HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary supporters -

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 07:25 PM

Hillary supporters -

Straight up not bashing questions : #1 Why is Hillary pro GMO? #2 Why won't she take a position on Keystone nor TPP ? #3 Why is she against Glass Stiegle and wall street reform?
I ask these questions to try to understand what I might have vote for if that's the choice. . So sell me on Hillary.

20 replies, 1512 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary supporters - (Original post)
ruffburr Aug 2015 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2015 #1
JaneyVee Aug 2015 #2
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #3
ruffburr Aug 2015 #4
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #5
ruffburr Aug 2015 #6
JaneyVee Aug 2015 #8
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #9
JaneyVee Aug 2015 #10
ruffburr Aug 2015 #12
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #13
JaneyVee Aug 2015 #17
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #18
ruffburr Aug 2015 #11
JaneyVee Aug 2015 #15
ismnotwasm Aug 2015 #14
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #16
ruffburr Aug 2015 #19
NRaleighLiberal Aug 2015 #20
George II Aug 2015 #7

Response to ruffburr (Original post)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 07:35 PM

1. Those are great questions. I hope you'll get some good answers. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruffburr (Original post)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 07:36 PM

2. Lets see...

 

#1: Science.
#2: Read her book.
#3: She released proposals to rein in Wall Street and has been since 2001.
#4: Vote for whomever you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 07:57 PM

3. Science does not mean pro-GMO

Real scientists - maybe better said independent scientists not paid to have one opinion or the other - know that there is insufficient testing and data to make definitive conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:09 PM

4. I'm sorry that-

Is not true ,daily New data comes out on GMO'S showing the harmful effects of the chemicals taken into the plants from GMO's being eaten by humans and bees is actually poisoning their systems , Consider the bees the canary in the coal mine, Corporate "scientists" will swear to anything for a buck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruffburr (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:11 PM

5. I completely agree - I think you misread my response.

I am saying that real science does not mean unequivocal support for GMOs. And I agree with you about canary in a coal mine - my other analogy is the butterfly effect - genetically engineered pollen's effect on pollinators - we've not studied this nearly enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:15 PM

6. I get it now-

I didn't quite see your point, Sorry my bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruffburr (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:29 PM

8. GMOs aren't chemicals, quite the opposite...

 

Using GMOs means less chemicals on produce. No need for harsh pesticides when you can produce bacteria resistant genetics, leaving room for organic pesticides instead.

Eta: that being said, I am all in favor of labeling. Our body, our choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:33 PM

9. and what do you think that may do to the pollen that pollinators ingest?

Sorry - insufficient studies. I am a scientist and have many issues with the whole topic - it is not a black and white issue - there is much nuance, and loads of studies that need to be done, carried out for much longer time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #9)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:40 PM

10. Have any studies yielded negative results yet?

 

I'm curious. And what is the plan to feed 9 billion people with possible mass crop failures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:49 PM

12. The studies I've seen-

Have shown organically grown crops out produce factory farm output 2 to 1 per acre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:00 PM

13. we will have massive crop failures if we kill off all of the pollinators

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #13)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:10 PM

17. But are there studies suggesting that is occurring?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:18 PM

18. the problem is it takes years to study this sort of thing.

We are going down a road that hasn't been sufficiently, independently tested. Are there studies that guarantee that it will not happen? Because that is the issue - just because we can do something doesn't mean we should until we are sure.

Way, way, way too complex an issue - and not a black and white issue. And no politician has the scientific capability to be unequivocal on one way or another.

My qualifications - as one with an Ivy League PhD in Science and an avid gardener who has been watching and observing my surroundings for 30 years, and major seed saver of open pollinated crops, everything in my thought process tells me that we do not know nearly enough about genetically engineered crops to know for sure what all of the impacts will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:42 PM

11. Because the-

"Chemicals" are engineered into the seed there by genetically altering the whole plant so instead of on they are In the plants, Thanks for being for labeling though, At the very least that is what should be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruffburr (Reply #11)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:03 PM

15. There are no chemicals in it.

 

They only alter the DNA to make it resistant, by either adding genes or removing them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:03 PM

14. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what they are

I know you would know--and obviously have an informed opinion, but a lot of science blogs are dismissive of the anti-GMO movement. One argument for, which I find disingenuous is the "humans have been manipulating genes for thousands of years" one--since I don't feel that is a valid comparison to whT is happening today.

On the other hand, eventually farmers are going to run out of good top soil-- this has already happened many times in many areas through human agriculture, (often leading to famine and war) and we're going to have to do something involving modification of food sources to optimize our shrinking farmable lands.

I think this Scientific American article is pretty good--it's a couple of years old

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/


Anyway, to answer the OP--much of mainstream science does support GMO's, and dismisses concerns. Hillary is not a scientist, so she's going to listen to those who are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #14)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:05 PM

16. nice - and thanks.

Money and the truth (which hopefully science helps bring us closer to) have a complex dance. You can't have research without money. But big money often pre-determines the results.

It is a tangled web we weave!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #16)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:39 PM

19. until the absolute truths are known can we agree to label?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruffburr (Reply #19)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:41 PM

20. I completely and utterly agree!



To me, refusal to label just invites suspicion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruffburr (Original post)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 08:21 PM

7. Here:

1. She's explained it herself:

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology

2. She's explained why she won't on Keystone, not sure if she has or hasn't on TPP

"I am not going to second guess (President Barack Obama) because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said, referencing environmental reviews conducted by the State Department that began when she was secretary of state. "I want to wait and see what he and Secretary Kerry decide."

3. She explained that one, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/23/hillary-clinton-strongly-defends-planned-parenthood-and-cites-nuance-on-glass-steagall/

It's not a yes/no...black/white issue.

We here don't need to sell anyone on Hillary Clinton, one needs to read her positions and decide on oneself.

As they say, "google is your friend".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread