2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFYI - "Hillary Dodges Questions on Climate, Keystone and Fracking in Facebook Q&A"
There's a reason she won't SAY NO to fossil fuel company campaign donations...
(IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE)
7/21/15
....Thousands of potential voters took part in the chat, during which Clinton pledged to reduce the debt load for students, prosecute bad actors on Wall Street, expressed solidarity with Black Lives Matter and joked that she never met a pantsuit [she] didnt love.
Clinton, however, did not respond to the environmental questions Facebook users raised and her campaign website offers little information on her environmental positions, with the exception of proclaiming that America must lead the world in developing and deploying new clean energy sources that will power our economy, protect the health of our families and address the global threat of climate change.
Yet, environmentalists are raising concerns over Clintons opaque environmental stance. While serving as Secretary of State in 2010, Clinton stated she was inclined to support the Keystone XL pipeline and in June her campaign hired former TransCanada lobbyist, Jeff Berman as a consultant.
Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesperson for 350.org, told Business Insider last week that Clintons lack of a clear stance on the Keystone XL was indefensible. Its even more indefensible when [Republican presidential candidates] Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have taken a position on it when you, as the Democratic front-runner, have not, he said....
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/21/hillary-facebook-q-and-a/
This really shouldn't be a surprise given the following fact~
Clinton's top campaign financiers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas and the Keystone pipeline.
7/17/15
WASHINGTON -- Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clintons campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry. A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.
Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies.
Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively. They have helped Chevron over the years resist efforts to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks and to impose regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing....
Read much, MUCH more here~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)usually when she dodges questions they're about what the pro quo she got all that quid for, or the location of her husband, or the thinking behind giving away billions in cash and weapons to Middle Eastern groups of dubious provenance and objectives...
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)disconcerting .
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)That's refreshing. And the silence speaks volumes for her.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Questions I thought I would clarify.
London Lover Man
(371 posts)A real and true Democrat recognizes Bernie Sanders as a true and real Democrat, even if he isn't one - he still espouses Democratic values. Your refusal to believe that shows me that you aren't a real or true Democrat.
Only RW trolls would call Bernie independent to show that he's "fringe" - guess what? He's about as mainstream as you get - it's the Establishment that is on the fringe.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)So you are defending her dodging questions by pointing out that Republicans do it too.
OK
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)London Lover Man
(371 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Thats a start.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Got a link?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)Naturally, his supporters here on DU insisted that he'd answered it (which he absolutely hadn't) or that it was an unfair "gotcha" interview (which it absolutely was not).
Sanders is not at all averse to dodging questions. It's just that he dodges them in a way that appeals to his supporters and makes it look like he's "taking no bullshit" and/or reframing the debate.
HappyPlace
(568 posts)Sheesh, not everyone is a sports fan.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)You'll fit in just fine around here!
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Don't get defensive, I'm on your side in this difficult time.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I agree with your sentiment.
How ludicrous to suggest because on one ocassion at one place on the
Internet because some questions were not answered - then obviously they were??
"Logic" is also a word coined before FB and always has meaning.
The whole OP is a field of Strawmen...everyone, come please take a punch, that is what they are constructed for.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)OK, that solidifies my vote even more.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
This is how she tries to make it less republicanish~
Methane leaks in the production and transportation of natural gas are particularly worrisome. So its crucial that we put in place smart regulations and enforce them, including not drilling when the risks are too high. If we approach this challenge responsibly we can build a bridge to a clean energy future.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/three-times-clinton-has-repeated-herself-fracking
Riiiight.
London Lover Man
(371 posts)Why I thought Clinton abused her position.
I thought about that OP when I defined it - she was not for the people, but for the corporations.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)it :
America must lead the world in developing and deploying new clean energy sources that will power our economy, protect the health of our families and address the global threat of climate change.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)As a reporter, I would on occasion joke with our local political veterans. I'd sidle up grinning to one I knew pretty well and and say, "So, you still support family values, plan to work for a stronger economy, and love America?"
And he would grin at me, knowing that I was in on the joke that those platitudes were just that.
Then then he would respond, "You can count on it."
Clinton is not so foolish as to acknowledge the zero sum that her words actually mean, but she knows.
She sold herself years ago.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Sorry JaneyVee, but you lack credibility (reddit? really?), and you have bullied people too much with your robotic responses.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)1-Haven't had a post hidden. 2-"bully people" = provide facts. 3-If anyone gets bullied its Hillary supporters. That's why this place is a Bernie echo chamber, the rest left. 4-please provide links to my "bullying" or delete your bs comment. Talk about credibility.
Thanks in advance.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)We all saw that threatening little repetitive phrase with which you kept haranguing people, ominously reminding them to support Hillary after the primaries.
Oh yes. I know exactly what you were doing.
That sort of behavior does more to harm your candidate than help.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I said "just make sure you vote for the Dem nominee in 2016". Nothing about Hillary.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Care to defend your candidate on the issues in the op or are you just here to fling feces?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Priorities are really messed up sometimes.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)That does it for me, I'm backing Bernie!
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)sadly not surprising. But this is freaking unacceptable given our current situation.
marble falls
(57,204 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The every day, every-issue outrage about the First Lady(D) and Secretary of State(D) is ridiculous, repetitive and of no assistance to Bernie.
If this entire excercise of negative advertising is intended to move Clinton to the left, more power to you, but there are other ways.
If this entire excercise is intended to boost Sanders primary fortunes, it is not - and your candidate has not joined in the excercise, and there has been no counter-excercise - so try another way?
frylock
(34,825 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Bought and paid for.
Why do those five people on DU continue to support her?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)I assume her polling has noticed that. Some of us are convinced that it is the singular most important & frightening issue we as a species have ever had to stare into they eyes of. It is no wonder that some shrink from its gaze. Some are afraid, some are paid and far too many, are both.
mopinko
(70,210 posts)that she got a brazillion questions, right? many of them spiked w venom?
no way she was answering all of them, even just for logistical reasons.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Good to know. Really helps me get an idea of what she'd do if elected.
sonofspy777
(360 posts)No I'm not!
She's totally in bed with Fossil Fuel Corpocracy
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)nor should they tolerate it when they are being asked to make such an important decision.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Wow Yes to Hillary is yes to transcanada. Indefensible.