De Blasio: Bernie’s Attacks on Hillary’s Climate Change Record Are ‘Flat-Out False’

[onehandle]

Source: Observer

Mayor Bill de Blasio took aim at one of his favorite politicians, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, accusing the Hillary Clinton rival of making unbecoming attacks on the former secretary of state’s climage change record.

In a conference call with reporters organized by the Clinton campaign, Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat and Clinton supporter, said Mr. Sanders, who claimed she has “relied heavily” on funds from lobbyists working in fossil fuel industries, recently made “flat-out false” and “inappropriate” assertions.

“The allegations here just don’t hold water, just don’t make sense,” Mr. de Blasio, who managed Ms. Clinton’s 2000 campaign for a New York Senate seat, said today. “It’s quite clear the notion that small numbers of individuals who gave [her money] would somehow sway her judgment just doesn’t hold water.”

“This attack is not becoming of him and not becoming of that movement to bring about more progressive change,” he added.

Read more: http://observer.com/2016/04/de-blasio-bernies-attacks-on-hillarys-climate-change-record-are-flat-out-false/

[navarth]

1. News flash: Clinton supporter defends Clinton

film at 11.

[choie]

11. I wonder which post

in her cabinet my illustrious mayor is gunning for.

[riversedge]

21. Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Enjoy



Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard







...............There’s a further problem with this calculation. Greenpeace counts all of the money raised or contributed by lobbyists as “oil/gas industry” funds, but these lobbyists have many other clients besides the oil industry. Ben Klein, one of the lobbyists highlighted in the Greenpeace report, also lobbies for American Airlines, Cigna, and Hearst, according to the lobbying disclosure database, so in theory his contributions to the Clinton campaign could also be labeled as funds for airline, insurance or media industry.
.....

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard

[RiverNoord]

60. Wow.

Implicit in your entire point is that it's perfectly OK for political candidates to engage with lobbyists, whose business is to influence public officials in favor of their clients, to raise loads of money for their campaigns. Money that comes directly from their clients. Or, technically, from lots and lots of wealthy board members and executives of these clients. And their spouses, of course. Millions of dollars raised like this by armies of lobbyists.

Does that make any sense to you?

[riversedge]

79. When part of your appeal is: a) "I won't go negative"; and b) "I tell the truth," an untrue neg. at

Paul is spot on. Bernie is a flip flopper


Paul Begala Verified account
?@PaulBegala

When part of your appeal is: a) "I won't go negative"; and b) "I tell the truth," an untrue neg. attack hurts more. http://wapo.st/1St6VK0

[Jopin Klobe]

95. If telling the truth is going negative ...

... that's your candidates' fault ...

[Hortensis]

113. No, people here lying about their

candidate ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO COMPLAIN THAT OTHERS LIE.

[reACTIONary]

118. Of course it's OK for candidates ,,.

.... engage with lobbyists. You can't understand and regulate a complex industry or formulate solid policy without doing so.

[RiverNoord]

119. So....

1) You mean it's quote OK by you when candidates (to be very clear) engage the services of lobbyists, specifically to raise money for the candidates' campaigns from their clients?

2) Do you also mean that lobbyists generally possess a thorough understanding of the complex industries of their clients?

3) Finally, do you really see no alternative to the development of sound policy concerning complex industries than spending a lot of time meeting with people who are paid by businesses to persuade government officials to do things their way?

The whole point of regulation has nothing to do with 'understanding' an industry - it's about preventing harm that the industries may cause or have caused in the conduct of their businesses. That's absolutely not the sort of information you get from the industries themselves. You get that information from the parties that have been or are likely to be harmed by the business practices of the participants in the industry.

If there's an industry is not perceived as doing any harm in the conduct of its operations, it doesn't tend to be a candidate for regulation.

[Plucketeer]

62. How many Pinnochios (if any) would this rate?

[HawkMode]

65. The moral of the story is....

Hillary is bought and paid for by ALL industry.

American airlines(monopoly)! AA gouges customers with there inflated prices derived from the time we had VERY high fuel costs. Those prices did not come down with the dramatic fall of the price of fuel. Why, because they can collude with the small amount of American air carriers.

Cigna-currently trying to monopolize as a health insurance provider.

Hearst-currently trying to monopolize as a media outlet.

I wouldn't be proud of the fact the candidate of my choice took money from these companies. Forget the fact she may not have taken money directly from a specific FF lobby, look at who she's getting money from and what cleary their agenda is.

[LiberalLovinLug]

82. Let me get this straight

So you think because a lobbyist who shills for the oil and gas industry also shills for other corporate interests can't be counted? Like one client negates the other? lol.

[Major Hogwash]

103. The central argument of the article is flawed

From post #21 --

In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions (from lobbyists for the oil & gas industry) are hardly significant.

Everyone knows that $4.5 Million dollar pales in comparison to the $750 Million dollar Hillary's Super PAC has raised so far.
So, it is indeed insignificant.

And since her Super Pac could conceivably reach $1 Billion dollars, if she were to become the nominee, $4.5 Million dollars could realistically be considered pocket money.

But then, who's counting chump change when the nation's economy revolves on a $ Trillion dollar merry go round.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. Actually, de Blasio admires SBS

a lot. See this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bill-deblasio-interview-221446

So for de Blasio to come out so strongly NOW means that even SBS admirers are getting PO'd with the tenor and tone of his recent campaign tactics.

As a Clinton supporter who also likes Sanders, I know that I am one. I have never deified either candidate as I see BOTH as pols, but SBS has definitely left the high road with ongoing misrepresentations about Clinton's fossil fuel donations.

It will be very hard for him to regain it with some, especially when a lot of us have already been suspicious of his opportunism and outright failure to support down-ticket Dems, among other things.

[yardwork]

29. Excellent post. I feel the same way.

Bernie has veered into opportunism, with ultimate harm to other Democratic candidates.

The party matters. I'm living with the results when the Republicans take over a longtime Democratic state.

[beastie boy]

41. The party doesn't matter to Bernie

He is not a Democrat. He is admittedly using the party to advance his presidential ambitions. He didn't raise a single dime for the downticket Democrats, and he is non-commital on ever doing so.

It would be foolish to expect him or his supporters to lift a finger in the General if he doesn't get the nomination.

He is a virtual Trump surrogate.

[yardwork]

81. I agree. I've become quite disenchanted with him.

[chapdrum]

89. What Bernie understands is

that most Democratic politicians are a hair's breadth different from Republican politicians.

He not only understands it, he effing acts upon it.

His supporters respect that.

The system allows him to run as a Democrat. He didn't make that rule. All the Democratic Party has to do to eliminate threats to the oligarchy like Sanders is to disallow the candidacy of any Democrat that leaves the party.

What Sanders does share with Trump is that, relative to the other candidates, they are outsiders.

[beastie boy]

94. If he has such low opinion of his colleagues, why soil himself by associating with their party?

It was his choice. He could have run as an independent, which he fancies himself to be.

His run is an opportunistic ploy to use the Democratic party for his personal presidential ambitions. He is not hiding this fact.

Doesn't say a lot about his ethical standards. Perhaps one more thing he shares with Trump?

BTW, decades in Congress doesn't make Bernie an outsider. So we are back to just one thing he may share with Trump.

[chapdrum]

99. Because he knows that if he runs outside

of the two-party system, he will be more marginalized than he already is.

It's not "opportunistic." It's pragmatic. Sanders doesn't make the rules.

To imply that Sanders has anything in common with Trump speaks eloquently for itself.

[BlueMTexpat]

68. So sorry to hear that.

I hope that this election can make some positive inroads in your state!

[yardwork]

80. I hope so too. Thanks!

[Silver_Witch]

44. Oh no is Bernie using Tone and tenor again..

Darn we have talked to him about his tone over and over. Doesn't he know that he has to talk slowly and quietly and not wave his arms. Honestly I am shocked that he doesn't understand strong voices are so terrifying to most people and that telling the truth is too painful for others to hear.

I will give him another call and tell him to keep his tone down.

Perhaps he could be nice like this

[Surya Gayatri]

63. K & R this post...excellent.

[BlueMTexpat]

69. Thanks, SG!

I love your posts, even though I may not always comment!

[Surya Gayatri]

74. And, I yours!

[Scootaloo]

85. I notice you have no anger over the clinton campaign's many, many lies agaisnt Sanders

But Sanders pointing out the reality of Clinton's oil industry ties? Oh, THAT pisses you off.

Once again, a clinton sup[porter holds Sanders to a standard they refuse to expect Clinton to adhere to.

[seabeckind]

2. So what pray tell is this record of which he speaks?

Perhaps the poster could have helped his point by adding a couple paragraphs.

[noretreatnosurrender]

3. "Dog Bites Man" Story

is not news. Now when we have a "man bites dog" story about Clinton supporter De-Blasio defending Sanders I will be interested.

[Ellipsis]

4. Bern after reading. n/t

[laserhaas]

14. Ha Ha "Bern after reading"

Good one

[Jefferson23]

5. lol

We know what her record is long before today...sorry de Blasio. jig was up a long time
ago on your candidate.

[Dustlawyer]

35. Exactly! Where was he when Clinton and her surrogates were actually lying and misrepresenting

Bernie's record?

We know the O & G industry has donated huge amounts to her in various forms. The Clinton Global Initiative, Super PACs, dark money, and campaign contributions. I bet she has given them some high dollar speeches too. Why else would she be so big on fracking?

[Jefferson23]

42. Politics....He knows her record and he knows it sucks too.

It's a pretend game and a pathetic one at that..Hillary the dedicated WS reformer? The dedicated
environmentalist? lol

[HeartoftheMidwest]

84. AND for the..........................

Keystone XL pipeline, until it looks like too big a liability for her presidential aspirations.

Keystone XL, which Bill McKibben calls "game over" for the climate.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Yes, some have been influenced by donations which were donated

To defeat an opponent, and Sanders has done this as example of NEW donating money and Sanders voting against the Brady Bill five times. This result should not be revisited in others because he has done the same thing. De Blasio is right in defending Hillary. If attending meetings with lobbyists of energy are something had then perhaps Sanders should have a supporter making a statement on his behalf.

[seabeckind]

8. I'm a supporter. Private meetings with lobbyists could be a conflict of interest.

To make sure there wasn't any unethical behavior,

where are the transcripts of the meetings?

[laserhaas]

15. Holding my breath

[BlueMTexpat]

28. Where are SBS's tax returns? eom

[joealexander]

48. Here.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/08/421151627/sanders-among-the-least-wealthy-presidential-candidates

[BlueMTexpat]

53. I meant other than 2014, and even that is somewhat wanting.

Please see: http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-hasnt-bernie-sanders-released-his-tax-returns/

In this bizarre political year, Donald Trump has shown more candor than Sanders when it comes to his tax returns. That is an amazing and disturbing feat, given Trump’s penchant for exaggeration and just making stuff up, as I have been documenting since 1988. Understand that while Trump has fabricated an excuse for not disclosing any of his income tax returns, he was being more forthright than Sanders, who tries to pretend that he has disclosed his taxes.

What may surprise some is that of the five remaining Presidential candidates, only Hillary Clinton has been completely candid and forthright about her and her husband’s income tax returns, a policy of theirs that dates at least to 1992. Despite her singular transparency, news organizations routinely write, without citing any verifiable supporting facts, about Clinton’s perceived mendacity.

So what’s the issue? The Sanders, Cruz and Kasich campaigns have all distributed what they claim are tax returns; Kasich for seven years, Cruz for four, and Sanders for just one year, 2014.

[Thinkingabout]

110. I would like to see those transcripts myself whenever he produces them.

[Silver_Witch]

50. Please tell the whole truth...

the same way you want people to tell the whole truth about your candidate.

In July, when we first looked into the issue, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver told us that Sanders voted against the bill because he believed a national waiting period was a federal overreach and because he was answering to his constituents.

"He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down," Weaver said. "He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont."

A mixed record overall

Overall, Sanders is neither a gun nut nor an anti-gunner. He’s received lukewarm marks from the NRA, ranging from a C- to F in the last 15 years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-voted-against-brady/

[roody]

59. F is probably anti-gunner. So is D-.

[Thinkingabout]

111. Exactly as I said, he voted against the Brady Bill five times. It is a fact the NRA

Donated $18,000 to defeat his opponent. Now it may satisfy some he objected to the waiting time and ergo the short time allowed the Charleston shooter loophole, and we see how this worked out.

[Island Deac]

7. Once a Zealot's mind

is made up, nothing will change it. If you bring up facts they will find a way to bend it to their liking. I'm talking to you Hillary supporters. Oh, and I'm also talking to you Bernie supporters.

[BlueMTexpat]

47. So you think of de Blasio as a "zeolot?" Hmm.

Please read this:

De Blasio loves Clinton, but hearts Bern

In an interview with POLITICO, the New York City mayor finally embraces Hillary Clinton, but can't hide his admiration for Bernie Sanders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bill-deblasio-interview-221446

Some "zealot" indeed.

[islandmkl]

9. this just in: Knicks' cheerleader caught cheering for the Knicks...eom

[riversedge]

23. Attacking the messenger is an old Rovian trick: Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pant

Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!






...............There’s a further problem with this calculation. Greenpeace counts all of the money raised or contributed by lobbyists as “oil/gas industry” funds, but these lobbyists have many other clients besides the oil industry. Ben Klein, one of the lobbyists highlighted in the Greenpeace report, also lobbies for American Airlines, Cigna, and Hearst, according to the lobbying disclosure database, so in theory his contributions to the Clinton campaign could also be labeled as funds for airline, insurance or media industry.
.....

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard

[sendero]

71. A fact without a point....

... "so in theory his contributions to the Clinton campaign could also be labeled as funds for airline, insurance or media industry"

SO FUCKING WHAT? So she is beholden to ALL of those industries. How the FUCK is that better?

[Kip Humphrey]

10. Late Breaking News or Late Breaking Fact-free Whining?

[polly7]

12. Climate change ......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1610499

Bernie and Hillary and Fracking:

https://vimeo.com/157982054


*********************************************************************

(and how she didn't appear to consider much at all those 'conditions' peddling it to other nations)


How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

—By Mariah Blake | September/October 2014 Issue

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

Hillary Clinton is welcomed to Sofia by Bulgarian Foreign Affairs Minister Nikolay Mladenov, left. US Department of State/flickr

Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

But environmental groups were barely consulted, while industry played a crucial role. When Goldwyn unveiled the initiative in April 2010, it was at a meeting of the United States Energy Association, a trade organization representing Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips, all of which were pursuing fracking overseas. Among their top targets was Poland, which preliminary studies suggested had abundant shale gas. The day after Goldwyn's announcement, the US Embassy in Warsaw helped organize a shale gas conference, underwritten by these same companies (plus the oil field services company Halliburton) and attended by officials from the departments of State and Energy.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world

[Jefferson23]

13. Hillary Clinton, the dedicated "champion" lol

[polly7]

18. Now, now ....... we shouldn't be unbecoming.

Those tens of thousands of people who didn't want that fracking will benefit in their colder climates by having flammable water whenever they need it!

[Herman4747]

77. Excellent post, polly7!!! Thanks!

[polly7]

78. You're welcome, Herman4747 :) nt.

[Major Hogwash]

104. Well, well, well . . .

It looks like Hillary has dug a deep hole for herself, and then tried to peddle it off as an oil well.

[Octafish]

16. Like the time the Canadian banks paid Hillary for those speeches?

They just happened to be the banks bankrolling the oil sands pipeline. What a(nother) coincidence!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html

[polly7]

19. Oh pshaw.

She spoke on the Keystone XL for its backers up here because she has serious pipeline inspection creds. It's a safety thing.











Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists

Clinton’s top campaign financiers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas and the Keystone pipeline.

07/17/2015 09:22 am ET | Updated Jul 17, 2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

[Octafish]

22. It's all legal.

Which is the interesting part. From the other day...

If you want to learn WHY Bill and Hillary Clinton are so close to Wall Street...

...helped repeal Glass-Steagall, became empathetic with those in natural gas and fracking and other mineral extraction industries, and seemed content with irregular international banking practices a la BCCI; then check out this article from the great Barbara Demick, once of The Philadelphia Inquirer, which ran three days before the inauguration of President Clinton in 1993:

Clinton's Wealth Of Support

An Arkansas Family Has Been A Backer,
And A Source Of Controversy.

By Barbara Demick
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER STAFF WRITER, January 17, 1993

EXCERPT...

Early in the game, the Stephenses raised $100,000 in Arkansas to get Clinton's candidacy up and running. Then last spring, when Clinton was trailing both George Bush and Ross Perot, Worthen Bank supplied the cash- starved campaign with a $3.5 million line of credit.

SNIP...

The centerpiece of the family's $1 billion empire is Stephens Inc., one of the largest investment banking firms off Wall Street. In addition to its 38 percent interest in Worthen Bank, the family owns stakes in oil and natural gas, utilities, nursing homes, waste management, diamond mining and hog farming.

SNIP...

The Stephens businesses are often represented by the Rose law firm, where Hillary Clinton has been a partner. Until the mid-1980s, they owned Arkla Inc., the Shreveport, La., natural-gas utility from which Clinton tapped chairman Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty as his White House chief of staff. Their investment firm serves as business manager to Linda Bloodworth-Thomason and Harry Thomason, the Hollywood couple who helped choreograph Clinton's public image.

SNIP...

In 1978, federal securities regulators alleged that Stephens, along with Lance, helped Middle Eastern investors linked to BCCI secretly buy up shares in a Washington bank. Stephens and the others settled the civil lawsuit by signing a consent decree in which they neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.

SNIP...

The Stephenses have extensive holdings in natural gas, a resource strongly supported by Clinton. They, along with Bradbury, have been vocal proponents of easing banking regulations - in particular the limits on interstate banking and the Glass-Steagal Act, which separates banks from brokerage firms.

CONTINUED...

http://articles.philly.com/1993-01-17/news/25959645_1_worthen-bank-stephens-family-bill-clinton

The whole article is worth reading if you want to understand Ms. Clinton and where she's coming from -- and where she will lead.

[polly7]

37. Thanks very much, Octafish.

It seems like they've taken care of every possible loophole to have things 'legal'. That they have sooo many ties to fossil fuel fascinates me, actually. I think of the people in Libya and how all those were slobbering at the thought of 'investment opportunity', the tens of thousands in Romania who protested fracking and got a moratorium on it until she jetted on over to convince Romanian leaders to give it another shot.

Every damn thing seems to hurt someone unable to fight back and just happens to benefit themselves or those with the ties. I sometimes think they have no conscience whatsoever. Honestly, I'm shocked by all that's been revealed here the last few months.

[beastie boy]

17. There will be many who attack the messenger.

I wonder how many will actually pay attention to the message...

Bernie's assertion that Hillary is relying heavily on funds from lobbyists working for fossil fuel industry is flat out false indeed.

And now he demands an apology for his dishonesty. Way to go, Bernie!

[greatlaurel]

25. Well said. Thank you!

The Washington Post gave Sanders three pinocchios for the lies about the campaign contributions. Facts are important.

I notice that the BS campaign does not discuss much about any other environmental issues which Hillary Clinton has an outstanding record on. clean energy and many other environmental issues. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/31/1508763/-Hillary-is-in-The-Tank-For-Big-Environment
Proper disposal of nuclear waste is an important environmental issue that Hillary Clinton has talked about often. Bernie Sanders and Jane Sanders prefer to dump Vermont's nuclear waste on a poor community in Texas. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/17/when-brown-lives-did-not-matter-to-bernie
The Sierra Blanca site ended up blocked by then Texas governor Bush, but a waste site was built in another poor community in Texas.

Of course, BS is getting some backing from the Koch backed Freedom Partners. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/koch-brothers-bernie-sanders-220498

[BlueMTexpat]

64. These facts are generally

unacknowledged by some and caused to be hidden by others. Thanks for posting.

PS: neither of us may survive the anticipated onslaught.

[greatlaurel]

107. Thanks! The impact of 25 years of right wing propaganda has brainwashed a lot of people against HRC.

Many of the people who spout these right wing lies and distortions are the victims of the extensive right wing strategy of dividing and conquering the Democratic Party. It was been highly effective to the misfortune of the citizens of the United States and the world.

I am old enough to remember the vile garbage spewed at Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, who were also accused of not being progressives! The attacks on their delightful daughter, Amy, were very similar to the attacks on Chelsea Clinton, as well. The fact the news media enabled these attacks on children demonstrated what the news media really is, a business that cares about nothing except profit. Anyone who uses or spreads the right wing lies and enables the divide and conquer tactics to attack any Democratic Party candidate is not a liberal. They are either easily mislead or tools.

[BlueMTexpat]

109. I remember those attacks on Carter well.

And yes, the tone was very similar from the "left."

[yardwork]

20. What has Bernie done about climate change during all his years in the Senate?

I don't see that he succeeded in getting any legislation passed to address this crisis. Did he even introduce any legislation on climate change?

I read Bernie's platform on climate change and most of his proposals would require Congress to act.

It's easy to say this stuff. Getting it past Congress is the trick.

[killbotfactory]

24. Umm

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/bernie-sanders-greenest-presidential-candidate

[yardwork]

27. Most of those bills didn't pass.

It's easy to say stuff. Getting it past this Congress is the trick.

[killbotfactory]

30. Hard to pass stuff with republicans willing to throw a spanner in the works.

It's been a problem for Obama, and it will be a problem for the next democratic president, unless we motivate enough people to vote those fuckers out of congress.

I hope when the primary is over, we all realize that the GOP is willing to doom the planet for easy money and we can put a stop to it.

[yardwork]

32. Thank you. Yes. Exactly. This is why I disagree with tearing down Democrats.

Supporting Democrats is important. Some are better than others. Get the Democratic Party back in power, though, so that we can get something done!

[beastie boy]

31. Funny...

In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.

From your source. And no accusations of the industry influence on Hillary...

[yardwork]

33. The one he co-wrote with Hillary passed.

Hillary Clinton knows how to get things done.

[chwaliszewski]

88. Your sentence is incomplete...

Hillary Clinton knows how to get things done for her own interests. There. That's better.

[yardwork]

97. That's kind of a silly statement in this context.

[onehandle]

49. He made the Senate unicorn corral zero emissions. nt

[Perogie]

34. What's your point?

[NNadir]

38. Photoshopping IS, in fact, lying. n/t.

[Plucketeer]

54. Aw C'mon!

McConnell wears the SAME sorta coat. I've seen a photo of him with it on.

[cprise]

66. THIS is not photoshopping...

&feature=youtu.be&t=7m25s
(See 7:25)

That is Clinton's hand-promoted pick at the State Dept. advocating for the "protesters" position from an Exxon-Mobil / Chevron decorated platform. She may be considered a co-author of the neocon's plan for war in the Middle East, because she claims she co-authors all of her husband's papers. That person is Robert Kagan.

The mob she is taking sides with had already started throwing hundreds of heavy bricks pulled up from the pavement and incendiary devices at riot police (some of whom were catching fire) and had also tried to run them over with a bulldozer.

In the US, protesters who do this are charged with terrorism.

It is great to see the Nuclear and GMO lobby going to bat for Clinton on DU, though.

[NNadir]

93. As a scientist familiar and enthusiastic for the world's largest, by far, source of climate...

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

...change energy, nuclear energy, and as an ethical scientist who deplores the horrid ignorance that among other things, causes children to go blind because a loud mouthed and ignorant squad of mindless fools hate genetic science as much as any creationist, I can say that I fully support Ms. Clinton over the fool who opposes her.

I have always freely and openly expressed my contempt for simpletons and fools, on the far left as well as on the far right, who endorse policies that cause widespread destruction and loss of human life and ability because they have never taken or passed a science course in their pathetic and useless lives.

If the grotesque mistake of nominating Sanders for President is made by the Democratic Party is made, it will go a long way to assuring the triumph of fear and ignorance that is so popular in this country and is a fair measure of its decline.

Sanders v. Trump or Sanders v. Cruz will surely represent the worst choice in American Politics possibly since Dukakis v. Bush, maybe exceeding that.

I am pleased to note, that once again, the unthinking, mindless technically ignorant wing of the Democratic Party is prone to the bad thinking. Everytime they open their sad, and useless but loud mouthes, they generally employ one of textbook cases evoking the entire list of logical fallacies.

These people are causing untold damage to the future, but since mostly they're bourgeois brats with their heads up their asses, there's very little that can be done about them except hope that they reach the place they would deserve in a just and fair world, irrelevance.

If they succeed at pushing their ignorance into policy, it's very clear that they will lose power, since this country will be further along on its trajectory toward irrelevance, and if they ignored, we'll have hard work to do the damage they've already done, but our country, and humanity, will still have a chance.

Never before in my lifetime has a Democratic primary debate offered so clear a choice.

In spite of my contempt for them, I wish all the airheads on the other side of this debate, a pleasant, if stupid, weekend.

[cprise]

116. Your Hillary is paid $$$ by oil corps. to never mention "carbon tax"

At least not in any positive light.

And you have mistaken oligarchy for science, which is why the Hillary camp are for nuclear deregulation.

Have a nice day, chemist.

[NNadir]

117. Um...

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 01:52 PM - Edit history (3)

It's amazing how people who know nothing about science, nothing at all, show up regularly in response to my posts to attack science - this while claiming to be able to define it - in terms that generally issuing mindless platitudes.

Oligarchy...um...well...whatever...

These people are exceedingly stupid, and exceedingly noxious, but at this point in my life, I've come to realize that nothing can be done about them. They will continue to whine about abstractions that they don't understand (having clearly had weak educations) and the probability that they will ever understand exactly how mindless they are is zero.

I've personally come to the conclusion that these people are generally annoying and a waste of time. It's clear they've never had a useful thought in their lives, and while they are causing great harm, one can always hope that eventually, like um, so many equally toxic people throughout the ages, will fade into the obscurity they deserve.

I no longer regard it as my ethical duty to confront them.

With these reflections in mind, I now have a policy of dealing with these intellectual and moral gnats or flies by utilizing the wonderful "ignore" button that has long been available at DU, but which I have regrettably under utilized.

As much as I hate ignorance, and have labored under a feeling of a responsibility to confront it, there is no need to continuously suffer being exposed to it; it only raises my blood pressure and depresses me and clearly I can do nothing about it myself.

I have just expanded the list of people I have on ignore to three.

Have a nice life.

[NNadir]

36. He's right...but what's worse is that the Sanders plan for the climate is absurd, unworkable...

...and delusional.

The Sanders plan is, in fact, the "plan" that the world has generally already endorsed, with the result that the degradation of the planetary atmosphere is accelerating, not decelerating.

It hasn't worked; it isn't working; and it won't work.

Bernie Sanders is an environmental disaster waiting to happen; only a fool with no knowledge of climate science would endorse Senator Sanders.

[Plucketeer]

52. So..... you're contention is

that Sanders has NEVER consulted with any scientists or incorporated any of their advice into his proposals regarding climate change? Is that what you're saying? I ask because that in itself sounds pretty uninformed.

So, Sanders just sat in his back yard and dreamed up a means to reverse climate change without ANY consultation whatsoever. Yeah, that sounds SO plausible....

[stupidicus]

57. no, they're saying that BS is far far worse than HC on the issue

it's the common Hillarian debating tactic of argumentation by way of hollow declaration that they share with their rightwing cousins

[NNadir]

91. As a scientist myself, I can say that if Sanders has consulted with scientists...

...they are not very good scientists.

The data for 2015 is in, this just trillions of dollars was spent in just the last ten years on so called "renewable energy."

2015 was, the worst year ever recorded for increases in dangerous fossil fuel waste accumulation in the atmosphere; the first year for said increases to increase by more than 3.00 ppm, 3.05 ppm to be exact.

2016, based on the preliminary data, is shaping up to be even worse.

I fully concede that Sanders pop proposals to address climate change are popular. What they are not is effective.

Sanders wishes to malign and belittle the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy, nuclear energy.

This rote garbage approach to climate change is not merely ignorant; it is dangerous. Seven million people per year die from air pollution. The prominent climate scientist James Hansen was co-author of a widely read and discussed paper showing that historical nuclear power saved 1.8 million lives that otherwise would have been added to the total of 50 million lives every 7 years.

Sanders doesn't get it. Not at all. He's clueless.

I understand that there are plenty of sheep ready and enthusiastic to follow their shepard off a cliff, but count me out. I spend most of my free time reading the primary scientific literature connected with energy technology and climate change. That's the prime reason that I strongly oppose a Sanders Presidency. I will vote for him, if the Democratic Party chooses, stupidly, to endorse him, but not because he's good for the environment - he'll be bad for it - but only because his opponents will be even worse. It will be a "lesser than two evils" moment during which I will despair for the future of my country and even more important, humanity.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

[Plucketeer]

92. Well

Hillary IS promoting responsible fracking - so there's a plus for her!

[NNadir]

96. Well...

...Bernie Sanders state for the first time in his history is relying on dangerous natural gas to generate electricity, electricity imported from other states.

No fracking, and the lights go out in Vermont. (That wouldn't have been true two years ago, when the Vermont Yankee Nuclear plant was producing 70% of Vermont's electricity. Sanders was one in the mob calling for the plant to shut.)

Where Sanders is concerned, this is a matter of pretending to care about dangerous natural gas but living a life that actually promotes it. It's dishonest to a tee.

I don't think that Sanders thinks he's lying when he pretends to give a shit about fracking. He's just not smart enough or educated enough to recognize what he is doing by his actions as opposed to his useless and meaningless rhetoric.

I oppose all dangerous fossil fuels, and of course, Ms. Clinton's position on fracking is not why I endorse her over the scientifically illiterate fool she opposes.

I endorse her because she is not seeking to destroy, as Sanders is, the only viable option to dangerous fossil fuels.

Sarcasm needing a graphic to describe itself is generally witless, but I don't find much wit and wisdom in people who criticize Clinton on dangerous natural gas who are in fact, making the problem worse, far worse, by self-inflating denial.

Have a nice weekend.

[Plucketeer]

98. Just guessing here

Is there any chance you were a pretzel maker before you graduated to scientist?

[NNadir]

112. Um...um...um...

This is probably not a question that deserves an answer but...

I would note that the person who was most responsible for the commercialization of the form of energy that Bernie Sanders and his equally scientifically illiterate supporters hate so much, in his working career, packed fruit.

Later he would be the discoverer, or co-discover of ten elements in the periodic table and 100 isotopes of those elements and other elements.

He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, successfully lead the scientific team that negotiated the Nuclear Test Ban treaty in 1962, was invited to attend all cabinet meetings in the Kennedy administration, was the only scientist to be honored with a element named for him during his lifetime, and, um, oh yes, lead the Atomic Energy Commission in its effort to expand nuclear power.

His success in building that infrastructure was a gift to future generations, and the efforts of Sanders and the algorithmic regurgitating supporters speaks poorly of them. It is easy to destroy, difficult to build.

Dr. Seaborg, Citizen-Scholar

Now, I do recognize that the reference to pretzels here is another (very weak) attempt to demonstrate wit where there isn't any.

There is nothing tortured or twisted at all in my representation of the Sanders energy program however. It's clear and unambiguous, and it demonstrates very clearly grotesque ignorance of the situation with respect to climate change on the part of the candidate. It's an effort to make the climate situation worse, by poor thinking, poor insight, and frankly, dangerous - inasmuch as nuclear energy saves lives - simplistic ideology.

I do not have the luxury of voting for a candidate who has a sensible positive position on dangerous fossil fuels, which would be their immediate phase out, something that is clearly technically feasible, if difficult. I merely have the choice of voting for someone who has served in an administration that initiated the first new nuclear plant in this country in several decades, and an airhead issuing rhetoric seeking to destroy Seaborg's legacy.

Ms. Clinton is clearly the better choice.

I would contend that anyone who sees that as "twisted" or "contorted" in any way, probably isn't a very clear thinker, is poor at rhetoric, and frankly, not worthy of engaging in too much serious discussion.

This conversation is concluded permanently.

Enjoy your Sunday.

[Plucketeer]

115. I'll just leave you with this.

You can gaff at the relevance, but it speaks to character and integrity. I submit that HRC has NO trouble whatsoever, stretching the truth for self-aggrandizement's sake.

[riderinthestorm]

114. Anyone casually accepting fracking, w no mention of Hillary's support for Keystone XL

in their treatise on Hillary’s environmental "superiority " is employing the worst pretzel logic.

And pro-nuclear power plants?!

SMH

[NNadir]

122. Anyone who opposes nuclear power plants is clueless on many levels.

I've been studying nuclear energy on my own time for 30 years in the primary scientific literature, as opposed to regurgitating rote nonsense on the subject, rote nonsense unfortunately dominating the conversation on one of the most important environmental issues of our time, nuclear energy.

I oppose all dangerous fossil fuels, but the fact is that the opposition to nuclear power has sustained their use.

Right now, unnoticed by the entirely clueless - and the most clueless people here at Democratic Underground in particular the people who support the absurd energy ideas of Senator Sanders - the atmosphere is undergoing it's fastest degradation observed in more than half a century of monitoring it.

2015 is the first year ever recorded in history in which the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by more than 3.00 ppm in a single year, 3.05 to be exact.

The Sanders solution? Oppose the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy. This is dangerous and deadly in the extreme, and borders on criminal stupidity.

Now, I realize that the people who cavil the most against the world's largest source of climate change energy are generally completely and totally unfamiliar with the scientific literature. However the situation is clear in that literature with which they are unfamiliar. While they whine insipidly that nuclear energy is unsafe, seven million people die each year from air pollution.

As opposed to idiotic muttering about the Keystone pipeline as if it really mattered on the scale of 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide being dumped in the atmosphere each year, a prominent scientist has published a widely read and cited paper on the subject of the fact that nuclear energy prevented the dumping of 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide, this while saving 1.8 million lives on balance, including the Fukushima and Chernobyl events about which anti-nuke illiterates like to prattle on and on.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power.

(Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, United States

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

Now, I have consistently and totally opposed all dangerous fossil fuels. I have just completed 30 years of serious study convincing myself that they are totally and completely unnecessary. But I regard the mindless platitudes about pipelines and all the other bullshit from the people who do everything in their power to sustain the dangerous fossil fuel industry by despising nuclear energy as either dishonest or ignorant; it doesn't matter which.

If, for example, the world were being run on dimethyl ether produced by the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide, using nuclear thermochemical captive hydrogen, the fucking Keystone pipeline wouldn't be an issue!

On energy, Sanders is pandering stupidly to the stupid and for the stupid. He doesn't know or understand anything about the massive technological requirements of addressing climate change, and opposes the best and experimentally demonstrably successful tool for addressing it.

I note, with due contempt, that his state is now entirely dependent on gas pipelines to keep the lights on. He's such an idiot, that he applauds this outcome.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

[stupidicus]

56. says you, and embarrassingly so

by all means Mr. Climate scientist, explain how HC escapes your rhetorical wrath

Yes, Obama—and Clinton, then his secretary of state—were instrumental to that deal, but it's hardly something Hillary should be proud of.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/10/hillary-clinton-climate-change-debate-copenhagen

and what are your credentials that separate you knowledge-wise on the subject from the commong rightwingnut flat earther?

Their differences, though, are substantial: Sanders’ climate plan is much more comprehensive than Clinton’s and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a faster rate. He’s forcefully linked climate change and terrorism. He’s staunchly opposed to continued fossil fuel exploration on public lands and has vowed to ban fracking outright, a stance Clinton doesn’t share. His focus on ridding politics of corporate lobbyists is a swipe against Clinton, whose campaign has taken money from fossil fuel companies. On the flip side, unlike Clinton, Sanders wants to phase out nuclear energy, a position that many scientists and environmentalists increasingly don’t share, given the need to transition toward a zero carbon economy as quickly as possible.

As for Clinton, though her presidential campaign was launched with a historic focus on climate, when she talks about climate change, it often feels like she’s playing catch-up. In recent months, Clinton has shifted her position to be more hawkish on Arctic drilling, the Keystone pipeline and on restricting fossil fuel exploration on public lands, likely in response to pressure from Sanders and voters.

When Sanders won New Hampshire this week, he devoted a big chunk of his victory speech to climate change. When Clinton conceded, she didn’t mention it once. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the New Hampshire winner (Donald Trump) is a climate conspiracy theorist. People often ask me if I feel hopeless about climate. Only when it's not taken seriously.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/12/bernie_sanders_and_hillary_clinton_differ_on_climate_change.html

[dlwickham]

39. Under the bus with him!

[SmittynMo]

40. De Bla Bla Bla sio is part of the establishment.

What did you expect him to say? She's wrong? LOL

[Plucketeer]

46. Precisely!

End of story.

[chapdrum]

90. Exactly.

Thank you.

[stupidicus]

43. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/hillary-clinton-oil-gas-donations-obama/

[beastie boy]

58. Now that we are suddenly talking about career totals rather than the subject of the thread...

Bernie's hand is also in the cookie jar, if you haven't noticed.

Communications/Electronics $3,143,907
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $1,533,143
Health $2,384,219
Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,353,640



And yes, fossil fuel too:

Energy & Natural Resources $248,035

[Bluenorthwest]

45. He's the mayor of NYC, birthplace of ACT UP and other AIDS activism groups Hillary claims took no

action, leaving Ron and Nancy Reagan as the only people with courage to talk about AIDS. DeBlasio said nothing about that. She smeared his own city by erasing one of the great political events in NYC history. By crediting to Ron and Nancy that which was done by LGBT NYers, hundreds of whom were arrested by the City of New York for daring to break Reagan's silence. The Office of the Mayor of New York City was culpable for many wrongs back then.

It is the selective nature of his criticism that makes him seem so very biased and partisan. Why was he comfortable with all those lies about Reagan and AIDS and about denying the activist history? Why? Because he's a playing pure politics, lacking in ethics or consistency. She says horrific things and he cheers for them.

I will remember that his silence reflected the Great Silence of Ronald Reagan.

[polly7]

67. +1,000,000. nt.

[Major Hogwash]

106. Yes, that is very true.

It was unreal for Hillary to make that stupendously stupid comment about Nancy "Just Say No" Reagan.
Hillary is no better than Republicans who want to try and rewrite history, making Saint Ronny look as if he cared about other people.
I could not believe that Hillary tried to make the Reagans look like were decent people, when we all know they weren't.

[itsrobert]

51. Uh oh, Alec Baldwin was a big supporter of the De Blasio

And Alec is real close to Susan Sarandon. It's up to Tina Fey to arbitrate before this turns into a nasty Hollywood fight.

[SoapBox]

55. ROFLMAO

Go ahead DeBlah...dig the hole a bit deeper and show every on how much of a list she is.

The Elites can't help but defend the Elites...maybe you'll be going to the Clooney Fundraisers too.

[beastie boy]

70. Just curious... how do you define "elites"?

Be careful with your answer, you will have to apply your definition to Bernie as well as DeBlaz...

[choie]

61. "a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign"

the end.

[PatrynXX]

72. Yawn...

already a rebuttle on this with facts http://thebernreport.com/clintons-close-ties-to-the-oil-coal-and-gas-industry/

[polly7]

83. Great link and article. nt.

[Reter]

73. He's an extremely unpopular one-term mayor

Who cares what he has to say?

[Depaysement]

102. Not true

At all.

I support him though I don't agree with his reluctant support for HRC.

[stonecutter357]

75. nb4berniebros.

[Cryptoad]

76. Ah the ole 4th way Neo's

just make up lies as u type.

[Bradical79]

86. Not seeing how it's "flat out false"

Her campaign obviously doesn'the take direct donations from corporations, but hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals from a single industry certainly says something. Also, the millions donated to the Clinton Foundation, and the close relationships she has with lobbyists from the oil and gas industry are also worth looking at when talking about how seriously she will take climate change. Though really, considering the Democratic Party's failures, and the Republican party's complete denial of reality, I feel like we're pretty much screwed regardless :-P

[chapdrum]

87. She PROMOTED fracking

as SecState.

It's public record, Mr. Mayor.

Once again, with Democrats like these...

[DesertRat]

100. k&r

[gregcrawford]

101. My respect for De Blasio just went down the toilet...

.... when he insulted the intelligence of the American electorate. Well, at least that segment of the electorate that actually has some intelligence. Any politician who claims that there is no quid pro quo for huge corporate campaign contributions is a goddamned liar who has no respect for the aforementioned electorate.

As the old saying goes, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

[dembotoz]

105. as the bullshit continues to pile up i do not know if i could support hrc if the nominee

[billhicks76]

108. He Was Her Campaign Manager

And he's looking at a promotion of he plays ball.

[SunSeeker]

120. Another day, another Sanders lie exposed. nt

[Jitter65]

121. Yep. Another lie

http://2016election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=2019

But lying doesn't matter to Bernie supporters unless they can "claim" one by Hillary.