Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

felltoearth · **#141** by **felltoearth** » Jun 14, 2017 11:19 am

Hillary was status quo. I would have voted for that over an incompetent narcissistic toddler that harbors racist psychopaths any day. At least you could reason with status quo.

SafeAsMilk · **#142** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jun 14, 2017 11:26 am

Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
You seem firmly convinced there is, because you keep trying your best to outdo me even though I'm not playing. Again, grow the fuck up.

You haven't addressed my points, because they all still stand. Again, ironic accusation of insults when that's literally all you're doing at this point. No content, no substance, no addressing the points.

Yes, you tried to argue it. That's exactly what I said. If you're going to call people names, make sure it doesn't apply to you first.

Utterly and completely irrelevant, because we weren't talking about "the rest of America", we were talking about the president. Do try to keep up.

Nothing compared to putting an environmental hater at the head of the EPA to dismantle it. If you think Trump's policies have no effect on the globe, then you're telling us even more how tenuous your grasp on reality is. Seriously, put the shovel down.

I keep making relevant, factual points and then you reply with nonsense.

Yeah, all your half-assed digs which makes up 90% of your posts (the rest being elementary misunderstandings of what's been said) are super relevant to the argument

So one country with an EPA guy that hates the environment is worse than pushing fracking globally -

Difficulty reading again, I see.

I think if I did the resesrch I could find the expected CO2 tonnage per year that the globe would produce annually and then compare that to what America can produce and you think the US wil lout do the rest of the planet.

I'm the one with the tenuous grip on reality, though.

If you think that's what I said then yes, not only is your grasp on reality tenuous, your reading skills are shit as well.

No, maybe your writing skills are - you said that putting an environment hater at the head of the EPA is somehow worse than pushing fracking globally.

No, I said "Trump's policies", as in all of them. Fracking is all you've got for Clinton, which is silly because it's not like Trump hates fracking. He's going to do whatever it takes to make money, that's what he does.

Teague · **#143** by **Teague** » Jun 14, 2017 11:37 am

OlivierK wrote:You think Pruitt isn't also pushing fracking globally?

Seriously, thinking that Trump's environmental record will be better than Clinton's would have been is simply insane.

I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm pointing out one guy at the EPA isn't going to be worse for the planet than global fracking. As to Trump's term being more or less worse remains to be seen. I don't for one minute think that they won't push fracking but would Clinton have pushed it more effectively?

We also have the US out the picture as far as taking on the environment. Other countries will push really quick to grab this market whilst America flounders which could push the technology along a lot faster. The US is only one country and the rest of the globe will take advantage of this I would think.

Teague · **#144** by **Teague** » Jun 14, 2017 11:41 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:

I keep making relevant, factual points and then you reply with nonsense.

Yeah, all your half-assed digs which makes up 90% of your posts (the rest being elementary misunderstandings of what's been said) are super relevant to the argument

So one country with an EPA guy that hates the environment is worse than pushing fracking globally -

Difficulty reading again, I see.

I think if I did the resesrch I could find the expected CO2 tonnage per year that the globe would produce annually and then compare that to what America can produce and you think the US wil lout do the rest of the planet.

I'm the one with the tenuous grip on reality, though.

If you think that's what I said then yes, not only is your grasp on reality tenuous, your reading skills are shit as well.

No, maybe your writing skills are - you said that putting an environment hater at the head of the EPA is somehow worse than pushing fracking globally.

No, I said "Trump's policies", as in all of them. Fracking is all you've got for Clinton, which is silly because it's not like Trump hates fracking. He's going to do whatever it takes to make money, that's what he does.

I said:

Clinton however pushing fracking around the globe spreads that issue globally, doesn't it - would have quite a staggering affect wouldn't you think? Not to mention what it does to the water and everything else.

You said:

Nothing compared to putting an environmental hater at the head of the EPA to dismantle it.

SafeAsMilk · **#145** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jun 14, 2017 12:47 pm

Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yeah, all your half-assed digs which makes up 90% of your posts (the rest being elementary misunderstandings of what's been said) are super relevant to the argument

Difficulty reading again, I see.

If you think that's what I said then yes, not only is your grasp on reality tenuous, your reading skills are shit as well.

No, maybe your writing skills are - you said that putting an environment hater at the head of the EPA is somehow worse than pushing fracking globally.

No, I said "Trump's policies", as in all of them. Fracking is all you've got for Clinton, which is silly because it's not like Trump hates fracking. He's going to do whatever it takes to make money, that's what he does.

I said:

Clinton however pushing fracking around the globe spreads that issue globally, doesn't it - would have quite a staggering affect wouldn't you think? Not to mention what it does to the water and everything else.

You said:

Nothing compared to putting an environmental hater at the head of the EPA to dismantle it.

And the sentence after that, I said "Trump's policies", because the conversation was about their overall policies, not single issues. But yes, I could make the argument that the overall dismantling of environmental protections will have a net worse effect than pushing fracking, which other countries are under no obligation to accept (especially since they probably actually have a functioning equivalent of an EPA unlike us), and it's debatable whether or not it's any worse for the environment than the coal they're currently using.

SafeAsMilk · **#146** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jun 14, 2017 12:49 pm

Teague wrote:
OlivierK wrote:You think Pruitt isn't also pushing fracking globally?

Seriously, thinking that Trump's environmental record will be better than Clinton's would have been is simply insane.

I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm pointing out one guy at the EPA isn't going to be worse for the planet than global fracking.

No, your argument was that Clinton would be worse than Trump overall.

As to Trump's term being more or less worse remains to be seen.

Dismantling the EPA, Dakota Access Pipeline and Paris agreement all in the first few months? No, it doesn't remain to be seen. All the signs are there, clear as day.

I don't for one minute think that they won't push fracking but would Clinton have pushed it more effectively?

We also have the US out the picture as far as taking on the environment. Other countries will push really quick to grab this market whilst America flounders which could push the technology along a lot faster. The US is only one country and the rest of the globe will take advantage of this I would think.

Sure are a lot of assumptions in there. It's funny how everyone wants to play up how much energy we use and how much we contribute negatively to the environment and global warming, but then downplay it when it's not convenient for their argument.

Teague · **#147** by **Teague** » Jun 14, 2017 1:01 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:

No, maybe your writing skills are - you said that putting an environment hater at the head of the EPA is somehow worse than pushing fracking globally.

No, I said "Trump's policies", as in all of them. Fracking is all you've got for Clinton, which is silly because it's not like Trump hates fracking. He's going to do whatever it takes to make money, that's what he does.

I said:

Clinton however pushing fracking around the globe spreads that issue globally, doesn't it - would have quite a staggering affect wouldn't you think? Not to mention what it does to the water and everything else.

You said:

Nothing compared to putting an environmental hater at the head of the EPA to dismantle it.

And the sentence after that, I said "Trump's policies", because the conversation was about their overall policies, not single issues. But yes, I could make the argument that the overall dismantling of environmental protections will have a net worse effect than pushing fracking, which other countries are under no obligation to accept (especially since they probably actually have a functioning equivalent of an EPA unlike us), and it's debatable whether or not it's any worse for the environment than the coal they're currently using.

And each was a seperate statement - you said it mate, not me.

Teague · **#148** by **Teague** » Jun 14, 2017 1:03 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
OlivierK wrote:You think Pruitt isn't also pushing fracking globally?

Seriously, thinking that Trump's environmental record will be better than Clinton's would have been is simply insane.

I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm pointing out one guy at the EPA isn't going to be worse for the planet than global fracking.

No, your argument was that Clinton would be worse than Trump overall.

As to Trump's term being more or less worse remains to be seen.

Dismantling the EPA, Dakota Access Pipeline and Paris agreement all in the first few months? No, it doesn't remain to be seen. All the signs are there, clear as day.

I don't for one minute think that they won't push fracking but would Clinton have pushed it more effectively?

We also have the US out the picture as far as taking on the environment. Other countries will push really quick to grab this market whilst America flounders which could push the technology along a lot faster. The US is only one country and the rest of the globe will take advantage of this I would think.

Sure are a lot of assumptions in there. It's funny how everyone wants to play up how much energy we use and how much we contribute negatively to the environment and global warming, but then downplay it when it's not convenient for their argument.

What the fuck are you tralking about - I didn't downplay anything and I'm also not the one with the reading issue. I said that the US could fall behind in green tech.... What were you imagining I said after that because I can't converse with your imagination if you don't tell me what you think you are reading.

SafeAsMilk · **#149** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jun 14, 2017 1:06 pm

Teague wrote:
And each was a seperate statement - you said it mate, not me.

The context and overall point of a conversation doesn't just disappear for a single statement within that conversation.

Teague · **#150** by **Teague** » Jun 14, 2017 1:16 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
And each was a seperate statement - you said it mate, not me.

The context and overall point of a conversation doesn't just disappear for a single statement within that conversation.

It does the way you wrote it.

Nothing to say about what I didn't say then? You're just going to ignore that too or are you going to blame me for "Being an idiot who can't read or understand stuff" again?

Animavore · **#151** by **Animavore** » Jun 14, 2017 2:13 pm

Trump and the Repubs want to roll back those pesky environmental and endangered species acts which stop the fossil industry drilling and cracking on certain, protected lands. They also have plans for a lot of those Native lands going to waste.

Hillary may have broadly supported fracking, believing it to be cleaner, rightly or wrongly, but I see no evidence she was going to put public lands up for a massive cash grab.

There is no parallel universe were she would've green-lighted what amounts to large-scale, industrial environmental vandalism.

laklak · **#152** by **laklak** » Jun 14, 2017 2:32 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
laklak wrote:
Willie71 wrote:

Nonviolent protest is the most effective way to change a government.

To be fair, carpet bombing and the 82nd Airborne is also pretty effective.

...in preventing truth decay, when combined with a program of personal moral hygiene and regular professional scare.

Hearts and minds, man, hearts and minds.

Cito di Pense · **#153** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 14, 2017 2:41 pm

laklak wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
laklak wrote:
Willie71 wrote:

Nonviolent protest is the most effective way to change a government.

To be fair, carpet bombing and the 82nd Airborne is also pretty effective.

...in preventing truth decay, when combined with a program of personal moral hygiene and regular professional scare.

Hearts and minds, man, hearts and minds.

If you've got them by the balls, having the hearts and minds follow is not a problem.

Oldskeptic · **#154** by **Oldskeptic** » Jun 14, 2017 6:01 pm

Teague wrote:Clinton however pushing fracking around the globe spreads that issue globally, doesn't it - would have quite a staggering affect wouldn't you think? Not to mention what it does to the water and everything else.

What does it do to the water ? And what exactly is everything else?

felltoearth · **#155** by **felltoearth** » Jun 14, 2017 6:09 pm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ing-water/

Willie71 · **#156** by **Willie71** » Jun 14, 2017 6:32 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
Willie71 wrote:
laklak wrote:
Willie71 wrote:

Nonviolent protest is the most effective way to change a government.

To be fair, carpet bombing and the 82nd Airborne is also pretty effective.

If you want to get a military occupation rather than a representative democracy.

Germany, Italy ,and Japan have representative democracies now.

The result of the Marshall plan. My comments are regarding overthrow from within a country specifically, not an invasion from another. Wars are not fought to the surrender of one country, and the taking over of the lands and government. Endless war is different from conquest.

IRAN was much more secular, and is now a theocracy. Several countries in North Africa were part of the Arab spring, and were trying to obtain democracy. Nicaragua, Venezuela, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam Nam? How did things work out since WWII?

I can't believe I have to point out such obvious things still. Fucking embarrassing. :nono:

Willie71 · **#157** by **Willie71** » Jun 14, 2017 6:40 pm

I think the debate is misframed. Clinton would have put corporate shills in her cabinet, just like Obama did. They would appear to be qualified at some level, and people wouldn't see the obvious corruption because the media would present information in a palatable way. Clinton would continue with the wealth extraction, but have more professional messaging. The advantage is the damage would roll out slower than trumps damage.

Trump is a buffoon, incompetent, and super fucking dangerous. That's obvious. The damage is quick. That is the advantage as people can see it for what it is.

If Clinton won, the dem establishment would have been quite content to stay on the same pro corporate path. Even with the Dems losing, the top players are sticking with that message, but progressives can capitalize on the loss.

proudfootz · **#158** by **proudfootz** » Jun 14, 2017 9:51 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
laklak wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
laklak wrote:

To be fair, carpet bombing and the 82nd Airborne is also pretty effective.

...in preventing truth decay, when combined with a program of personal moral hygiene and regular professional scare.

Hearts and minds, man, hearts and minds.

If you've got them by the balls, having the hearts and minds follow is not a problem.

Well, as hearts and minds are insubstantial things, the surest hold will be aimed at our physicality. All those things that are existential threats. :thumbup:

One good reason to do away with society's safety nets: that the majority of Americans will be too worried every day whether they can pay the rent, feed their kids, or afford to go to the doctor ensures that the present Duopoly can be maintained without too much trouble.

People impoverished who rebel are easily dismissed as 'greedy' or 'envious' to folks who are too immersed in their own struggles to take a peek at what's going outside their own little bubbles, or feel that they can afford to defend those perceived to be lower on the social hierarchy.

SafeAsMilk · **#159** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jun 15, 2017 1:40 am

Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
And each was a seperate statement - you said it mate, not me.

The context and overall point of a conversation doesn't just disappear for a single statement within that conversation.

It does the way you wrote it.

I can see how you might see that way if you've completely forgotten the train of conversation. Either that, or you're going for a really lame "gotcha!" to try and score a point after floundering for the last few pages.

Nothing to say about what I didn't say then? You're just going to ignore that too or are you going to blame me for "Being an idiot who can't read or understand stuff" again?

What the hell are you talking about?

SafeAsMilk · **#160** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jun 15, 2017 1:46 am

Teague wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Teague wrote:
OlivierK wrote:You think Pruitt isn't also pushing fracking globally?

Seriously, thinking that Trump's environmental record will be better than Clinton's would have been is simply insane.

I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm pointing out one guy at the EPA isn't going to be worse for the planet than global fracking.

No, your argument was that Clinton would be worse than Trump overall.

As to Trump's term being more or less worse remains to be seen.

Dismantling the EPA, Dakota Access Pipeline and Paris agreement all in the first few months? No, it doesn't remain to be seen. All the signs are there, clear as day.

I don't for one minute think that they won't push fracking but would Clinton have pushed it more effectively?

We also have the US out the picture as far as taking on the environment. Other countries will push really quick to grab this market whilst America flounders which could push the technology along a lot faster. The US is only one country and the rest of the globe will take advantage of this I would think.

Sure are a lot of assumptions in there. It's funny how everyone wants to play up how much energy we use and how much we contribute negatively to the environment and global warming, but then downplay it when it's not convenient for their argument.

What the fuck are you tralking about - I didn't downplay anything and I'm also not the one with the reading issue. I said that the US could fall behind in green tech.... What were you imagining I said after that because I can't converse with your imagination if you don't tell me what you think you are reading.

I was conflating this post with another one, my mistake.

Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Re: Hillary Clinton STILL doesn't get it

Who is online