August 31, 2015

The Issues - Where Do You and Your Candidate Stand on Fracking?

As it becomes more difficult to extract gas from the ground, oil companies are turning more and more to processes like fracking.

Fracking uses extremely large amounts of fresh water plus a secret mixture of chemicals.


While fracking may be beneficial to oil company profits, it's extremely bad for the environment. Water is one of the most important resources we have and fracking is contaminating billions of gallons, rendering it unfit for normal human use.


And what happens to the billions of gallons of contaminated fresh water? Great question.

While oil company profits are rising, peoples around the world are protesting the effect of fracking on their environments.


So where do the candidates stand on this process of fracking our environment?

Hillary Clinton is a strong proponent of fracking. While working for the taxpayers as Secretary of State, she used the power of the US of A to convince foreign governments to begin or increase their use of fracking in spite of the protesting peoples in those countries.


So while peoples in countries around the world are protesting the destruction of their fresh water, Secretary Clinton was using our tax dollars to help Haliburton, Chevron, and other oil giants convince governments to use the environmentally damaging process of fracking.

While some try to say that Clinton and Senator Sanders are close on most issues, the fricking fracking issue shows that they are miles apart.



Oil companies are using the fracking process around the world to increase their profits while destroying the freshwater supplies of the people. And where are they going to dump their billions of gallons of toxic waste water? Probably not in their own backyard.

(1) http://www.cleanwateraction.org/page/fracking-process

(2) http://dangersoffracking.com/

(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/global-protests-fracking-globalfrackdown_n_1905034.html

(4) http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/bernie12.htm

August 9, 2015

I appreciate your kind words even if I am not sure how to take the "level-headed" comment.

I have never been accused of that. But I've learned a lot posting in DU and still have a lot to learn about dealing with those here (and in society) that think they can shut down conversations by ridicule and mockery. You see it's easy to be a bully when anonymous. And especially easy if one uses self-righteousness to justify their bully behavior. It is a real challenge to try to hang in and be "level-headed" when being baited into over-reacting.

Sen Sanders isn't our last chance to throw off the chains of tyranny that controls our government. He is just one in many that make up the Populist Movement that has the wealthy Oligarchs and their minions afraid. But we must be non-violent even when faced with the bait to be violent. As we've seen with OWS, the tyrants will be brutal, even to the non-violent. But violence would end what few freedoms we have left.

Conspiracy Theories are given a bad rap by those in control. They want everyone to trust them and not believe those that might not agree. Conspiracies are a part of life especially in government. It's the sole purpose of think tanks and Karl Rove makes a very good living conspiring. Wouldn't you love to know what he is up to now? Those that don't like open discussion are the ones that use the fear of CT to shut down discussions. They want to believe that their emperor has clothes.

August 4, 2015

The first two are pure political rhetoric. "We have a problem and we have to figure out ......."

On banking reform, she says she wants to "figure out" the best way to address it but won't say what that might look like. It could be anything. She didn't commit to tighter regulations because she might not think that's the best way.

About the TPP, "she wants to see rules...." Yes so what. What if you never get those rules? Tell us you would be against it without the rules. And "she is concerned about a provision...." How concerned? Enough to stop supporting it?

On Iran she actually makes a statement. "she supports the agreement". That's what we need. Statements not rhetoric.

How about fracking? I think she supports it but she hasn't made it very clear.

How about the XL Pipeline? Not clear where she stands.

How about domestic spying, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, Drone killing, torture, closing Gitmo, etc. There are a lot of issues she hasn't made very clear.