HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Where does Hillary stand ...

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:12 AM

 

Where does Hillary stand on fracking these days

Anyone know her present policy on Fracking?

95 replies, 4297 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply Where does Hillary stand on fracking these days (Original post)
Pharaoh Jun 2016 OP
tirebiter Jun 2016 #1
bonemachine Jun 2016 #2
still_one Jun 2016 #3
Pharaoh Jun 2016 #5
still_one Jun 2016 #6
athena Jun 2016 #21
Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #53
leftofcool Jun 2016 #58
immoderate Jun 2016 #83
Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #95
athena Jun 2016 #94
bahrbearian Jun 2016 #26
leftofcool Jun 2016 #59
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #60
Pharaoh Jun 2016 #4
still_one Jun 2016 #7
Pharaoh Jun 2016 #8
still_one Jun 2016 #9
NYC Liberal Jun 2016 #10
athena Jun 2016 #23
Sancho Jun 2016 #24
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #35
bonemachine Jun 2016 #43
NYC Liberal Jun 2016 #51
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #50
NYC Liberal Jun 2016 #52
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #56
JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #11
tonyt53 Jun 2016 #48
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #40
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #12
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #17
Sancho Jun 2016 #25
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #31
Sancho Jun 2016 #32
Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #55
Sancho Jun 2016 #57
tonyt53 Jun 2016 #76
George II Jun 2016 #29
bahrbearian Jun 2016 #30
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #39
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #13
leftofcool Jun 2016 #15
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #18
leftofcool Jun 2016 #19
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #20
auntpurl Jun 2016 #36
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #38
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #89
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #37
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #44
auntpurl Jun 2016 #47
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #61
leftofcool Jun 2016 #64
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #73
auntpurl Jun 2016 #75
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #78
auntpurl Jun 2016 #80
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #54
leftofcool Jun 2016 #66
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #72
Armstead Jun 2016 #62
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #67
Armstead Jun 2016 #69
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #70
Armstead Jun 2016 #71
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #77
auntpurl Jun 2016 #79
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #84
auntpurl Jun 2016 #85
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #86
auntpurl Jun 2016 #87
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #88
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #91
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #92
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #93
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #41
George II Jun 2016 #28
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #46
HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #90
bigwillq Jun 2016 #14
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #34
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #42
MyNameGoesHere Jun 2016 #22
George II Jun 2016 #27
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #33
LanternWaste Jun 2016 #45
auntpurl Jun 2016 #49
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #63
auntpurl Jun 2016 #74
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #81
auntpurl Jun 2016 #82
Armstead Jun 2016 #65
MineralMan Jun 2016 #68

Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:24 AM

1. I'd hope it mirrors Jerry Brown's approach

Here and there but not everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:31 AM

2. I do believe that she was for it before she was against it

But where she really stands, well we'll have to elect her to find out.

(This is also the answer for her stance on the TPP, in case you were thinking about creating a parallel thread)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:40 AM

3. Here is her position on fracking

She doesn't support it when a locality or state is against it.

She doesn't support it when contamination of water is present

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:46 AM

5. what if contamination of water is always present

 

does this qualify?

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/faq/fracking-fluid




So then she should probably want to support banning fracking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:49 AM

6. I am simply presenting her answer on fracking during the debates in March

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:48 AM

21. You're finally starting to understand how Hillary works.

At least, I think you might, if you actually think about what the post you responded to stated, and what you stated.

Hillary does not make sweeping statements that the media, and the right-wing noise machine, will use against her. She makes carefully-worded, thoughtful statements that are crystal clear to those of us who bother to parse them. When you actually think about the meaning of what she actually said (as opposed to what people who hate her say she said), you realize that she's a solid progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:52 AM

53. I guess then it depends what fracking means!

 

Clinton supported fracking and promoted it as Secretary of State to other countries. So fracking must be a good thing. I don't like to have to parse a candidates words to figure out where they stand.

We will all know where she stands when Hillary is elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:12 AM

58. Yes, to other countries that have no access to oil or can't afford it.

They too need to heat their homes and cook food for their children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:07 AM

83. Especially if they have no access to solar and wind.

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 12:40 AM

95. And poison the water supply so they become less of a burden on society.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:47 PM

94. The problems with fracking were not known until recently.

When Clinton supported fracking, it was believed to be a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It was not known that methane, a worse gas, escapes from the earth during fracking.

Would you be happier with a politician who did not change her opinion as new facts came to light?

Reference:
https://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/

 To the extent our leaders have cared about climate change, they’ve fixed on CO2. Partly as a result, coal-fired power plants have begun to close across the country. They’ve been replaced mostly with ones that burn natural gas, which is primarily composed of methane. Because burning natural gas releases significantly less carbon dioxide than burning coal, CO2 emissions have begun to trend slowly downward, allowing politicians to take a bow. But this new Harvard data, which comes on the heels of other aerial surveys showing big methane leakage, suggests that our new natural-gas infrastructure has been bleeding methane into the atmosphere in record quantities. And molecule for molecule, this unburned methane is much, much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

The EPA insisted this wasn’t happening, that methane was on the decline just like CO2. But it turns out, as some scientists have been insisting for years, the EPA was wrong. Really wrong. This error is the rough equivalent of the New York Stock Exchange announcing tomorrow that the Dow Jones isn’t really at 17,000: Its computer program has been making a mistake, and your index fund actually stands at 11,000.

These leaks are big enough to wipe out a large share of the gains from the Obama administration’s work on climate change—all those closed coal mines and fuel-efficient cars. In fact, it’s even possible that America’s contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years. The methane story is utterly at odds with what we’ve been telling ourselves, not to mention what we’ve been telling the rest of the planet. It undercuts the promises we made at the climate talks in Paris. It’s a disaster—and one that seems set to spread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:22 AM

26. Have we figured out the definition of "is" yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:13 AM

59. Just stop the subtle smears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:16 AM

60. May I please ask how your post fulfills the mission Skinner has established for our board?

May I please ask how your post fulfills the mission Skinner has established for our board?


"We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now. Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party."-

- Skinner



Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:40 AM

4. Perhaps some reporter might ask that question

 

As it would help some people to make an informed voting decision..

Unless someone here can steer me to the right links about where she stands on important issues,

like

the keystone

tpp

fracking

minimum wage

cutting or expanded social security?

expanding solar and wind

fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

Can anyone help me understand where her policy's at the moment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:51 AM

7. Here is Hillary on the issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Here is an excerpt regarding social security:

Raising retirement age off the table; laborers need it at 65. (Feb 2016)
Expand Social Security for most vulnerable first. (Feb 2016)
Enhance benefits for poorest recipients. (Oct 2015)
Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase. (Aug 2014)
No lifting cap on payroll tax; that taxes middle class. (Apr 2008)
Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: No, teachers & police won’t pay if cap over $102K. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, removing $97,500 cap affects middle-class. (Nov 2007)
Have a bipartisan commission on Social Security and its tax. (Oct 2007)
1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security. (Oct 2007)
$1000 matching tax credit for first $1000 in 401(k) deposit. (Oct 2007)
Solvent until 2055 under Bill Clinton; now has lost 14 years. (Sep 2007)
Nothing else on table until fiscal responsibility returns. (Sep 2007)
Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy. (Oct 2006)
Social Security protects families, not just retirees. (Feb 1999)
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency. (Feb 1999)
Respect unique power of government to meet social needs. (Sep 1996)
Elderly poor are hit hardest by delays in COLA increases. (Jun 1994)
Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:11 AM

8. so will she raise the cap?

 

that's one of those things that will help

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:20 AM

9. Raising the cap or better yet removing the cap is a solution. It will definitely require Congress

though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:46 AM

10. Here you go:

Fracking
She opposes fracking in states and communities that don't want it, and she supports New York's ban on fracking.


Keystone Pipeline
I oppose it because I don't think it's in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change.


Minimum wage
She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for 15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15.



Fixing our crumbling infrastructure
• Boost federal infrastructure investment by $275 billion over the next five years. Under Hillary’s plan, $250 billion would go directly to public infrastructure investment.

• Create a $25 billion national infrastructure bank. Hillary will allocate an additional $25 billion over five years to create an independent, government-owned infrastructure bank that will support critical infrastructure improvements. The bank will provide loans and other federal support for investments in energy, water, broadband, transportation, and multi-modal infrastructure projects.

• Reauthorize a Build America Bonds program to help finance the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. Hillary would re-authorize President Obama’s highly successful Build America Bonds (BABs) program to stimulate billions of additional dollars in infrastructure investments.

• Fix and expand our roads and bridges, reducing congestion and cutting the “pothole tax.” Hillary will make smart, targeted investments to repair America’s roads and bridges, increase capacity, improve road quality, and reduce congestion—saving wasted time and money for drivers across the country. Clinton will also make key transportation investments to help farmers and manufacturers reach their customers and suppliers more efficiently.

• Expand public transit options to lower transportation costs and unlock economic opportunity. Hillary will increase investments in public transit to connect Americans to jobs, spur economic growth, and improve quality of life in our communities. She will also encourage local governments to work with low-income communities to ensure the unemployed and underemployed are connected to the jobs they need.

• Connect all Americans to the digital economy with 21st-century internet access. Hillary believes that high-speed internet access is not a luxury; it is a necessity for equal opportunity and social mobility in a 21st-century economy. She will finish the job of connecting America’s households to the internet with a commitment that by 2020, 100 percent of households in America will have access to affordable broadband. She will also invest new resources in bringing free Wi-Fi to public buildings and public transportation.

• Accelerate aviation technology and invest in American airports. Hillary will invest in building world-class American airports and get the Federal Aviation Administration's “NextGen” program back on track to modernize our national airspace system. These changes will reduce carbon emissions and save travelers and airlines an estimated $100 billion in avoided delays over the next 15 years.

• Build a faster, safer, and higher-capacity passenger rail system. Hillary will invest in a world-leading passenger rail system to meet rapidly growing demand and build a more mobile America.

• Build energy infrastructure for the 21st century. Hillary’s plan will unlock America’s clean energy potential by modernizing infrastructure like dams, levees, and wastewater systems—saving billions of gallons in clean drinking water and generating clean energy.


Expanding solar and wind
• Expand the amount of installed solar capacity to 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020, a 700% increase from current levels. That is the equivalent of having rooftop solar systems on over 25 million homes.

• Add more power generation capacity to the grid than during any decade in American history, from a combination of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other forms of renewable electricity.


Expand Social Security
• Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.

• Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

• Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.

• Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:55 AM

23. Great post!

Thanks for all these references. I hope the OP reads it, since there is a ton of information there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:16 AM

24. Thanks for the response...

I cannot remember any candidate for President who has been more thoughtful and detailed about policy.

There's lots of bashing and misinformation. Hillary sometimes gives accurate responses that don't "satisfy" critics. For example, she was clear that trade agreements might sometimes require controls on monetary manipulation even though other parts of the trade agreements were ok.

That's the same with fracking. As long as the fracking technology can be done without polluting the environment, then natural gas would be a transition source away from coal and towards alternative sources. What's hard to understand about it? Some people seem to think we should such down all fossil fuels tomorrow and buy a horse - and that's unlikely to happen. In reality, there has to be a transition to new sources of energy.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:58 AM

35. Thank you for linking.

I hope the seminal poster finds it helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:31 AM

43. I'm a little confused by this entry:


Expand Social Security
• Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.

• Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

• Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.

• Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.


Opposing Republican attempts to shrink SS is not the same as expanding SS. Does she have any plans for positive action on this issue, or are we to expect that the best possible hope is the status quo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:49 AM

51. Yes she does.

Social Security and Medicare

Expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system—including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today. For instance:

• The poverty rate for widowed women 65 or older is nearly 90 percent higher than for other seniors—in part because when a spouse dies, families can face a steep benefit cut. For a two-earner couple, those benefit cuts can be as much as 50 percent. Hillary believes that we have to change that by reducing how much Social Security benefits drop when a spouse dies, so that the loss of a spouse doesn’t mean financial hardship or falling into poverty.

• Millions of women—and men—take time out of the paid workforce to raise a child, take care of an aging parent or look after an ailing family member. Caregiving is hard work that benefits our entire economy. However, when Americans take time off to take care of a relative, that can reduce their Social Security benefits at retirement, since those benefits are calculated based on their top thirty-five years of earnings. No one should face meager Social Security checks because they took on the vital role of caregiver for part of their career. Americans should receive credit toward their Social Security benefits when they are out of the paid workforce because they are acting as caregivers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:47 AM

50. all these SOUND wonderful. time will tell

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:51 AM

52. Always keep the pressure on and hold people to their promises.

I'm all for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:07 AM

56. in politics, I am highly suspicious

 

my friend is an alcoholic. Her brother is a junkie. All politicians I cast in the same light as far as trust and believing their promises.

Obama, against all odds fulfilled most of his promises, so it is possible for trust to be earned

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:50 AM

11. An informed voting decision?

As in some may want to vote for Trump because he opposes fracking? That's ridiculous!

How can there be a moment of ponder over which candidate would be best for the environment? Certainly the Libertarian isn't going to let the govt get in the way of mining so that leaves Clinton as the clear choice.

If someone casts their vote on this one issue alone, I'd think they need to see the big picture anyway to make what you call "an informed decision".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:45 AM

48. She has stated her policies on these.

 

Keystone - against, and not for the reasons you might think. Keystone XL is owned by TransCanada, which is a wholly foreign-owned corporation. The reason the Sate Dept. was originally involved is because the approval would have allowed a foreign company to take the land owned by American citizens by imminent domain. The State Dept. does not regulate environmental issues, so she never addressed Keystone as an environmental issue while SoS.

TPP - unlike many other, she waited until she read what was involved before deciding. Far too many jumped on both sides before the actual agreement was presented. once she saw the details, she came out against it.

Fracking - she is against fracking in locations where there are geological formations that have a higher degree of instability, which is a common sense approach. Fracking is not always a problem.

Minimum wage - increase it, but based upon the average cost of living of a state, with $12 per hour minimum at the least.

Social security - she has said that social security must be maintained and with an increase in benefits with no increase in full retirement age.

Solar and wind - she has said over and over that she supports these and has even stated that she wants to put the coal mining industry out of business. As a note, solar and wind are not a fix-all by any means and cannot be supported in many areas of the US.

Infrastructure - she has said many times that this has to be a priority.

NONE of these issues have had a shift in her policies. She has been consistent, but practical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonemachine (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:19 AM

40. no, TPP is her child, I will reserve my trust on that topic

 

perhaps she learned in those town halls- we will see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:21 AM

12. you think she would change her positions? Has she?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:08 AM

17. Yes she has changed her positions

 

It is a fact. At least on other issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:21 AM

25. Over the last decade or two, any thinking human has "changed positions".

Hillary has been appropriately reactive to new information and changing times - and always reflected progressive values.

That's what I expect of thoughtful leaders.

No one had a position on fracking in the 60s or 70s - because there was no fracking. Even now, the technology for all energy production - fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. change fairly rapidly. There is no "position" that won't change except that people and the environment should be protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:37 AM

31. I think she changes to often on core

 

Values in my opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:45 AM

32. To me..if anything she is cautious because of experience.

For the most part, Hillary delays giving pat answers until the facts appear. That was certainly true of CAFTA and TPP. She ultimately voted against CAFTA. Under enormous pressure to take a quick position, Hillary delayed on TPP until enough details were public that she could say it had some elements that she did not agree with...

I would prefer Presidents who gather appropriate information before spouting populist positions. Of course, Obama has also been criticized for being too "thoughtful".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:03 AM

55. I am sorry but Hillary called the TPP the gold standard!

 

That is a fact!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:08 AM

57. Be careful with the details...

she called the original process to include lots of nations a Gold Standard. She also clearly said she would have to see the final agreement before supporting it. She also declined to endorse the TPP because of parts of it.

Clearly, there are reasons that the TPP would be good for US workers and the US economy in some ways. Other parts are suspect - which is why the TPP has mixed support.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:00 AM

76. Bingo!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:26 AM

29. I don't know of anyone who hasn't changed position on issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:28 AM

30. Only when she has to say she made a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:16 AM

39. but she was so adamant before, even lobbied for fracking

 

maybe. I use to hate peanuts, now I cant get enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:23 AM

13. shots across the bow...

 

The platform and convention are going to be pretty exciting to watch, I've bolded the pertinent comments


'Eventually, the platform committee deleted an advisory group’s proposal for a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques in new oil and natural gas plays in shale fields.'

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/platform-texas-democrats-feel-strongly-on-potties-pot-but-are-conflicted-about-fracking.html/


then there's this...

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283826-fracking-fight-looms-for-democrats

'Fracking and the environment are set to be one of the most contentious battlegrounds for allies of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as they seek to craft the Democratic Party’s platform for 2016.

Members of the platform committee will meet on Friday in Phoenix to hear testimony from several environmental organizations and activists.

Clinton and Sanders clashed bitterly over hydraulic fracturing and fossil fuel production during the campaign, and both have appointed officials to the platform committee who share their views. With Clinton now the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president, the Sanders camp is determined to win as many concessions in the platform is possible.
“I think it could be a tension point, but I think it’s a good tension point,” said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, who will testify before the committee this week.

“Fracking is going to be one of those areas where there’s going to be a robust conversation. … It’s a complex issue. But I think having that discussed in an open and robust manner is good.”

Sanders appointed Bill McKibben, a strident climate change activist and author who co-founded the advocacy group 350.org, to the platform committee.'


'“The Democratic Party has kind of an equally urgent task. With its acceptance of the climate science it has to actually then have policies that live up to the crisis we’re in,” he said.

A Democratic platform that is not robust in aggressively addressing climate change ends up being, itself, climate denialism.”'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:03 AM

15. The Party Platform is like Miss Congeniality. it will get written, looked at, then tucked away

Hillary will ultimately determine the platform she wants to run on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:09 AM

18. or not...

 

convention will be a blast to watch this cycle... I expect a great many surprises to occur

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:28 AM

19. I expect it to be similar to 2008 although I think Obama will announce for Hillary

Either Obama or maybe Jim Clyburn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:36 AM

20. sure.. because there's ZERO similarity between '08 and this cycle...

 

both 'red' and 'blue' jerseys are experiencing an establishment 'backlash', both party's conventions will be something to watch

establishment folks desperately wish for another '08...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:59 AM

36. May I ask, in what way is your post in the spirit of helping Hillary win? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #36)


Response to auntpurl (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:38 PM

89. Because we are DEMs first... party principles matter to me

 

I'm following the TOS, if you feel I'm not meeting that criteria then please give specifics

DEM party principles matter, do they not matter to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:03 AM

37. May I please ask how your post fulfills the mission Skinner has established for our board?

May I please ask how your post fulfills the mission Skinner has established for our board?


"We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now. Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party."-

- Skinner



Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:35 AM

44. discussing policy is not negative. Trump will bring it up

 

Yes, we must support all democratic contestants. That means verbal intercourse with the voters who will bring up the history of said candidates. We must have the answers. If Clinton proves she has made changes, that is our defense. Everyone has burdens to bear- usually derived from past mistakes.

Trump is a master of trouncing on his competition(have you not noticed) so it behooves us to go in with a counterpunch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:44 AM

47. The post DSB was replying to was about the convention, not policy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:20 AM

61. the convention determines the platform, and it will be especially

 

contentious this cycle. The root of the platform is policies of the candidate. The
platform will likely be argued referring to the nominee's past policies. This will bring stark contrast between Progressives and 3rd wayers. This portion of the convention will be exciting to watch, the rest will be rather boring.

I do not see an exciting keynote speaker offered, but we did not see Obama coming either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:23 AM

64. Hillary will determine the platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:47 AM

73. no, the DNC determines the platform

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:58 AM

75. What do you mean by "3rd Wayers"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:04 AM

78. google it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:05 AM

80. I am asking you, what do YOU, specifically, mean by 3rd wayers? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:57 AM

54. There is nothing about policy in the post being replied to.

You might want to read it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:23 AM

66. Trump is not a master of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:45 AM

72. he is a master at seeding doubt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:21 AM

62. So any mention of issues is verboten now?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:27 AM

67. Can you please explain to me...

Can you please explain to me how hoping for a divisive convention:

"sure.. because there's ZERO similarity between '08 and this cycle...

both 'red' and 'blue' jerseys are experiencing an establishment 'backlash', both party's conventions will be something to watch

establishment folks desperately wish for another '08..."



infuses our august board with the esprit de corps Skinner called for:




We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now. Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party."-



Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:33 AM

69. I don't think the issues that caused a significant share of people to vote for Bernie.....

 

.......should just be expected to magically disappear -- because they are not going to magically disappear in real life.

I'm all for discussing them in a civil manner which the post you replied to might not be.

But we can't pretend that suddenly the Democratic Party is just One Big Happy Family with no differences within it. Or different ideas on what should be priorities and policies on issues.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:38 AM

70. We should discuss the issues.

However I fail to see how hoping for a divisive convention, as our friend seems to hope for, unites us for our battle with Donald Trump and the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:41 AM

71. Trump is such a nightmare he is defeating himself

 

And the GOP convention is also likely to be a horrorshow.

IMO a little rock and roll at the convention would not be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:02 AM

77. hoping isnt a part of this. There is no doubt both conventions have an insurgency

 

component to them.

The General is war, and each convention is where leaders determine strategy and a platform to win that war, so all voices are given equal time. Our convention is half for and half against the nominee, so of course it will be hot tempered at times. Usually the convention ends with unity, rah-ruh we are all for the nominee. This cycle, the rifts within each party may not be healed

This tuning in to both conventions will be at record levels. People dont watch conventions to see a love-fest, they seek to see fights and bloodletting.That is the political process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:04 AM

79. It really isn't.

The 2008 convention was a wonderful example of party unity that left everyone feeling good about being a Democrat.

And I find your implied wish for a contentious mess of a convention wholly against the spirit of the stated intentions of this board - supporting our nominee Hillary and electing Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:19 AM

84. all conventions start out as a contentious mess, no reason to get huffy

 

implied wish is your interpretation, not what I said. I think you need to stop reading implication into posts. The fact our party is split is not an implication, it is a fact. The convention is the vehicle to find common ground and unity. How swiftly one forgets the nastiness of past conventions.

I wont watch the Democratic convention because I am already a democrat. I will watch the Republican convention in hopes they internally combust, self destruct and dissolve away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:22 AM

85. That is not true.

The convention in 2008 was never a contentious mess, because Hillary conceded beforehand and it was clear she would stop the vote and endorse Obama. Which is exactly what she did.

I wonder what pleasure or entertainment you find in DU at this point. Why are you here, if you don't mind me asking? In this thread, your posts have been filled with contention and sowing the seeds of discord. Perhaps you are not like that at all as a person, but that is certainly the impression you are giving. Maybe I've got it wrong. Your thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:26 AM

86. you've got it wrong

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #86)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:26 AM

87. Ok. Great talking to you! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:36 PM

88. Because we are DEMs first... party principles matter to me

 

that's the mission, '"We are Democrats"..."Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party"

so that's why I post

if you feel my posts / replies don't fit that mission as Skinner has framed in TOS then point out specifically where I don't meet that criteria

Thank you in advance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #88)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:49 PM

91. Sir or madame , this is what you wrote

Sir or madame , this is what you wrote:

sure.. because there's ZERO similarity between '08 and this cycle...

both 'red' and 'blue' jerseys are experiencing an establishment 'backlash', both party's conventions will be something to watch

establishment folks desperately wish for another '08...

-Humanity Experiment




Can you please tell me how hoping for a divisive and contentious convention fulfills the mission of our august board as one of the administrators has so clearly noted:




"We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now. Our opponents are Donald Trump and the Republican Party."-

-Skinner




Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:52 PM

92. ...again, party principles matter more to me...

 

where did I ever 'hoping for divisive and contentious'?

there is a gigantic push from grassroots to reform the parties from within, both 'red and blue' are experiencing that

ignore the facts at your own peril

so I ask again, where am I not 'fulfilling the mission'

thank you in advance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #92)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:54 PM

93. I am glad you have come to my way of thinking that we need a united convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:22 AM

41. Both, yes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:25 AM

28. I was involved in writing the platform for the CT State Convention in 2010....

....I went to five meetings around the state, spent about 10+ hours on it. At the Convention there was an agenda item to pass the platform, it passed on a voice vote, and that was the last of it.

It is virtually meaningless, unless it has something damning that the republicans can use during the campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:43 AM

46. “A Democratic platform that is not robust in aggressively addressing climate change ends up being,

itself, climate denialism.”

That's a ridiculous assertion. It's also a contradiction. Platform /= policy.

The platform doesn't matter. Policy matters. He's also apparently not aware of what's in the platform now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:41 PM

90. ...perception...

 

you have yours and I have mine, I posted a link I felt pertinent

party platform matters to me, I feel it's going to be a HUGE issue at convention

feel free to debate the facts

BTW, the platform should be specific policy based, that way ANYONE can follow it and know that the DEM party and it's politicians should be fighting for... specifically

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 06:36 AM

14. Don't know

 



I think it changed again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:06 AM

16. Not sure

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:54 AM

34. I hope this is helpful.

I hope this is helpful:


http://bfy.tw/6NGa


Please let me know.


Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:26 AM

42. wow! thank you, A true lesson in "look it up" answering

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:54 AM

22. Ok I can help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:22 AM

27. You can check her campaign website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:51 AM

33. In the spirit of comity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:42 AM

45. "I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place..."

"I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."

(April 2016)


Doubtless, the nuance will be ignored in favor of narrative. This info is so easily available (her platform website, the Democratic platform website, eco-websites, etc) I'm convinced most of these types of question make up for in agenda what they lack ion sincerity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:45 AM

49. "I'm convinced most of these types of question make up for in agenda what they lack ion sincerity."

Well, quite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:21 AM

63. probably

 

that could be cured if Clinton discusses each question sincerely with minute detail. Where she stands on real issues determines who she can win over. Primaries are a show, the general requires serious replys backed up with action.

The gun issue is a dead issue. The NRA has to be approached with taxation, not filibusters. It also kills votes from fencesitters. That use to be a tiny block of people, but this year, the fencesitters are dis-enchanted folk who feel there is no choice and they are the majority of citizens. She has to appeal to them in some way.

Most voters tend to be single issue voters. Women issues and guns are not as vital as inequality, corporate theft and subsidies that are no longer needed, minimum wage today-not years from now. She has to appear genuine and trustworthy. Schoolyard taunts at Trump does not address the needs of the people. Yes, counterstrike once. He likes making people defensive. There is a lack of enthusiasm because there is a lack of addressing real problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:56 AM

74. Not as vital

Quote from your post: "Women issues and guns are not as vital as inequality, corporate theft and subsidies that are no longer needed, minimum wage today-not years from now."

In that one of Hillary's biggest issues that she ran on is, as you call it, "women issues" (and children's issues), and Hillary beat Senator Sanders (who championed the theme of economic issues that you mention) by over 3 million votes, how do you figure they are "not as vital"? It seems to me most Democratic voters have determined that the issues Hillary has championed are the ones that are most important to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #74)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:06 AM

81. you just confirmed my point, thank you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to swhisper1 (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:07 AM

82. You're...welcome?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:23 AM

65. How about "any" instead of "many"

 

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pharaoh (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:31 AM

68. Any time you have questions on Hillary Clinton's positions on

major issues, you'll find the answers at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

There, you'll find her stated positions on most issues. I've found it a useful enough link that I have bookmarked it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread