Discussion for article #226984
While Hillary was Secretary of State, that department approved the XL Pipeline. The XL Pipeline is “game over” for Climate Change. We all know that “talk” is not doing a thing to limit the consequences of Climate Chaos. We are heading for suicide like a pack of insane beings. It’s in the doing not the talking. Hillary will deal with Climate Change on Wall Street and behind closed doors. Blah…blah…blah…and let the western states burn to a crisp…let the ocean die…the glaciers melt…the deserts expand…the poor suffer.
Bernie Sanders 2016
2 Likes
The group also singled out one of Clinton’s favorite anecdotes on the subject, which she included in her recent book, “Hard Choices”: The time that she and President Barack Obama forced their way into a 2009 meeting in Copenhagan between leaders from China, India, Brazil and South Africa so that they could talk about the Kyoto Protocol.
That’s the Clinton Camp’s version of what happened at Copenhagen.
Here’s another take:
By laying down her rather skewed version of what went down at Copenhagen, Clinton is signaling that she wants her readout of the Copenhagen outcome—Kyoto superseded, all caps to be renegotiated on a nonbinding basis with transparency on offsets a prerequisite– to be regarded as the anchor for further negotiations. As a practical matter, that means that major, costly joint global action on climate change looks pretty unlikely.
Message to Xie Zhenhua: Suck. On. This.
Deciding to treat China as an enemy is a clever tactic and good politics, but I think it’s a strategic blunder whose cost Americans will pay in matters great and small for decades.
And on the subject of climate change, going adversarial with China and Kyoto might turn out to be an existential blunder that will help decide the fate of the whole planet.
Then there is the matter of how the TPP ( also being pushed by HRC) will affect the ability to enforce environmental laws (.pdf) related to climate change. But most of that is being kept under wraps.
When Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal Mart, she didn’t push at all on labor issues.
She did, however, push on women’s issues, and on environmental/energy issues. Their prototype energy-efficient store the company built was known as “Hillary’s Store.”
Climate change is an issue on which I would expect Hillary Clinton to be genuinely progressive.
A fictional account to counter the reality? Thanks ufg!
Funny, that’s what I thought about this puff piece as well!
For some Anti-Hillary shills, there is only the obsession to smear Hillary. A variety of reasons–her gender, her accomplishments as Senator and Secretary of State and anything imagined or false will do for the trollish miscreants. Your comments serve those people well–thanks ufg!
I think Hillary will survive these blog posts, which are based on facts - not any of the things you ticked off.
I really do.
Of course she’ll survive the pitiful scrawls against her in cyberspace. If HRC has impressed you with anything, it’s that she is a strong competitor. She has a robust base of support waiting to activate, should she announce her candidacy as I recall you have predicted she will. I would have had no problem voting for HRC if she had won the Democratic Primary in '08. When it’s between HRC and a GOPer, or some far-left outlier with high progressive ideals and a low chance of election, I’ll vote HRC. How do you see yourself voting in that scenario?
You can be assured I won’t ever be voting for someone from the GOP. If she was the only realistic choice in a spoiler type scenario, I would have to put on a haz-mat suit and …well…you know…pull the lever.
But who I am voting for isn’t the topic, is it?
Do you have any thoughts on the topic of this article?
Why, I am impressed–you would actually vote HRC under certain circumstances. Fair enough.
As if you don’t frequently make off-topic comments.
It’s a dead string. It’s a bit late for the off-topic rant, don’t you think?
See you around the Hillary threads!
I was actually asking you to make an actual comment on the topic, not another “off-topic rant”.
But whatevs.
The topic broadly includes Hillary. Our conversation was broadly about Hillary. Let’s pick gnats on another string
Ah. I’ll have to remember that bit for future reference when people start complaining about her being included in the discussion.
Thanks, bro!
Yeah right. Like you need a reason to spam HDS on every string. I wouldn’t suggest it though, from the tone of the warnings I’ve seen you receive from moderation. Collateral conversations that are not pointed in the HDS direction are always welcome. It’s just that you’ve rode the HDS just a bit too hard for most peoples’ sensibilities. You come off as a one-trick, one-note performer not interested in discourse. but I digress. The last word it yours.