The Two Faces of "Green" Hillary Clinton

clinton_janus

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Politico – According to Wikileaks, at the same time Hillary Clinton was wooing the support of radical greens, at a behind closed doors meeting with pro-energy unions, she was telling those same radical greens to “get a life”.

HILLARY CLINTON: It’s [Keystone] symbolic and it’s not going to go away. They’re all hanging on to it. So you know Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he’s out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I’m not into it for that. I’ve been– my view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances. I want to defend, you know, new, modern [inaudible]. I want to defend this stuff. And you know, I’m already at odds with the most organized and wildest. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life, you know. So I want to get the right balance and that’s what I’m [inaudible] about– getting all the stakeholders together. Everybody’s not going to get everything they want, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work in a democracy, but everybody needs to listen to each other.

And we need to do– you know, nuclear, talk about climate change — nuclear is no greenhouse gas emissions. France has it for nearly 100% of their energy– they’ve never had a problem. We’ve had two problems that people know about: Chernobyl, which was a disaster and [inaudible], and you know Three Mile. Right, those were the problems we had. We’ve come a long way from there.

So I’m willing to defend and to really burrow in, I will say, you know, I don’t support the Keystone pipeline because I don’t think we need to do that. I think we need to repair, rebuild, take care of what we’ve got on the platter here. But I also think that the federal government has to be the partner. You can’t do this. I mean whether it’s a Fed discount window or a new fund, because it’s not just pipelines. It’s exploding sewer lines. It’s broken water lines. It’s all of the construction that is under our old cities. It’s all falling apart. And so I want a major investment in fixing up what makes our cities work. Now, I don’t want to leave the rural and suburban areas out, but the oldest — going back to Abraham Lincoln — but the oldest stuff in the ground is in our cities.

Read more (Attachment file): https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9617

Radical Green and Sanders Delegate Bill McKibben had a very different impression of Hillary’s view on green issues.

In fact, one of the lowest points in my years of fighting climate change came in late June, when I sat on the commission appointed to draft the Democratic Party platform. (I was a Sanders appointee, alongside Cornel West and other luminaries.) At 11 p.m. on a Friday night, in a mostly deserted hotel ballroom in St. Louis, I was given an hour to offer nine amendments to the platform to address climate change. More bike paths passed by unanimous consent, but all the semi-hard things that might begin to make a real difference—a fracking ban, a carbon tax, a prohibition against drilling or mining fossil fuels on public lands, a climate litmus test for new developments, an end to World Bank financing of fossil fuel plants—were defeated by 7–6 tallies, with the Clinton appointees voting as a bloc. They were quite concerned about climate change, they insisted, but a “phased-down” approach would be best. There was the faintest whiff of Munich about it. Like Chamberlain, these were all good and concerned people, just the sort of steady, evenhanded folks you’d like to have leading your nation in normal times. But they misunderstood the nature of the enemy. Like fascism, climate change is one of those rare crises that gets stronger if you don’t attack. In every war, there are very real tipping points, past which victory, or even a draw, will become impossible. And when the enemy manages to decimate some of the planet’s oldest and most essential physical features—a polar ice cap, say, or the Pacific’s coral reefs—that’s a pretty good sign that a tipping point is near. In this war that we’re in—the war that physics is fighting hard, and that we aren’t—winning slowly is exactly the same as losing.

To my surprise, things changed a couple weeks later, when the final deliberations over the Democratic platform were held in Orlando. While Clinton’s negotiators still wouldn’t support a ban on fracking or a carbon tax, they did agree we needed to “price” carbon, that wind and sun should be given priority over natural gas, and that any federal policy that worsened global warming should be rejected.

Maybe it was polls showing that Bernie voters—especially young ones—have been slow to sign on to the Clinton campaign. Maybe the hottest June in American history had opened some minds. But you could, if you squinted, create a hopeful scenario. Clinton, for instance, promised that America will install half a billion solar panels in the next four years. That’s not so far off the curve that Tom Solomon calculates we need to hit. And if we do it by building solar factories of our own, rather than importing cheap foreign-made panels, we’ll be positioning America as the world’s dominant power in clean energy, just as our mobilization in World War II ensured our economic might for two generations. If we don’t get there first, others will: Driven by anger over smog-choked cities, the Chinese have already begun installing renewable energy at a world-beating rate.

In this war we’re in—the war that physics is fighting hard, and that we aren’t—winning slowly is the same as losing.

It would be a grave mistake for the United States to wait for another nation to take the lead in combating the global climate emergency,” the Democratic platform asserts. “We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II.”

Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, somebody is going to end up very disappointed. It is anyones guess whether the radical greens get shafted, or the pro-energy unions, who accepted Hillary’s assurances that she supports fossil fuel infrastructure investment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

249 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 15, 2016 10:01 pm

She actually might not be as bad as Trump on “Climate Change”… I know he stated that it’s a hoax, but he has changed his mind so many times. Let’s hope, cause I don’t see how Trump can beat her…
(BTW – great that Bob Dylan got the Nobel Prize for Literature. More deserved than Gore or Obama…)

October 15, 2016 10:16 pm

Is there a prize for world s biggest con job?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John piccirilli
October 16, 2016 12:05 am

Maybe the prize is to get to be head honcho over the UN.

AndyG55
October 15, 2016 10:47 pm

From Pickering Post;
Yoko Ono, when asked, said of Hillary, “We met many times during the New York Vietnam War protests in the 1970s, and became very intimate. We shared many of the same values about sexual equality, fighting against the authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society we were raised in”. “We had a brief romantic fling when I was with John in Manhattan and Hillary was studying at Yale”, she told reporters at a press conference.

John Vonderlin
Reply to  AndyG55
October 16, 2016 8:44 pm

You’ve been punked. This is from an easily debunked, humorous posting from an Onion-like website. You posting it here without even bothering to research its origin or validity tells a lot about your character and intelligence.

TA
Reply to  AndyG55
October 17, 2016 1:46 pm

I hear Drudge is going to blow the lid off Hillary’s sex life on Saturday. I’m hearig it is not a pretty sight.

Analitik
October 15, 2016 11:45 pm

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, somebody is going to end up very disappointed.

Shades of our Prime Minister (of Australia) Malcolm Turnbull.
Continually playing populism to the polls will guarantee disappointment and disillusionment,
I think it was Tom Clancy who said trying to play both sides was a good way to get hit in both directions.

Rob
October 16, 2016 2:24 am

Socialism requires control. She will continue the Obama “agenda”.

Khwarizmi
October 16, 2016 2:27 am

“You unlock this door with the key of imagination.”
http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13083352_985143338229865_6694158115515944971_n.jpg
“Beyond it is another dimension; a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind.
You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance; of things and ideas.”comment image
“You’ve just crossed over into….the Twilight Zone.”

October 16, 2016 2:40 am

There are no “good” candidates for president, and there never will be. However, some are worse than others. From an anti-war outlook I find Mrs. Clinton to be the most dangerous candidate in generations. Let us hope that as president* someone convinces her than war with Russia and China will be disastrous.
* Remember that it is not who votes, but who counts the votes that determines elections. See Stalin for details.

SMC
Reply to  markstoval
October 16, 2016 3:24 am

I don’t think it’s going to matter whether Clinton or Trump wins, when it comes to war with Russia/China/Iran. I think the next president is going to have to fight a war regardless and, it will be devastating.

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 8:10 am

War with Russia will go nuclear. That is a civilization killer. Let us hope someone can stop the “deep state” from destroying us all.

SMC
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 10:04 am

War with China will go nuclear, too.

jvcstone
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 11:05 am

there would be no tension at all with Russia had we honored agreements made at the fall of the USSR, and had we not started poking a stick at a sleeping bear for the past 24 years. Not satisfied with waking the bear, we now are poking the dragon with the same stick. The current USG (since the coup) in 1963, has been the most aggressive, war mongering threat to world peace in possibly all of human history. We know what the results of a Hillery presidency will be based on past history, deeds and words. Trump is an unknown, but has from the start of his campaign spoken of co-operation rather than hostility with the Russians–who are still no threat to our security, just as the numerous countries we have “bombed back to the stone age” have been no threat to our security. Trump, in my opinion is a slight hope for peace, Hillery no hope, as she is all ready a “made man” of the criminal (read MIC) organization that actually runs the place. I say slight hope, because if he wins he will be immediately introduced to the reality of Washington, and just who runs the show. If he refuses to play ball by their rules, he will not finish out his first term.

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 11:15 am

SMC
Tensions are esculating between the USA and Russia, mostly because of USA actions. It is the USA that is putting warheads all around his borders, not the other way round. If you take the trouble to look and listen to what Putin has been saying for some considerable time, that the USA will not engage with him. Note the Democratic talk of Trump being friendly with Putin. One of the USA’s largest exports are munitions. War is good for business. Look at who has been supporting ISIS with weapons.

SMC
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 11:37 am

jvcstone and ozonebust, those are some… interesting thoughts. I’m confident we’re on opposite sides on the geopolitical argument though. Not that it’ll matter a whole lot if the shooting starts (I hope it doesn’t).

Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 11:43 am

SMC
They are not thoughts, it is reality. Some folk dont like to confront reality.

SMC
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 12:12 pm

“Some folk dont like to confront reality.”
So I’ve noticed. Let me be a little less polite…take your propaganda elsewhere.

jvcstone
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 2:09 pm

SMC–just look at who is calling the loudest for war against an “aggressive” Russia–the very same people who called for war against an “aggressive” Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and the 40 or so other countries we have fomented chaos in and/or have boots on the ground in. How well is all that working out for the “people” of the united states.

SMC
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 2:54 pm

Oh geez, jvcstone, go smoke your propaganda. Maybe you’ll mellow out a little. Last time I checked, the US is going out of it’s way to avoid a war with Russia and China and Iran. It’s communist Russia and China, as well as theocratic Iran, that are spoiling for a fight.

JohnKnight
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 4:20 pm

It doesn’t look like propaganda to me, SMC . . your chit does. Neocon (once know as neoliberal) warmonger propaganda, to be precise.

SMC
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 5:04 pm

Well JohnKnight, then you haven’t been paying attention. And, take your neocon/neoliberal/neowhatever labels and flush down an appropriate sewer.

JohnKnight
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 6:10 pm

Are you in favor of a first strike, big guy?

SMC
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 6:49 pm

Good God NO!
It won’t be the US that launches the first nuke. It’ll be China or Russia or Iran (if they have them, which I doubt, at the moment)…or maybe those idiots in North Korea, if they can ever figure out how to do it, reliably. But, once a nuke is launched, and it impacts and detonates, all bets will be off. Both Russia and China have nukes as part of their war plans in the event of war with the US. Since both Russia and China are likely to kick things off against an ally of the US, it’ll draw the US in immediately. As such, both Russia and China will likely launch preemptive strikes against the US. Both Russia and China believe they can survive a nuclear exchange with the US. Both Russia and China believe a nuclear strike against the US will destroy both the will and the ability of the US to fight.
The best case scenario has a few nasty shooting incidents (conventional munitions) between the belligerents and then everyone backs off and reflects. I don’t think that’s likely though. Any shooting incident between Russia, China and the US will very likely escalate, quickly and in a devastating fashion.

JohnKnight
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 7:27 pm

“The best case scenario has a few nasty shooting incidents (conventional munitions) between the belligerents and then everyone backs off and reflects. I don’t think that’s likely though. Any shooting incident between Russia, China and the US will very likely escalate, quickly and in a devastating fashion.”
So, what do you favor?

Dav09
Reply to  SMC
October 16, 2016 9:10 pm

“It’s communist Russia and China, as well as theocratic Iran, that are spoiling for a fight.”
Well, obviously. I mean, look how close they put their countries to our (American) military bases.

MarkW
Reply to  SMC
October 17, 2016 11:28 am

It really is fascinating how some people are dedicated to ignoring all the bad stuff Russia has been doing and how eager they are to blame the US for the crime of not immediately acquiescing to the latest Russian territorial aggressions.

jvcstone
Reply to  SMC
October 17, 2016 3:55 pm

Mark W.–could you and SMC please provide some documentation for your claims of Russian and China aggression. NYT and Washington (or any MSM for that matter) post don’t count as they are known propagandist for the regime.

Marcus
October 16, 2016 5:18 am

From the Free Thought Project……..
“WATCH: Elections Commissioner Admits to Widespread Voter Fraud on Hidden Camera”
https://youtu.be/jUDTcxIqqM0

Scott
October 16, 2016 5:33 am

“We’ve had two problems that people know about: Chernobyl which was a disaster and you know, Three Mile. Right, those were the problems we had.”
That might be the most blatant lie of omission I’ve ever seen.

October 16, 2016 5:33 am

People don’t like Hillary, even the majority of Democrats who will vote for her.
It will be the worst Presidency in history. How is she going to work with Congress. Will there be any rational voices in the White House (everyone will be bullied and fired the instant they do not tow the line).
It will be very strange watching the office descend into chaos and disdain. Hopefully, it will only be for four years.

IGN
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 16, 2016 5:39 am

Wikileaks on twitter.
As with climategate MSM is ignoring it.
Hillary’s 33,000 emails to drop 1 November.

TA
Reply to  IGN
October 16, 2016 6:40 am

“Hillary’s 33,000 emails to drop 1 November.”
Interesting. Looks like Wikileaks has all her emails. I imagine there are a lot of people around the world who have a copy of her email server. At least if all her emails are made public, the Russians and the Chinese won’t be able to blackmail her into doing their bidding. For whatever that’s worth.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  IGN
October 16, 2016 8:45 am

Hillary’s 33,000 emails to drop 1 November.

I’ve been telling ya’ll for the past months n’ months that Putin, and most probably North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc., all have copies of Hillary’s 33,000 emails, ….. as well as all of the thousands of Bill Clinton’s “deal making” Emails with foreign governments, dignitaries, etc. …… and well as thousands of other E-mails and documents that were transmitted to or from Hillary’s “UNPROTECTED” basement Server…… as well as data/info resident on other US government Servers connected to the same “secure network” …… simply because Hillary’s “UNPROTECTED” basement Server was an “open portal” through which most any “hacker” could acquire unrestricted access to US government secrets, etc., etc.
Haven’t ya’ll figured out as to EXACTLY why the FBI recommended “NO prosecution of Hillary”?
Well “DUH”, to prosecute Hillary the FBI would have to reveal the contents of those E-mails ……. and no government employee in a position of “authority” wants the public to know the contents of those E-mails.

MarkW
Reply to  IGN
October 17, 2016 11:29 am

By Nov 1, about 20% of the voters will have already voted. Perhaps more.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 16, 2016 6:31 am

The real issue with the emails is that she hosted all kinds of top secret US information on a completely unprotected server in her basement. I mean as Secretary of State, if she used her personal server while in China or Russia, they would have certainly been able to trace it and then it had very little cyber protection.
Wikileaks has shown that any number of organizations are capable of breaking and grabbing every piece of info on this type of server. Even Obama was emailing her. She was explicitly told this was prohibited for Secret information and it was too risky to do but she didn’t listen and didn’t care.
She cared more about avoiding freedom of information requests and Congressional subpoenas than maintaining national security.
Now she is going to be in charge of all national security matters and will be main person to enforce Law. You don’t put a person with zero integrity in charge of that. Same goes for Trump.

TA
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 16, 2016 6:49 am

“Now she is going to be in charge of all national security matters and will be main person to enforce Law.”
I wouldn’t bet any money on Hillary getting elected.

Latitude
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 16, 2016 6:51 am

yep. she did it to circumvent the law…..and get away with it

jvcstone
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 16, 2016 2:13 pm

Just think how disastrous a HRC administration will be for women’s rights–after she starts more wars, the economy collapses, etc etc, every thing wrong in the world will be blamed on women instead of the Russians. (sark?)

MarkW
Reply to  jvcstone
October 17, 2016 11:31 am

I don’t know anyone who is blaming everything on the Russians?
Is your desire to lick Putin’s derriere really that intense?

jvcstone
Reply to  jvcstone
October 19, 2016 5:04 pm

Haven’t you been listening to the Hillery campaign and the MSM Mark???

TA
October 16, 2016 6:54 am

I have watched a lot of political campaigns and seen a lot of Leftwing smears take place, but there has never been the kind of intense smear campaign against a Republican candidate like this current one against Trump.
They have hit Trump with everything they can come up with, yet Trump is climbing in the polls, within the margin of error on the new NBC poll, and leading the Rasmussen and LA Times polls. Something is going on in this country and it doesn’t look good for Hillary’s election, imo.

Latitude
Reply to  TA
October 16, 2016 7:32 am

The wrong people are telling me to not vote for Trump…..

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Latitude
October 16, 2016 8:32 am

And that my good man is exactly the point.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  TA
October 16, 2016 9:06 am

Something is going on in this country and ….
“YUP”, and that “something” is, …….. Donald Trump has awakened the “Sleeping Giant” within the American populace ….. that consists of 100+ MILLION US citizens that are Registered and/or qualified voters who haven’t bothered to “vote” in a General Election for the past 12 to 24 years …… simply because it was a waste of their time to do so because nothing in DC was going to change.
But with Donald Trump, their “hope for change” now becomes a reality and thus a reason to “cast” their votes come the November Election.

TA
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 16, 2016 11:26 am

I heard a comment today that might have some significance. The pundit said that all these polls are *not* polling newly registered voters, because if they have not registered previously, the pollsters don’t know about them and don’t call them.
And then you think about the huge numbers of new voters that have registered, that are not being asked their opinion. My guess is most of the new voters are signing up for Trump, not against him.
Trump got more Republican votes than any other past Republican candidate in history. Vast numbers of new voters are registering. Large numbers of Democrats are reregistering as Republicans. Trump is getting huge crowds at all his political rallies.
The instant realtime polls done on tv to judge the debates always show the independents and the Republicans favoring Trump over Hillary. I don’t think I have ever seen one of these polls favor Hillary.
A Fox pollster had a group of about 30 independent voters, who had not chosen a candidate yet, listen to the last debate. After it was over, he polled the room on who they would vote for and the vote was something like 35 votes for Trump and seven votes for Hillary (votes in November, not who won the debate).
Hillary does not have this thing in the bag by any means from the indications I see.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 17, 2016 3:56 am

Large numbers of Democrats are reregistering as Republicans. Trump is getting huge crowds at all his political rallies.

Yup, and that was necessary for them to do to be casting a “vote” for Trump in most Primaries …… but it’s not necessary to re-register for the General Election.
And we shouldn’t be forgetting the astronomical number (tens-of-millions) of I-phones and Cell-phones that are currently in use and there is NO Telephone Book or “list” that contains all those new telephone numbers ……. and thus there is NO WAY for “pollsters” to contact the owners of those phones.
The 2016 General Election is going to be a “repeat” of the 1936 General Election, to wit:

The presidential election of 1936 pitted Alfred Landon, the Republican governor of Kansas, against the incumbent President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. For the 1936 election, the Literary Digest prediction was that Landon would get 57% of the vote against Roosevelt’s 43%
The first major problem with the poll was in the selection process for the names on the mailing list, which were taken from telephone directories, club membership lists, lists of magazine subscribers, etc. Such a list is guaranteed to be slanted toward middle- and upper-class voters, and by default to exclude lower-income voters. One must remember that in 1936, telephones were much more of a luxury than they are today.
Read more https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html

Pop Piasa
Reply to  TA
October 16, 2016 9:15 am

Smearing the reputations of their opponents is the only tactic the progressives have when folks refuse to be swayed by their propaganda of fear and protection from boogeymen.

Jim G1
October 16, 2016 7:07 am

I’ll go with the egomaniac with the bad hair. Much better choice, thank you.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Jim G1
October 16, 2016 10:59 am

It says a lot that this life-long democrat now republican (Obama did that) is willing to vote for a self-proclaimed unapologetic womanizing, narcissistic, blow-hard over a self-proclaimed unapologetic world class, victim of all men, narcissistic politician.

Jim G1
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 16, 2016 11:50 am

I was a democrat of the jfk persuasion, progun, anticommunist, prounion as a young college student. Today’s democrats are communists in general. More and more government, less and less freedom, more and more fostering of dependence to gain control. Government during my lifetime has not shown itself to be competent, nor trustworthy. Trump is definitely a flaming egomaniacle butthole but infinitely superior to Hillary on every conceivable measure. And perhaps he’ll clean out some of the big government, hypocritical republicans as well. All the right people hate him so he must be good.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 16, 2016 1:15 pm

Be very careful how you let the Clinton political machine paint Trump: Huckabee ran against that same political machine in Missouri and they used the same playbook against him as they’ve done for the past half dozen presidential elections: Lies, lies, and more lies, especially if the lies will persuade straight-thinking Americans to avoid a candidate because of the possibility the womanizing allegations might be true. Both Clintons are masters of subterfuge and deceit.

Jim G1
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 17, 2016 5:17 am

RR,
I believe none of what the Clintons or their campaign say. Trump has painted himself as a flamer by his observed behavior, however, as I said above, he is still 1000% better than Hillary. The Clinton tactics obviously do work, however, with some folks. The communists historically have used the tactic of repeating a lie over and over until many people believe it. Same tactic.

SMC
Reply to  Jim G1
October 16, 2016 12:26 pm

As Ted Nugent said during the primaries…
“Obama is against Trump
The Media is against Trump
The establishment Democrats are against Trump
The establishment Republicans are against Trump
The Pope is against Trump
The UN is against Trump
The EU is against Trump
China is against Trump
Mexico is against Trump
Soros is against Trump
Black Lives Matter is against Trump
MoveOn.Org is against Trump
Koch Bro’s are against Trump
Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump
Bonus points
Cher says she will leave the country
Mylie Cyrus says she will leave the country
Whoopi says she will leave the country
Rosie says she will leave the country
Al Sharpton says he will leave the country
Gov. Brown says California will build a wall
Sounds like the kinda president the US needs!”

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jim G1
October 18, 2016 4:15 am

Oh my, my, …… such dastardly disturbing comments about a Political Star.

I’ll go with the egomaniac with the bad hair.
Trump is definitely a flaming egomaniacle butthole
a self-proclaimed unapologetic womanizing, narcissistic, blow-hard
Trump has painted himself as a flamer by his observed behavior,

It is really too damn bad that Donald Trump is not a Movie Star, ….. or a Rock n’ Roll Star, ……. or a Country n’ Western Star, ……. or a Soccer Star, ……. or a Pro Football Star, ……. or a National Basketball Association Star, ……. or a Dancing With the Stars Star, ……. because iffen Donald was one of said Stars then most probably 80% of the population would be touting their “luv” for him …… and no one would dare stand up in front of God and everyone and “badmouth” Trump so bad that a fly wouldn’t alight upon him.

Horse Feathers
October 16, 2016 7:13 am

I don’t care what the so-called experts say…I’m preparing for colder winters. Jack Frost is about to freeze the words right out of their mouths. So much depends on what happens in November. It is the last chance to stop the insanity of faux global warming claims and realize that mother nature is about to deliver a sucker punch, thanks to the sun taking it’s next periodical nap, IMO. Enjoy the faux fantasies and the faux election rhetoric (aka lies) from all directions. Vote for the real science – not Hollywood scary reality attempts, if you don’t want to follow the same path as the Romans, into political chaos.

Gareth Phillips
Reply to  Horse Feathers
October 17, 2016 2:12 am

Check out the interesting temps in the arctic. maybe they are not real, perhaps it’s all media hype.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Griff
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 17, 2016 5:58 am

The refreeze has slowed, so perhaps they are. Ice extent verging on lowest for this date…

MarkW
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 17, 2016 2:25 pm

Once again, Griff can’t tell the difference between the satellite record and all of history.

prjindigo
October 16, 2016 8:12 am

Hillary Clinton is an environmentalist, but the “Greens” aren’t. They don’t give a damn that the manufacture of “green” stuff poisons the environment. The “green” movement has been successfully waylaid into crying about CO2.
Hilarious… but it means they’re not watching the destruction of the planet’s ecosystems.

Pamela Gray
October 16, 2016 9:32 am

It appears that many believe in one face or the other, and many believe the authenticity of both faces as presented in emails. That is a mistake. I believe in the 30,000 emails that were deleted, not the ones we can read. And I would not call her two faced. She is more in line with Medusa and every snake head is a different side of this woman.
There is no way in hell or this universe that this person should ever see let alone be inside any of the governmental buildings or monuments ever again. Our vote should in essence tar and feather her then send her out of town on a rail.
So what do we have left to vote for? Good f#%ing question.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 16, 2016 10:56 am

Pamela
Your dignity, vote to try and recover that.
At least take a chance with change. Like they did in the early 1960’s. Most people are afraid of change, it brings uncertainty. Unless the USA embraces a free thinking radical, with the balls to change the system, you, and the rest of the world that the USA treats like pawns will not progress.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2016 5:03 am

Pamela Gray – October 16, 2016 at 9:32 am

Good f#%ing question.

Mercy, mercy, me, ……. such gawd awful language being uttered by a female.
Pamela, your above comment is/was far, far, far worse, dastardly and demeaning than what Trump was recorded as saying ……. simply because Trump didn’t know his “colorful” comment was being recorded and wouldn’t have wanted it recorded …….. whereas with your above “colorful” comment you wanted it to be recorded and therefore you recorded it for the whole world to read.
And there is even more irony involved in the above scenario, and that is, ……. males are always “held accountable” for such actions, ……. whereas females are seldom if ever “held accountable” for such actions,
HA, that’s gotta be one of those “equal rights” thingys that the females are always demanding.

Jeff Hayes
October 16, 2016 9:35 am

In case you were wondering-

Jeff Hayes
October 16, 2016 10:07 am

Whoops, was supposed to be this one, A little humor in the midst of this train wreck we call an election.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
October 16, 2016 11:29 am

Jeff Hayes: Too funny (in wit, wisdom). Pamela Gray: too true – and too bloody sad. My daughter (if she had a vote – we’re Brits) said she would vote Clinton, and I got the impression that was because HRC is a woman. Other than that, my daughter has no idea of the history of this thing, and her Dad is not about to tell her (she has fingers in ears, lalalalalala).
When American sneezes, GB catches a cold, they say. Well, WTF will we catch if HRC is elected? Penicillin is not going to cut it.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 16, 2016 1:06 pm

Some Brits seem to get it, and some have no clue apparently, Harry . . and that goes for Europeans in general. It’s as though many actually believe it’s their potential displeasure that keeps the wolves at bay . .

jvcstone
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 16, 2016 2:20 pm

Harry, my current lady friend is the same as your daughter, and she does get to vote. All she is interested in knowing is what the Clinton News Network has to say about either. Wonder if she’ll still be coming around after nov.8 ??

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 17, 2016 1:48 am

GB may simply catch a cold, but to those of us North of the 49th – thanks to our know-nothing WWF now former honcho inspired puppet provincial Premiers, PM and other assorted political pontificators – we are sustaining (you should pardon my use of the word) an epidemic of virulent PC – and CC, aka Climate Change – Influenza.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 18, 2016 5:39 am

Harry Passfield

My daughter ….. said she would vote Clinton, and I got the impression that was because HRC is a woman.

Me thinks your “impression” was 100% correct.
And that is exactly why the Pollsters are claiming that a great majority of US females have stated they will be voting for HRC.
It is an emotional decision on their part and thus, subconsciously, they “reason” that in this combative HRC verses DT election feud, ….. that it is absolutely no different than any “divorce feuding” ……. and as most everyone knows, ……. other females will most always support the female that is engaged in “hotly” contested divorce proceedings.
And it matters not to the aforesaid “female supporters” ….. as to what all the “divorcing female” is or was guilty of, regardless of how dastardly it might have been.

ralfellis
October 16, 2016 11:26 am

She must be Janus…comment image

techgm
October 16, 2016 11:26 am

If Hillary weren’t two-faced, she’d have no face at all.

troe
October 16, 2016 12:50 pm

“Cornel West and other luminaries” Hahaha. neither Mckibben nor West have ever illuminated anything. Both are nasty little ideologues scrapping a living from the fringes. That either was asked to write a major party platform should illuminate how deep the partisan divide has become in the US. With few exceptions the middle has vaporized and we are locked into opposing camps. I cant speak for others but I will never allow a Cornel West to dictate his fuzzy hateful ideology onto me and mine. Ain’t happening. See what I mean.

Logos_wrench
October 16, 2016 1:09 pm

Didn’t Obama spew this exact same crap?
It’s pathological with these people.

Marcus
October 16, 2016 1:11 pm

Fox News / WikiLeaks Bombshell
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta lamented that a Muslim, not a white man, named as killer in 2015 massacre.
“Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.”
What a sad thing the Democrats have become…JFK must be rolling in his grave.

Amber
October 16, 2016 1:35 pm

For the most part the MSM has had a mega phone in voters ear trash talking Trump . CNN is lead pit bull .
The gang up on Trump by left wing liberal media is on full display and if he can overcome their assault or lose narrowly it will confirm the ongoing loss of stature of the MSM .
The MSM promotion of the scary global warming con game is not about saving the planet it is about aligning interests . The MSM want government subsidy of their failing business model . The only way they get more tax payer cash is to promote the governments new carbon tax and subsidies to “renewables “

October 16, 2016 2:44 pm

If any other nation is foolish enough to go whole hog in order to take the lead on climate change, it deserves whatever it gets regarding lost jobs and higher consumer costs. Just look at how Canada has recently been pushing for a form of carbon pricing and the amount of opposition it’s receiving, and it’s a safe bet it won’t come anywhere close to reducing its emissions targets. In fact, estimates show that with its current climate plan, it will fall 40% short of its 2030 goal.

michael hart
October 16, 2016 2:47 pm

The good thing is that Hillary is able to see some of the truth, albeit behind closed doors. But as ristvan says in the very first comment, who will pay the most for the truth a President Clinton chooses to accept?
I would actually be surprised if that was worse (on this specific point) than the incumbent.
Any ‘sensible’ politician would regard the fossil fuel industry primarily as a source of potential funding, even if they want to destroy the Western Industrial Civilisation it has created. Hillary probably understands that, and I’m not convinced that Obama does.