Holes in Clinton's climate plan: no stand on Keystone, fracking, oil exports & Arctic ocean drilling

So far, O'Malley has by far the best plan, Hillary second, Sanders third simply because I can't find his comprehensive plan. Does someone have a link so I can judge the three fairly?

Anyone can say a plan. Politicians say anything to get elected.

What past accomplishments does Sanders have in this area. From your words it is clear you agree he doesn't have a comprehensive plan and that past actions are better then having said comprehensive plan. So, where are his accomplishments that have addressed climate change in a comprehensive manner.

"I think their past actions would be a better predictor of future actions."

"Politicians say anything to get elected."

You mean like releasing legislation to regulate parts of Wall Street as one puts their hat in the ring for the Presidency?

When your main goal is the misery and opposition to the fun of others, not political discourse, you might want to think about going a different track.

"I'm deleting this because Clinton defenders are having too much fun with it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=419496

Easier than coming up with an accomplishment. When the question is asked, I often find the answer to be some form of deflection as is being done here.

when you do present facts and evidence?

I mean all of the time. I have done nothing to derail. I asked for accomplishments. You have a clear record of thrashing Hillary and O'Malley, while never backing anything up with respect to Sanders. I posed some basic questions above. Questions that are one hundred percent relevant to your op. Where have I delivered a personal assault? Never mind, please don't get side-tracked. You posted an op that went negative on Clintons climate plan. You do so in support of Sanders, not out of concern for Clinton. Please link to Sanders comprehensive climate plan. Please link to his comprehensive accomplishments on climate reform. That is not derailing, though I think I Know why you might want to make that claim.

Do your own research.

I'm not your personal assistant.

I do my own research. The research I have done is what brought me to understand how this conversation would go. I don't think, I know Hillary supports fracking, Keystone XL, not sure about Artic drilling but it wouldn't surprise me. What you don't know is the record of that which you claim to support. You deflect any time it is mentioned. The hide I received that you posted up thread was born out of your trashing two democrats at every turn. Now I simply asked about your guys plan, and you deflect deflect deflect. It is why my hidden comment is spot on.

I think the "cheese" in this persons sandwich is "limburger" cheese, and it's getting really old and smelly.

Same old attacks with no actual response to questions that are asked.

Like some sort of agenda...

Alberta tar sands before and after shot:

"Seems to be some sort of attack agenda."

And once again, you deflect. It is becoming extremely transparent.

internet.

a campaign against one candidate is justice?

Then yes.

If it's true, it's true. If something is false you could always point that out. If you want.

they were not accurate before and after pictures.

While I don't doubt the after pictures are nasty horrid, accuracy becomes quite important when the article is trying to prove a point.

Go ahead and watch a presentation by the guy who took the "after" picture

You should be supporting O'Malley: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251478832

Unless of course supporting someone really isn't the point.

BTW, when did Hillary spill all that oil? Was that before, after, or during Benghazi? Maybe that's where she dispatched the marine helicopters, huh?

She is running with a platform. Yes, well we have an interested party.

Planet earth is asking about her most pressing issues

from the league of conservation voters. He is also spoken out very strongly against Keystone XL and fracking

full lcv scorecard here

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/bernie-sanders

hope that helps

edit: talking about sanders

He didn't just talk about environmental/climate issues. He did it. From putting so much red tape around fracking that there was a de facto fracking moratorium while he was governor, to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, to pushing through the largest offshore wind farm on the East Coast. O'Malley delivered on progressive environmental/climate issues.

As governor of Maryland he controlled a vote on the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

He routinely used his vote on the SRBC to approve fracking operations in Pennsylvania.

He may have blocked it in Maryland where it was politically easier.

But he also rubber stamped industry operations in Pennsylvania where that was politically easier.

when billions of solar panels are implemented. At least her plan would have those displaced employees moving onot another industry.

What is Bernies plan for these industries and the employees.

I think we know where Clinton stands on Keystone, offshore drilling, and fracking. The Clintons have always been a friend to big oil and big money. She's never met a wealthy donor she didn't like.

People were out protesting it in the streets from New York to DC to Nebraska to Oklahoma and Texas, and in Canada. People putting their bodies on their lines to block it. So people want to know of Sec. Clinton Which side is she on?

She sold fracking internationally. Obama was a natural gas booster, he brought fracking to America. If Hillary is going to be Obama Part II, I expect more of the same.

Clinton on carbon tax:

On anything.

Since she is 40 points ahead of Sanders in the polling average. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

She has already voted against drilling in ANWR. In fact, she was co-sponsor of that amendment. What environmental legislation has Bernie succeeded in getting passed?


http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/30/environment#.VbfIeflViko

No response.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/06/02/cnn-poll-hillary-clinton-lead-dnt-zeleny.cnn

Let me guess CNN is part of the NY Times / Dave Sirota / liberal media conspiracy...?

...and they they call her verasity into question?

according to the majority of polls, though Bernie does poll better among Republicans.

I have seen him (and Hillary) doing well with self-described conservative Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire.

It doesn't mean they trust them. Which explains her high negatives.

but among Democrats her favorables are higher than Sanders. Sanders negatives are higher among Democrats than the general population.

We laid enough pipeline to reach the moon or something.

Bless your heart

Opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time since the Revolution
A nuclear treaty with Iran instead of refusing to have dialog
The only national healthcare bill to be passed in the history of this country, something presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have wanted done.
Wide-scale pardons of non-violent drug offenders and proposals to reform sentencing. Actual legislation passed that lessened disparity between sentencing for crack and other drugs.
Vigorous protection of voting rights
Extension of Title IX to cover rape victims, establishing rape as a civil rights issue
The Lilly Ledbetter Act for equal pay for equal work
A come back from economic meltdown and dramatic improvement in hiring and unemployment to pre-crisis levels.
And many other successes.

You have had far more than "smooth talking." What you have not had is the restoration of the white upper-middle and middle class back to what it sees as its rightful place atop the capitalist world order.

General Electric, Citibank, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs as they permanently destroy our drinking water, air, and food supply, and as we simultaneously cut education, nutrition programs, and don't lift a goddammed finger to implement a decent child care system.

Notice that none of those very important accomplishments erroded the President's billionaire friends' profits. Meanwhile he gives the nod to drill baby drill, even though it is clear that they are just as unprepared to prevent an oil disaster as they were before the Gulf disaster.

And keeping with his rock solid theme of shoveling taxpayer money into his Wall Street friends' pockets, all of the bank bailout money went to the banks and none of it went to the under water mortgage holders or the small businesses that were supposedly the hardest hit by the tight credit markets.

The bailout was a grand finale ruse by the Bush administration to loot the treasury one more time before the Democrats got a hold of the purse strings, and Barack Obama could have imposed some limits on how the money was to be used. But instead they used it for bonuses and to buy other banks, making the problem worse. Meanwhile the underwater homeowners get no help while tens of billions of dollars of bonuses are given to the banksters who caused the mess due to their selfish and irresponsible behavior.

A presidential candidate who will tell you she won't answer a question until she's already president? What the heck?

of course they weren't expecting a primary challenger, hence the alarming flailing

Here are her votes on environment issues

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/30/environment#.VbfIeflViko

What environmental protection legislation has Bernie succeeded in getting passed? I am not aware of any.

That's like coming out in support of Nelson Mandela 20 years after he's been released from prison.

CURRENT ISSUES: Arctic ocean drilling. Coal and oil EXPORTS. Mountaintop blasting. Fracking. Keystone XL. etc.

which is supposed to be enough for black people to fall in line. What record does Bernie have advancing environmental protection? We know that when Clinton was in the Senate, she got shit done. Bernie has not. He's been in congress for close to three decades and doesn't have one piece of environmental legislation to show for his time there. He has a voting record, as Clinton does, but no record of sponsoring successful bills.

Talk is cheap, yet it's enough for you. In fact, you would seem to prefer it to an actual record of successful environmental protection. Naturally preventing drilling in ANWAR can't compare to the two post offices Bernie got named. Now that's a real progressive agenda.

Nice derail attempt though.

matrix of standards of what constitutes an acceptable record and what doesn't. A record of 50 yrs ago is good enough for Bernie on Civil rights. Yet we are supposed to ignore a gun vote from 2004 because that is too long ago. He spoke out against tough on crime politics, but voted for the 1994 crime bills. Still, the changes in policing and prisons is entirely the fault of the First Lady at the time and not a congressman who voted for those bills. I guess that makes the Iraq War Laura Bush's fault instead of Hillary's?

I think the point is clear enough. Sanders good, Clinton bad. Consistency and principle, entirely inconsequential.

Hillary has a strong environmental record, and she has proven success in getting environmental legislation passed. Getting shit done matters. It matters to people who want to see government function.

Tar sands before and after:

We see truth is entirely inconsequential.

You addressed none of my points because you have no logical argument. If you cared even a little bit about the environment you would discuss actual policy and issues, yet you can't do that because the facts are not on your side. Instead, play to emotion. It's all you have.

Her plan sets ambitious standards for solar energy and reducing green house emissions. If you cared at all about the environment, you would recognize that as important. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html?_r=0

The way to get America off fossil fuels is to develop green energy sources. Why should someone who claims to care about the environment object to that?

Of course you prefer no environmental plan than one that focuses on renewable energy. Makes a lot of sense.

yet you keep posting it. Why must you provide falsehoods to bolster your stand?

Here is a slideshow presentation by the guy who took the "after" photo.

There are many photos that are of the same quality as the "before" picture anyways.

I really couldn't care less about the picture. The message of the picture is the important thing. Whether or not two particular images came from the same location doesn't matter when no one disputes the "after" picture and there are many similar photos for the "before" picture.

He took the right side picture. And I don't know for sure about the left hand picture, but there are many photos in his set of similar quality to the left hand photo, so I really don't care.

You're probably just making shit up.

You yourself admitted above that Sanders has no environmental plan. That would seem a huge, gaping chasm, not just holes.

From the same site that you pulled the link from:
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/30/environment#.VbfOJbc0o2g
At least as long a list as Mrs. Clinton's

No sponsorship or co-sponsorship. He votes for things presented to him, which means he has a good voting record as a Senator. That is not the same as active leadership, as working to accomplish environmental protection.

Of course his list is longer. Sanders has been in congress since the 90s. Clinton was there for about 8 years. Yet despite that, she ACHIEVED protection of ANWR. She didn't just vote for it. She got shit done.

Why is it about what YOU feel is a person's leadership skills, and ability to raise money?
Why is it not solely about the issues that face us today.
I am certain that Bernie had co-sponsored environmental bills, heck he co-sponsored all that are at the link: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders?sponsorships=1#.VbfQvLc0o2g
That's not enough for some of you, I guess.
You would rather have a person with no opinion on one of the most important environmental issues that face us, and one who will not stand up to the financial institutions. Not me. I want a candidate who is not taking money from super pacs, one with stunning leadership characteristics (my opinion, which I am entitled to) and one who does not attack opponents.

against Clinton. You mean why am I defending?

None of those are environmental.

Did any of his sponsored bills pass besides the two post offices being named?

It is simply false that she has no opinion. She has an environmental plan. Bernie has put forward no environmental plan. How does that mean she doesn't have an opinion?

No candidate takes money from Super Pacs. It is in fact illegal. His repeating that claim takes advantage of voters ignorance about campaign finance. Hillary isn't taking money from Super Pacs either. Nor is Jeb or Walker. They can't. It is against campaign finance law. Only one candidate is pretending he is special for obeying the law.




It's easy to promise something no candidate can do anyway.

Bernie does take money from PACs and has throughout his career. One PAC that has supported him for over a decade, whose treasurer is Bernie's his Field Director, was recently fined for violating the already far too meager campaign finance law . http://www.timesargus.com/article/20150704/NEWS03/707049936

I have been told Bernie disavows any PAC activity on his behalf, but if that were true, why would he continue to keep in a high position within the campaign the Treasurer of a long-term PAC for Bernie? And why has he accepted money from that PAC?

Super PACs can't contribute directly to candidates, but they can run ads and campaign on behalf of candidates. That is precisely the purpose of the Super PACs set up around Sanders presidential campaign. Here are just two of them.
1) Bet on Bernie 2016 http://www.pledgesanders2016.com/

2) Billionaires for Bernie. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/

You want someone who tells you what you want to hear. I want someone who talks about what they can get done as president and has a record of accomplishment to show they have the capacity to get things done. The rest of the Democratic electorate will make their own choices.

I don't want to play "I know you are but what am I" games either, but Hillary has put forth a solid, workable environmental plan that lobs the ball in the Republican court.

when someone brings up an issue which one disagrees with?
It's about an issue, it's not personal.
The other day here I saw someone say that people who were for Sanders were "crazy."

without kicking back.

No one is going accept falsehoods and conjecture as if they were truthes, without pointing out the hypocrisy that the bashers are trying to hide.

That's why.

Keystone XL is a harm to our environment. If someone takes no stand, it's as bad as taking a negative stand.
Our environment is one thing we CANNOT lose. There is no Plan(et) B.

On Environmental Issues, Hillary Clinton is a No-Brainer Over Rivals

That proves something

Its just that there are too many vocal Bernie Supporers that never seem to provide them. Instead, they are too busy hootng and hollering about attendances and bashing Hillary.

Perhaps a change in tactics is in order?

Funny that.

I like her and I'll be ecstatic when she's president.

whenever I think of Hillary winning the Nov 2016 election.

Hmmm.... That's pretty much, but not quite exactly what she said this morning when she refused to answer the Keystone XL Pipeline question put to her directly by a voter (presumably a supporter).

First a looooong pause (almost a "deer in the headlights" moment).... followed by a couple of somewhat dodgy excuses about having kinda started the whole project herself as SoS, and not wanting to 2nd guess Obama.... and then finally:

"If it's undecided when I become president, I will answer your question," Clinton said during the New Hampshire town hall.

Phew... no doubt about it, it is sure not easy to stump when you're the presumptive presidential candidate. But I must tell you Hillary, a lot of us would still like you to use the word "if" instead of "when", in such statements.

She's so undecided on so many important issues, yet still so certain about her inauguration.

So so so.

News shows this evening.

Certainly comes off as "weaselish", indeed.