22 Replies to “Trump, Clinton, and the Environment”

1. Clinton…. won’t ban fracking

   Clinton….. won’t halt leasing federal lands and sea floor for oil/gas

   For all her “urgent threat” rhetoric, her positions are PRO-GAS (go ahead and frack) and MORE-GAS (leases for sale! leases for sale!)

   1. Steve El said;
      “…..Clinton…. won’t ban fracking…..”

      Dear Steve,
      Hillary would certainly ban fracking in return for a sufficient campaign contribution or a big donation to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton’s have always accepted bribes to provide government services. Which is why many decent citizens recognize that Hillary is unethical and corrupt. She has earned that highly appropriate title “Crooked Hillary.”

2. Obama: “Hillary Clinton is a LIAR” (video by Obama):

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGqD8-a-REQ

   1. Whereas your candidate advocates war crimes:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecmE0GvMctE

3. You really should print a retraction! This article is misleading and betrays the public trust. Every time you place Trump in the no category it’s simply not true.

4. House Votes to Condemn Carbon Tax:

   “…….The House voted Friday to condemn a potential carbon tax, closing the door on a climate change policy popular in some conservative circles. Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.” Six Democrats voted with the GOP for the resolution. No Republicans dissented…..”

   http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283029-house-condemns-carbon-tax

   1. I’m shocked, shocked! that the politicians who count the oil industry as their primary donor voted against taxing them. They are of course just standing on principle.

      /s

      1. BBQ PLANET said;
         “……They are of course just standing on principle…..”

         Dear BBQ,
         Do you (or anyone else) know whether or not Hillary supports a carbon tax? If not, why not? Is Hillary standing on principle?

         1. The following is what her campaign chairman, John Podesta said. Her plans don’t seem to be as big as Bernie’s, but that seems to be a result of her tendency to make more politically achievable promises (in light of both houses of Congress being controlled by the Republicans):

            The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination would want to work with Congress on climate action, Podesta said. But she’d probably focus on smaller legislative actions and employ executive powers, given Republican opposition to many global warming measures.

            “I’d like to see a price on carbon, but I’m more optimistic about persuading Congress to support more investment in clean energy, more investment in energy efficiency, more investment in research and development,” Podesta said. “These are things that can create jobs and economic opportunity” and therefore could gain support.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-combat-climate-change/

            Regarding principle, at least Hillary is not living in the fantasy land of a few oil-funded scientists like Donald Trump. He knows that he has to tow the right-wing line. Kind of like when he told Mitt Romney in 2012 to play up the birther issue because “rightwing crazies will believe it.”

            1. Regarding Hillary’s climate plan;
               “…… she’d probably focus on smaller legislative actions and employ executive powers, given Republican opposition to many global warming measures……”

               There you have it. No carbon taxes for Hillary (same as Trump). Hillary probably does not intend to waste much time on bogus climate hype if she is elected. Hillary understands that her supporters prefer lies.

5. The paramount reason we cannot control global warming is that the power of money rules our political, social, and economic leaders. And our environmental experts refuse to unite to inform and motivate the public, so the few individuals who do speak out are too easily drowned out.

   This is part of the greatest threat to the human race, our political, religious, and intellectual leaders are failing to enable us to think and protect ourselves, regardless of how hellacious the consequences may be, which out of control climate changes, violence and inequalities are proving today.

   The current presidential campaigns are proving that no one really cares enough to end the tyranny of money over the future of human race.

6. @BQRQ

   There you have it. No carbon taxes for Hillary (same as Trump). Hillary probably does not intend to waste much time on bogus climate hype if she is elected. Hillary understands that her supporters prefer lies.

   Same as Trump? She knows that carbon tax legislation is impossible with republicans in control of Congress, but she still supports it. Whereas Trump is strongly against it. Not to mention the fact that Hillary’s main thrust on climate will be implementing and expanding Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is antithetical to republican aims.

   http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

   Trump and Hillary are polar opposites on this issue.

   1. Mr. PLANET said:
      “…… Hillary’s main thrust on climate will be implementing and expanding Obama’s Clean Power Plan……”

      Dear BBQ,
      You are right to point out the strong connection between Obama and Hillary. She shares his worldview. They assert that the greatest threat to national security is climate change.

      Then we have a day like today, fifty killed in Orlando. Hillary can’t say who is responsible but Trump did. So who is right?

      At this point we should all agree that Trump is right and move on from there.

      1. I’m just going to leave this here:

         Red Herring

         (also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])

         Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

         http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

         1. Climate change is riddled with lies, naive ignorance and foolish thinking. Now is the time to put this contrived fake scare behind us. Radical Islamic terrorism is far more dangerous, it has become an immediate threat to national security and ordinary citizens.

            Mature, intelligent and responsible adults should lay aside their petty political squabbles and unite behind a capable leader who will protect America in the troubled days ahead.

            1. Climate change denial is riddled with lies, naive ignorance and foolish thinking.

               There, I fixed that for you.

               I still haven’t gotten your response to this Scientific American article, “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago”:

               http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

7. BBQ said;

   “…..I still haven’t gotten your response to this Scientific American article,….”

   Dear BBQ,
   Let me respectfully remind you that it is pointless for either of us to argue about technical aspects of climate change given that we intend to vote on this issue in November. Also, it would be disrespectful to the victims of terrorism. Maybe we can talk about it after the election.

   1. LOL

      The guy who comes here every day to argue his case in denial of climate change says “it is pointless for either of us to argue.”

      Once again, you run away from addressing any information that does not agree with your fringe right-wing sources. Typical denier.

      1. At this point we should all agree that Trump is right and move on from there.

         1. Alright, I’ll take that as a concession that you have no leg to stand on regarding climate change.

            Trump wants to deploy 20,000 to 30,000 troops in Syria to fight ISIS. This is an incredibly dumb policy and would only inflame tensions with the Middle East and increase terrorist attacks on our homeland.

            Donald Trump’s assertion that the United States has “no choice” but to send 20,000 to 30,000 combat troops to fight ISIS in the Middle East raises a slew of complicated questions, military analysts said Friday.

            It also represents an about-face.

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-30000-troops-isis/

            He also supports torturing suspected terrorists and assassinating their family members. He openly advocates war crimes and has called the Geneva Conventions “the problem,” yet right-wingers lap it up.

            1. Do gay lives matter?

8. @BQRQ

   Absolutely. Did you read my comment?

Comments are closed.