Posted by The Green Man at Irregular Times:
Is Hillary Clinton really the inevitable Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016? Only if Democrats are willing to ignore the environmentalist passions of many of their voters.
Jill Stein, a candidate for the Green Party’s presidential nomination, sent out a message to her supporters yesterday declaring of Clinton, “She just declared she’s pro-fracking. Ready for Hillary?”
Is it true? Did Hillary Clinton just declare that she is in favor of hydrofracturing, the controversial practice of injecting a mix of fluids deep into shale formations in order to provoke the release of the greenhouse gas methane?
It’s almost true.
It’s true that Hillary Clinton is in favor of fracking. What’s not true is that she only just now declared her support for the expansion of the practice.
Five years ago, Hillary Clinton began to travel around the world to promote fracking operations by fossil fuels corporations. These activities provoked opposition from environmentalists, but did not end Democrats’ enthusiasm for a potential 2016 Clinton for President campaign.
A year and a half ago, New Yorkers Against Fracking sent a letter to Hillary Clinton complaining of her support for fracking. The group wrote, “In upstate New York, residents have been on the receiving end of an onslaught of oil and gas industry propaganda for more than five years. We’ve broken through their slick ads and lies, looked to the science, and as such overwhelmingly reject fracking. Just as we’re not buying it from the oil and gas industry, we won’t buy it from you.”
Grist noted Hillary Clinton’s support for fracking back in September of last year. Mother Jones profiled Clinton’s fracking track record around the same time. Clinton’s continuing support for fracking was noted again in December.
Will her support for an environmentally unsound method of energy extraction stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016? Probably not. Democrats have a long history of ignoring the anti-environmental policies of their party’s leaders. Barack Obama campaigned for President with the promise that he would expand offshore drilling for oil and invest in the hoax of “clean coal”. If throwing environmentalists under the bus worked for Obama, why won’t it work for Clinton?
For the record, I don’t see any reason why libertarians should necessarily oppose fracking, at least not per se. However, we should definitely oppose things like eminent domain and nonconsensual limited liability, as they clearly violate the NAP.
Having said that, if fracking were done without the use of eminent domain, nonconsensual limited liability, or any other state involvement, I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Where in my comment about Hillary Clinton did I make any reference to her views on fracking? My statement that she is an embarrassment to the human race stands, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with her position on fracking.
I don’t know which is more ridiculous: Wayne Root, with his Reagan Libertarianism, or Dave Terry, with his Clinton Libertarianism!
Take your drift and float away like the driftwood you are. As if any further proof that Dave Terry was an utter, complete waste of time and space was needed.
Seriously, learn to use google, or bing, or something.
And if I do will I find phantom facts and arguments that aren’t there?
Like YOU do.
I just scrolled back up to read the original post again (ie.Irregular Times: Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein on Fracking) There are STILL no references to “coupling profits with making risks and costs public.”
Listen, you can reach up your ass and pull out all the nonsense you want, but DON’T throw it at others; especially ME, I take it personally. – get my drift, punk!
Private profits in itself is not the problem, “genius.” It’s coupling private profits with making the risks and costs public rather than private. Of which fracking is a leading example since government liability protection and eminent domain abuse is making the risks and costs public. Seriously, learn to use google, or bing, or something.
http://c4ss.org/content/29567 Fracking: Poster Child for the Corporate Welfare State
For those like Dave Terry who are too senile to use search engines: http://www.stuarthsmith.com/feds-pave-way-for-fracking-industry-to-perpetrate-biggest-land-grab-in-u-s-history/
Rob Banks> As usual, and as expected, Dave Terry has posted nothing except insult and innuendo to back up his apparent position on the issue. Nothing to address the issues of eminent domain abuse, or making risks and costs public while making profits private, when it comes to fracking.
At the very top of this string is the following question.
“Is Hillary Clinton really the inevitable Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016? Only
if Democrats are willing to ignore the environmentalist passions of many of their voters.
So WHERE is the reference to eminent domain or making profits private? (what other kinds of “profit” are there?)
Are we discussing a “technology” or an economic program? Clearly Ms Stein is addressing the ecological aspects of “fracking”
Further, the LAST paragraph of the original piece states,
“Will her support for an environmentally unsound method of energy extraction stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016? Probably not. Democrats have a long history of ignoring the anti-environmental policies of their party’s leaders. Barack Obama campaigned for President with the promise that he would expand offshore drilling for oil and invest in the hoax of “clean coal”. If throwing environmentalists under the bus worked for Obama, why won’t it work for Clinton?”
The paragraph includes THREE, count them, references to 1.”environmentally unsound”,
2. “ignoring the anti-environmental policies”; 3. “throwing environmentalist under the bus”
The question remains, as before, what orifice did you drag the issue of “eminent domain abuse” out of, OR making risks and costs public while making profits private.
The Green Papers has this article by Anthony Gonzalez: http://greenpapers.net/why-i-would-support-stein-over-sanders/
This is in my ever growing pile of stuff to post as articles here if someone does not post it first…
Jill, I hope you have a great time and become influential in that community.
Seems like a lot of great independent political events happen in Los Angelos. I’m jealous!
With regard to the keynote speaker, Bernie Sanders…. he deserves some praise because he seems to have recently hired Matt Stoller, a principled and highly intelligent young man who used to be the chief writer at nakedcapitalism.com.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/bernie-sanders-makes-two-great-hires
There are some very strong, intelligent, photogenic, and highly likeable women in Los Angeles county, including Marianne Williamson, who identify as “Independents”. I think some of them are libertarian in important enough ways that they could be persuaded to more of our side if they were exposed to more libertarians. Does that make sense? Anyway, I’m pleased to have a press pass to the “Sister Giant” event. I’m sure some of them I’ll recognize/will recognize me from the “United We Stand” event. I might even learn a thing or two!
As usual, and as expected, Dave Terry has posted nothing except insult and innuendo to back up his apparent position on the issue. Nothing to address the issues of eminent domain abuse, or making risks and costs public while making profits private, when it comes to fracking.
Seems like the Sister Giant event consists of people at the border of Democratic and Independent politics. Most of the featured celebrities routinely promote lesser-evilism. Which is a shame, because they would be assets to a legit 3rd party movement.
In speaking and hanging out, sure. Running for president outside the duopoly and taking all the crap Nader took… that’s a lot harder.
Well, the “Sister Giant” event is primarily Independents, and he’ll be the keynote speaker. Perhaps he’s interested after all.
I don’t think he wants to rule it out officially, but that’s the indications I have seen.
I’ll do my best to ask him about it at the “Sister Giant” event in Los Angeles at the end of March.
I don’t think Sanders is running at all, even as a Democrat.
The Green Papers has this article by Anthony Gonzalez: http://greenpapers.net/why-i-would-support-stein-over-sanders/
Julieanna,
What makes you think Bernie Sanders will run as an independent? It’s pretty clear he’ll run as a Dem. Most of the money people contribute to his campaign will either 1) go towards Sanders’ future campaigns or wherever Sanders directs it or 2) go towards a slush fund for 2016 Democrats including Hillary.
If Bernie Sanders is sincere and intends to run as a 3rd party candidate, then there is a good chance Jill Stein will step aside, and many Greens will endorse Sanders. However, while Sanders is the best US Senator, he’s financed by the same people who financed Obama. Bernie Sanders is no Ralph Nader and Bernie knows that better than anyone. In all likelihood Sanders will run as Dem (if he runs), so somebody is going to have to step up for Green values, and it might as well be Jill Stein. Bernie does not want to play the Ralph Nader role (he calls it the spoiler role), he wants to play the Ron Paul role.
By the time this conference goes down, we should have a better idea about Sanders and whoever else intends to run as a left independent.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1546968308917890
From what I can tell Jill Stein has tried her best to broaden the Green tent and bring people like Rocky Anderson into it. Roseanne Barr was also given an opportunity to compete for the Green nomination and she had several opportunities to debate Jill Stein which you can find on Youtube.
It’s definitely true that the Green Party is not all it should or could be. But that is to be expected given the history of the US Government and its secret agencies actively meddling in 3rd party politics and threats to the hegemony of the system. The answer is not being lazy and giving up. The answer is being courageous and creating the 3rd party we need at this critical juncture in history.
In summary, blaming the failure to create a legit 3rd party alternative on someone like Jill Stein (one of the few people working full-time to build one!) is a cop-out. It’s up to you and me to get and there and build a legit alternative. The Green Party has the right policy prescriptions and it doesn’t take corporate money. It’s a place to start, but in order to work, people with the same values have to let go of their apprehension and get their hands dirty.
Eric Dondero will no doubt be creating Libertarians for Scott Walker, Libertarians for Jeb Bush, etc., soon, so maybe Dave Terry will start Libertarians for Hillary Clinton, or maybe just Libertarians for Eminent Domain for Public-Private Partnership.
langa “Hillary Clinton is an embarrassment not only to Democrats, but to the entire human race!”
Yaaahhn! PLEASE tell me that YOU aren’t a Libertarian! I couldn’t stand the embarrassment.
That too 🙂
Hillary Clinton is an embarrassment not only to Democrats, but to the entire human race!
Jed Ziggler is exactly correct.
The fact that Hillary Clinton is mainstream should scare the hell out of anybody. On Jill Stein, I admire her in the same way Ron Swanson admires Leslie Knope on Parks and Recreation (damn am I sad to see that show go), but I far prefer principled libertarians like Gary Johnson, Darryl Perry, and Marc Feldman.
I didn’t realize libertarians support eminent domain abuse, and privatizing profits while making risks and costs public. My mistake.
Never heard of CONTEXT, Mr. Banks?
I was referring to those who support Ms Stein’s knee-jerk POSITION of ecology over economy.
Apparently, YOU also have little control over your lower extremities.
I know making sense of anything Dave Terry says or writes is a lost cause, but what libertarians are supporting Jill Stein? Hillary Clinton is indeed a corporatist, warmongering shill who should be an embarrassment to Democrats, but that in no way implies support for Ms. Stein.
“Democrats should be embarrassed that Hillary Clinton is the leading contender for their presidential nomination.”
Au contraire. Rather, Libertarians should be embarrassed that one of its leaders should make such an outlandish statement. Clinton is certainly more mainstream than are those greenish libertarians who support Ms. Stein
Democrats should be embarrassed that Hillary Clinton is the leading contender for their presidential nomination.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21645228-yearnings-tap-gas-threaten-split-state-two-frack-too-far
Energy controversies A frack too far
Yearnings to tap gas threaten to split New York in two
Feb 28th 2015 | WINDSOR, NEW YORK | From the print edition
“I HONESTLY thought it was a joke,” says Sandy Pinney. She means the threat that Windsor, her hometown, along with 14 other towns along New York’s border with Pennsylvania, may secede and join Pennsylvania. But it is deadly serious.
The towns are in New York’s Southern Tier. They sit on top of the Marcellus Shale, which is full of natural gas. New Yorkers, unlike their Pennsylvanian neighbours, are not allowed to tap the gas because of a state ban on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) announced by Andrew Cuomo, the governor, on December 17th.
Hours later on the same day, a state panel rejected a bid to build a casino in the Southern Tier. That was the last straw. A state lawmaker sent a survey to constituents asking about secession, and the idea began to take hold.
The Southern Tier used to be called the “Valley of Opportunity”, with companies like IBM employing thousands. But the area’s big employers left or downsized long ago. The economy is stagnant, with houses for sale everywhere. Windsor cannot afford a police department. Even its funeral homes are long gone. Meanwhile, just yards away in Pennsylvania, Great Bend is thriving. The neighbours have new cars, freshly painted houses and jobs, and all from shale. Penn State’s Centre for Economic and Community Development found that taxable income increased by 25% between 2007 and 2011 in Bradford County, where most of the Marcellus fracking takes place. Envious, frustrated Windsor wants to be in the same boat.
Secession is unlikely. It would need approval from the New York and Pennsylvania legislatures, as well as Congress. It might be easier if, as some suggest, New York state were just split into two autonomous regions. New York City, Long Island and Westchester would be one region and everything else would become “New Amsterdam”, a nod to New York’s original Dutch name. That would stop the downstaters calling all the shots.
Calls to divide New York are not new. In 1969 the writer Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York City on a pledge to make it the 51st state. The only effort that succeeded was in 1777, when a chunk of upstate New York became Vermont
I thought it had been made pretty clear that Bernie Sanders is very unlikely to run, and if he does, it would only be as a Democrat to be defeated in the primaries?
So Jill Stein is running for President again, instead of forming a Progressive Coalition!!!—as she said she would after the 2012 Prez Election!!! Is this EGO or what? A Progressive and independents Coalition getting behind BERNIE SANDERS—someone known and very very experienced, being a Representative and then Senator for years—could be a ticket to a WIN in the Whitehouse. Now, Jill Stein has been a spoiler…she’s not doing the Coalition. BERNI SANDERS is on her wave-length–very similar Values!!! WHY is she FRACKING the Progressives by running again? Does she REALLY “love her country” – or is she in it for EGO. It was Jill Stein who messed up our beautifully-planned Third Party DEBATE here in Los Angeles – because she wouldn’t debate if Roseanne Barr was there: the University and LinkTV wanted Roseanne Barr—who had a big following in Los Angeles—with some of the same ideas as Jill Stein. When Jill Stein dropped out, then Gary Johnson wouldn’t come; and when they both wouldn’t come, then Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode wouldn’t come…and Roseanne Barr was left alone. We told Jill Stein this, but she still WOULD NOT DEBATE: We had fantastic MAINSTREAM media planned as well as Indy Media – and a lovely Reception afterwards – at Loyola Marymount University and with LinkTV/Public TV helping/sponsoring. It was going to make a HUGE impact People were so enthusiastic.
JILL STEIN does not have my vote… even though I’m in tune with many values of the Green Party. There is not way she will win, especially with BERNIE SANDERS running, if indeed he does. The Green Party, too, was the WORST to deal with while we were organizing this ThirdParty Debate!!
DISAPPOINTED IN JILL STEIN….she told me what I wanted to hear, not what she intended. She had NO INTENTION of forming a Progressive Coalition for a REAL WIN!!
THE COUNTRY is in many desperate situations…and she is fracking possibilities…
I’m outta here!! She has FRACKED the Progressive possibilities by not forming a COALITION!!