2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhere does Hillary stand on fracking these days
Anyone know her present policy on Fracking?
tirebiter
(2,539 posts)Here and there but not everywhere.
bonemachine
(757 posts)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)
still_one
(92,492 posts)She doesn't support it when a locality or state is against it.
She doesn't support it when contamination of water is present
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)does this qualify?
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/faq/fracking-fluid
So then she should probably want to support banning fracking.
still_one
(92,492 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)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.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)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.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)They too need to heat their homes and cook food for their children.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)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/
The EPA insisted this wasnt 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 isnt 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 administrations work on climate changeall those closed coal mines and fuel-efficient cars. In fact, its even possible that Americas contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years. The methane story is utterly at odds with what weve been telling ourselves, not to mention what weve been telling the rest of the planet. It undercuts the promises we made at the climate talks in Paris. Its a disasterand one that seems set to spread.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)May I please ask how your post fulfills the mission Skinner has established for our board?
- Skinner
Thank you in advance.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)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?
still_one
(92,492 posts)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 wont 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)
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)that's one of those things that will help
still_one
(92,492 posts)though
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Keystone Pipeline
Minimum wage
Fixing our crumbling infrastructure
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 Americas infrastructure. Hillary would re-authorize President Obamas 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 Americas roads and bridges, increase capacity, improve road quality, and reduce congestionsaving 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 Americas 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. Hillarys plan will unlock Americas clean energy potential by modernizing infrastructure like dams, levees, and wastewater systemssaving billions of gallons in clean drinking water and generating clean energy.
Expanding solar and wind
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
Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement agean 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.
athena
(4,187 posts)Thanks for all these references. I hope the OP reads it, since there is a ton of information there.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I hope the seminal poster finds it helpful.
bonemachine
(757 posts)
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 agean 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?
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts) The poverty rate for widowed women 65 or older is nearly 90 percent higher than for other seniorsin 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 doesnt mean financial hardship or falling into poverty.
Millions of womenand mentake 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.
swhisper1
(851 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)I'm all for that.
swhisper1
(851 posts)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
JohnnyRingo
(18,675 posts)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".
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)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.
swhisper1
(851 posts)perhaps she learned in those town halls- we will see
swhisper1
(851 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It is a fact. At least on other issues
Sancho
(9,070 posts)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.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Values in my opinion
Sancho
(9,070 posts)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".
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)That is a fact!
Sancho
(9,070 posts)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
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)maybe. I use to hate peanuts, now I cant get enough
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)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 groups 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 Partys 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 Partys 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 its 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 theres going to be a robust conversation.
Its 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 were in, he said.
A Democratic platform that is not robust in aggressively addressing climate change ends up being, itself, climate denialism.'
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hillary will ultimately determine the platform she wants to run on.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)convention will be a blast to watch this cycle... I expect a great many surprises to occur
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Either Obama or maybe Jim Clyburn.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)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...
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Response to auntpurl (Reply #36)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)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?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)May I please ask how your post fulfills the mission Skinner has established for our board?
- Skinner
Thank you in advance.
swhisper1
(851 posts)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
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)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
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)You might want to read it again.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Can you please explain to me how hoping for a divisive convention:
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:
Thank you in advance.
Armstead
(47,803 posts).......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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)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.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)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.
swhisper1
(851 posts)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.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)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.
swhisper1
(851 posts)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
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)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?
swhisper1
(851 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)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
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Sir or madame , this is what you wrote:
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.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)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
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....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.
TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)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.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)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
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I think it changed again.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I hope this is helpful:
http://bfy.tw/6NGa
Please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
swhisper1
(851 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I dont support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I dont support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I dont 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 thats 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.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Well, quite.
swhisper1
(851 posts)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.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)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.
swhisper1
(851 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)If it's wrong, it's wrong.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)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.