests that pay for them.



Still, the wildlife and the environment therefore, we, won't win with Clinton or Trump.

Have a good weekend.


This is silly. Bernie was close but behind in most poles. That's just the reality. What I lived through, was preference in the media for the close horse race polls over the ones that showed the race decidedly in Hillary's favor. I linked to that LATimes article as a specific example of a major story where the Times twisted its own poll findings to make the race closer than it seemed.


This is revolting behavior by two rich kids.
Shame on them and the person who subsidized this gratuitous violence.


You're really not getting much if that's all you got out of this article.