When you accuse everyone of being a republican who finds fault in some democrats and wants to address our own house first. All you do is disrupt. It's a common tactic and even I would guess it's probably not from normal Clinton supporters. Perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)

33. No questio abt ur credentials

Reply to billhicks76 (Reply #11)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:43 PM

May 2016

anybody that supports attacks on the presumptive Democratic Nominee in an election year, is not a Democrat by any metric.......

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)

34. So Thin Skinned and Insulting

Reply to billhicks76 (Reply #11)

Sun May 29, 2016, 05:11 PM

May 2016

To be both is not a good look. Like I said during all your NSA and War defending threads...questioning you is a good thing.

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)

17. Take a hike

Reply to Cryptoad (Reply #5)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:33 PM

May 2016

liberal N proud

(60,338 posts)

6. Hillary is fracking now?

Reply to Gregorian (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:21 PM

May 2016

Response to liberal N proud (Reply #6)

silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.

liberal N proud

(60,338 posts)

10. Getting a head start transferring the blame from President Obama to President Clinton?

Reply to silvershadow (Reply #7)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:46 PM

May 2016

Let's start a list of everything you want to blame her for.

Just like the last 8 years.

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)

13. Corporate Is Corporate

Reply to liberal N proud (Reply #10)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:54 PM

May 2016

All it cares about is profits no matter a D or R next to someone's name. That's just the way it is. I've seen many a small cottage industry get taken over by corporate and there are plenty of democrats and republicans among the ranks. The picture here is bigger than that. People are realizing we have a way bigger problem than regular party divisions. Too many people here calling themselves liberal, democrat or left-leaning are stuck on the ground floor and missing the complete transformation of our democracy into an oligarchy. Either get with it or be prepared to be steamrolled by the Right and ignored by Progressives.

silvershadow

(10,336 posts)

14. President Obama isn't running, so no. nt

Reply to liberal N proud (Reply #10)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:57 PM

May 2016

polly7

(20,582 posts)

18. Millions of dead, maimed, orphaned, cluster-bombed, made refugees in NA and the whole region,

Reply to liberal N proud (Reply #10)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:35 PM

May 2016

for one thing.

But, back to fracking:

https://vimeo.com/157982054

*********************************************************************

(she didn't appear to consider much at all those 'conditions' she said she would insist on for the U.S., while pushing it for other nations whose people didn't want it.)

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

—By Mariah Blake | September/October 2014 Issue

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Department's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

Hillary Clinton is welcomed to Sofia by Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister Nikolay Mladenov, left. US Department of State/flickr

Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Energy.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world

pinebox (4,878 posts)

Absolutely a DAMNING piece---Hillary touted fracking across the globe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251824618

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)

8. in her spare time

Reply to liberal N proud (Reply #6)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:32 PM

May 2016

everyone needs a hobby

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)

12. Hillary is TOTALLY against fracking

Reply to Gregorian (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 07:50 PM

May 2016

.. except when she isn't, which is most of the time.

Laser102

(816 posts)

15. Well isn't that half the story? She promoted fracking to country's that were at the mercy of

Reply to Gregorian (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:03 PM

May 2016

places like Russia for their fuel. It helped them become less reliant on those countries. Yes, fracking is dangerous to the environment and the health of people but it helped those people run their own countries without threats of heating fuel being withheld. Somebody needs to know the whole story. If they care about the truth.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)

16. She wants us to export it TILL ITS GONE

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #15)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:21 PM

May 2016

it sells for three to five times in Asia what they can get here.

polly7

(20,582 posts)

19. COLD countries!

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #15)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:36 PM

May 2016

What could be better than instantly flaming water?!

Oh, forgot. Nice red-baiting too.

Laser102

(816 posts)

20. Russia did threaten to cut oil supplies to countries that didn't fall in line.

Reply to polly7 (Reply #19)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:09 PM

May 2016

Nothing to do with red baiting. Just the facts. Inconvenient things, facts. And yes, the citizens in these countries would be cold without heating fuel. Pick your poison. Die of cold, knuckle under to another country, create your own source of oil.

polly7

(20,582 posts)

21. Scandinavian and northern European countries are also cold. They're doing amazing things with

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #20)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:13 PM

May 2016

smart energy. Clinton could be pushing for wind and solar. Instead, all those big oil corporations Bill had such good ties with and that she's given 200,000.00 speeches to are much better candidates - it 's better for her, and them.

Laser102

(816 posts)

22. Scandinavia is not the Ukraine. Scandinavia is a rich country with means to produce solar energy.

Reply to polly7 (Reply #21)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:22 PM

May 2016

Countries from the former Soviet Union are barely surviving. They probably don't give a crap about smart energy and solar panels. They just want to be warm. Wow. Didn't think I would have to explain this.

polly7

(20,582 posts)

23. No shit.

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #22)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:26 PM

May 2016

Did you not read how tens of thousands in those poor countries you're insisting accept this poisoning of their water and environment protested against it???

You make them sound like stupid beggars who should just be glad to accept the shit she's pushing on them to enrich those corporations, not smart enough to develop clean energy technology with the same amount of aid they could get from smart energy corporations as they are from the vultures she favours.

Wow. Didn't think I'd ever see such arrogance - ok, well that's not true - I see it here every day.

Laser102

(816 posts)

24. Yes, arrogance. I see it every day here as well.

Reply to polly7 (Reply #23)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:42 PM

May 2016

polly7

(20,582 posts)

25. Yep .......... the beggars and poor people should just shut the fuck up

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #24)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:44 PM

May 2016

about being forced to accept fracking that benefits the corporations that couldn't give two shits about environmental regulations, health or anything else. THAT is the arrogance. You've displayed it perfectly.

ish of the hammer

(444 posts)

27. holding Russia up as the boogyman is something the repubs do...

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #20)

Sat May 28, 2016, 10:02 PM

May 2016

oh wait...

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)

28. likely story. the clintons figured they would

Reply to Laser102 (Reply #15)

Sat May 28, 2016, 11:44 PM

May 2016

make money off these poor people instead of russia, right. to hell with the water tables, the environment, or the health and safety of the people. they got their precious.