Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton vs. Greenpeace Activist (3/31/2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A
From Greenpeace USA:
Published on Mar 31, 2016
At a Hillary Clinton rally at SUNY Purchase campus today, the presidential candidate lost her patience with a Greenpeace activist who thanked her for her commitment to climate change then asked her whether she'll reject fossil fuel money moving forward. Pointing her finger at activist Eva Resnick-Day, Clinton claimed she only takes money from people who work for fossil fuel companies and called the accusations lies.
- - - -
Edit to add, Collection of related links:
DU: Video of Hillary Clinton snapping at environmental questioner goes viral across internet
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greenpeaceusa/videos/vb.5435784683/10154151449454684/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4crwv2/hillary_clinton_loses_patience_with_greenpeace/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/status/715630613651464192
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Hillary finger-pointing: Good!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Needless to say, that'll never happen.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)If the major networks replayed it 600+ times in the next two weeks like they did after they set Howard up.
Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #3)
Vilis Veritas This message was self-deleted by its author.
MsFlorida
(488 posts)Obnoxious piece of work. She is just a hot mess.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)b. a BernieBro.
c. a Karl Rove plant.
d. all of the above.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Simply for pointing out well accepted but not widely known ties between the Clinton and Bush families. So tired of these DINOs.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)I am a Bernie supporter with compassion.
Think of what these presidential candidates go through. Day after day... mobs of people. Constant stress from so many angles we can't even imagine. I for one have some days that I have gotten angry with people. Haven't you?
I call for compassion from all of us.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)This video is publish officially by Greenpeace and they know who gets what from who.
She probably thought the questioner was a Sanders supporter but it wasn't.
jalan48
(13,856 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Yup. Nothing more needs to be said.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
dogman
(6,073 posts)Interesting. She seemed a little paranoid about Bernie twice there.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)A major mistake.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Scalded Nun
(1,236 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)Starting with the CEOs. all the way down. The industry knows where its bread is buttered.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Welcome to Orwellian doublespeak.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . .
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)how do you define "reality"?
the case could be made that she's lying by omission if this "poor me" effort is intended to obscure other inconvenient facts, or "smears" as her most dishonest supporters characterize them
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)elleng
(130,861 posts)at their next debate, right???
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)elleng
(130,861 posts)arlington.mass
(41 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)She just outed her real self. And the finger pointing. She is just nasty in this clip.
I'm so sick of people thinking a person with so little self control should be our POTUS.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I can just imagine, or actually I can't imagine, went down years ago.. what kind of deal she demanded from Bill.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Nope, she is reverting to her true colors under stress.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)The results, for the most part, don't matter.
desmiller
(747 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)She would perform the menial tasks that she has her servants in place to handle for her! She only does the personal stuff when only her personal royal voice will do, to promote fracking across the world for instance. But to expect her to actually touch or cash checks given her that may have been handled by God knows how many actual filthy peasant hands along the way at some point?
What a fucking insult! You Greenpeace, or Environmentalist, or Bernie people or whatever type commoner you are (they all look the same to her highness) That is far beneath her and her people handle it for her highness as it should be! Usually people in her PACs, or during her "royal spoken word tours", her tour servant people cash the checks for her and place the funds directly in her personal account, but never does she sully her hands herself! What do you think she is? A commoner or something?
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Too bad, so sad...that people won't stop the questions.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)rude Bern supporter. They need to be confronted!
xocet
(3,871 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,012 posts)Clearly she is exasperated, but reacting the way she did was an unfortunate lapse.
jg10003
(975 posts)The woman asked a question that is obviously important to her. Clinton could have said "As you pointed out I am committed to dealing with climate change and it is not true that I have accepted money from the fossil fuel industry." And Clinton could have said that without yelling at the woman and sticking her finger in her face.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)xocet
(3,871 posts)with diplomatic interventions:
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.
The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globepart of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officialssome with deep ties to industryalso helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.
Geologists have long known that there were huge quantities of natural gas locked in shale rock. But tapping it wasn't economically viable until the late 1990s, when a Texas wildcatter named George Mitchell hit on a novel extraction method that involved drilling wells sideways from the initial borehole, then blasting them full of water, chemicals, and sand to break up the shalea variation of a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Besides dislodging a bounty of natural gas, Mitchell's breakthrough ignited an energy revolution. Between 2006 and 2008, domestic gas reserves jumped 35 percent. The United States later vaulted past Russia to become the world's largest natural gas producer. As a result, prices dropped to record lows, and America began to wean itself from coal, along with oil and gas imports, which lessened its dependence on the Middle East. The surging global gas supply also helped shrink Russia's economic clout: Profits for Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, plummeted by more than 60 percent between 2008 and 2009 alone.
...
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
Of course, Sec. Clinton is really quite progressive and pro-environment. (The sarcasm should be evident.)
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Payoffs for weapons sales. She must think we are all as stupid as republicans.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)she can't be my president.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)to cheer her up.
Or maybe somebody who'll hug a thousand of her cheerful supporters.
Or some kind of uplifting visual.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)On edit: Thanks to stupidicus
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists
fbc
(1,668 posts)I used to think the democratic party was a Greenpeace ally. I guess they just don't have the money to compete with the fossil fuel industry for the democratic party's affections any longer.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)When you lose a moderate organization like GreenPeace then you have major problems.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)she's tired of Bernie's lies against her.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Man, if she pointed that finger at me, and raised her voice while doing it, I'd be hard pressed not to slap the shit out of her. I just saw this on MSNBC. My poor vocal chords!
Kall
(615 posts)about lying, Mrs. Bosnian Sniper Fire.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)her cool and pointed her finger at a person in the crowd who did nothing but ask a simple question. Hillary knows she's on camera. She's been around long enough to know that this moment will live on. Why in the world would she let the questioner get under her skin that way? Why not smile, give a non answer, and move on? Maybe she thought she was looking tough and no nonsense, when, in fact, she came across as an angry woman who didn't know enough to reign it in.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)I thought that was her main "qualification."
arcane1
(38,613 posts)LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)vote anyway, but it's a safe bet that there are many people of all political stripes who do not enjoy being the recipient of an angry finger wagging and don't particularly admire those who are quick to resort to it.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)That's so Chicago of her. Bernie is acting more like a senator, and future president.
Such a bad tone, and bad manners to point at someone like that!
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)So, get the fuck outta my face!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The usual matchup
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)smiley
(1,432 posts)Sooooo presidential!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)She needs anger therapy now, just think what will happen if she blows up during the FBI interrogation.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)She thought she had it all bagged up--the Corrupt Media, the bought-and-paid for endorsers, control of the DNC and its corporate money and its chair, Clinton-stacked primaries, plenty of big bucks to hit on the early voters before they knew the name Sanders (that minor annoyance), every evil global corporation on her side (drooling over TPP), a juicy foil in Donald Trump, neo-con advisers on board for whatever wars the MIC profiteers may need--Henry Kissinger, Robert (PNAC) Kagan (I kid you not)--the MIC in the bag, the prison MIC in the bag, Wall Street in the bag, the banksters in the bag, maybe President Obama in the bag (iffy, I think--hard man to read), and then...
Sanders isn't so minor any more...
and then...
People start hearing Sanders in stunned amazement at the truths he is telling them...
and then...
and the truth starts to go viral.
The thing Sanders has done is to FREE the truth from its jail. He doesn't need to say it all. He merely needed to start saying some simple truths that the American people almost NEVER hear from politicians or public office holders, like our political system is corrupt, like, why is the middle class disappearing in the richest country in the world?
Simple, obvious truths and the floodgates hiding the truth from the American people start opening. And people--in this case, some people from Greenpeace--start asking hard questions of politicians like Clinton who are thriving in the corporate oligarchy that has taken over our country, who are thriving on big bucks from the very industries that are killing our planet.
She was right, in a way, to blame Bernie Sanders. He opened the way to truth telling. He's given the truth a platform to stand on.
I have to credit the "Occupy" movement, too, and the anti-WTO protests that preceded it. But those people were just "riff-raff" and "peons" and "sore loser hippies" who got shut down by the police and written off as nothing seriously threatening to the uber-rich. Sanders, on the other hand, is running a highly successful grass roots campaign for president of the United States, and, though he endures massive black-holing by the Corrupt Media, his message IS getting through and voters are giving him spectacular victories, of 70% and 80% of the votes, in recent primaries.
Sanders has taken the massive discontent in the country and turned it into a campaign for reform the first premise of which is telling the truth.
The truth hit Clinton hard today. She handled it very badly. It's not very "presidential" to bristle at "the Sanders campaign" for a Greenpeace question about the fossil fuel industry funding her campaign.
But she is correct that Sanders is the "enemy" for helping the truth get out there--for inspiring people to ask such questions. It surprises me not at all that it made her angry. It did surprise me that she let it show. That's why I laughed--not because it's funny. It really isn't. It's a very, very serious matter--our melting planet. But because she lost her composure. Didn't expect her to get so rattled. Bad sign for her campaign.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)If she could just get Bernie to tone it down..