No, she blatantly changes her opinions based on what gets her more votes. Not the same thing.
And letting voters - especially in areas where your voter base is strong - get poisoned is bad for your approval ratings. The GOP dgaf but Clinton would definitely be anti-poisoning. But you’re right in that I wouldn’t expect much action on the investment banking sector (unless it too starts poisoning people).
I used to think that of her, and that’s why I thought she would be a tolerable President. But then I looked at her history more, and no, not really.
The bankruptcy bill? Whatever HillaryCare was? Fracking, fracking everywhere? NAFTA for crying out loud? Hillary follows the money, intimidates Congressmen into following her plan, goes out to try to cajole voters into following her plan, and usually manages to keep herself in power while the Democrat caucuses in Congress and state legislatures seem to wither away…
It’s taking longer than we thought.
Not true.
Not true.
Mind-bogglingly not true.
In pretty much every way, other than perhaps height.
36 senate dems voted for that bankruptcy bill. What is wrong with Hillarycare? I don’t think you actually know her position on fracking.
And the rest of your post is unfocused.
Wow, that’s what you have, huh? Deny, deny, and…deny.
Yep, that’s what you have.
Hillary is pro-fracking. Hillary is a major supporter of fracking around the globe. Hillary is the Grand Vizier of Fracking.
You should probably read thisif you want to intelligently discuss this issue. She wants fracking to continue, but with safeguards. Contrast that with Bernie, who wants no fracking, and who is against nuclear, which would cause an immediate switch to coal.
You said, “Fracking, fracking everywhere” which is not true. I was pointing out that your position is a cartoonish misrepresentation of her position. And nonsense misrepresentations has recently been the department of the Tea Party. The left, of whom I’m the most liberal member ever, shouldn’t be like the Tea Party.
You are asserting drivel. How about your substantiate your claims, as opposed to asking me to prove they’re not true? Isn’t that what debaters do?
How would it cause an “immediate” switch to coal when there is no strong support for nuclear now and the percent of generated power from nuclear has been basically static for 28 years? And considering that Bernie is strongly against coal (and not just coal, but coal is the worst and easiest to avoid – “to hell with fossil fuels” was a famous quote of his). Or are Bernie and all his advisers just that stupid in believing that solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, peak-power gas, and energy conservation are enough to avoid a return to coal?
Don’t misunderstand – I think Bernie is wrong in being opposed to nuclear power. But it’s certainly not a foregone conclusion that his anti-nuclear stance would result in a rise in coal-fired generation.
It would cause an immediate switch to coal because if we banned fracking, something would have to quickly fill the gap, and without nuclear, we don’t have a non-coal option that is ready yet.
Nice to say things. T’would also be nice to say things that are other than nonsense but hey saying things is a start.
Amazingly real world issues often do not fall into nice arbitrary “pro” and “anti” positions … as much as those make nice sound bites.
Real world: fracking and the natural gas it produces is much more environmentally friendly than the sources it typically displaces. In the U.S. that has been coal. Internationally it loosens ever so slightly the stranglehold that Russia has over natural gas supplies in various regions. Being blindly “anti” fracking is simply naive.
Real world is also that it is an industry in need of much greater regulation and oversight. Clinton’s position of supporting it where the locality wants it, when and only when the lack of methane leaks and lack of contamination of water supply can be verified and when the chemicals used are clearly identified and known, her position to further displace the dirtiest sources with true renewable energy as quickly as possible … is perhaps a bit more nuanced than Sanders “No, I do not support fracking” or Jill Stein’s support of a national ban (both of whom are as mentioned also against nuclear power) but in the wash does much more environmental good.
Disagree with that? Fine. But …
Meanwhile if Clinton loses and Trump wins? Why have a Grand Vizier when you can go straight to Grand PooBah.
Between the two who have a chance to win (and Trump is currently assessed to have very non-zero 20% chance of winning) is there a difference in what the environmental difference for the world be or not?
I was mainly referring to the irrelevance of new nuclear power to the claim that for some reason the enactment of Bernie’s policies would lead to “an immediate switch to coal”. But as far as fracking is concerned, I don’t necessarily see a problem there, either. Bernie’s stated goal is “cut U.S. carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power. Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system” which, if it was enacted, would be a massive game-changing clean energy initiative on an unprecedented scale.
IIRC, about a third of power plants currently use natural gas, many of them former coal plants which converted because it’s cheaper. In recent years fracking has produced the majority of the new natural gas wells, but it’s far from clear that supplies would be threatened in the absence of fracking, even if new wells had to be developed by conventional means for an interim period. The hope would be that natural gas power generation would eventually be limited primarily to peak-power needs.
And if, in the hypothetical event of a Bernie presidency, the unintended result was a massive increase in coal-fired power generation, given Bernie’s antipathy to all fossil fuels and especially coal, this would be the mother of all unintended consequences that could only be the result of spectacular incompetence and miscalculation. That’s more the kind of spectacular incompetence that’s in GWB territory, not historically in Bernie’s. I’d have to see actual evidence and not just armchair speculation that Bernie’s clean-energy plan was so badly flawed that it would lead to significant increase in coal use.