General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary calls for a mass movement demanding action on climate change.
Just like all the Repubs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/22/hillary-clinton-climate-change_n_5015203.html
TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton says young people understand the significant threat of climate change and that she hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change.
The potential 2016 presidential candidate says at a Clinton Global Initiative University panel that young people are much more committed to doing something to address climate change. Clinton says it isn't "just some ancillary issue" but will determine the quality of life for many people.
The former secretary of state cited global warming as a major issue that students could face in the future.
SNIP
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That's nice to hear from her.
-Laelth
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)political change." Now that's a commitment.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But I'll take weak sauce leaning a little to the left over consistent right-wing corporatism any day. Her current rhetoric is an improvement. I want to give credit where it is due, and she deserves credit for the statements quoted in the OP, I think.
-Laelth
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She is asking people to become more active but it is much more important that major corporations be on board. When she convinces Exxon or Goldman-Sachs to commit to reducing climate change, then I will pay attention.
I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) she has stated in the past that she supports fracking and the XL Pipeline.
Fracking is destroying our environment. How can any Democrat support fracking?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Because some of what is in that 'secret' agreement has been leaked, by Wikileaks, and it concerns Environmental issues. Iow, Corporations, if this isn't changed, will have far more control over Environmental issues including foreign Corporations.
ANYONE who cares about the Environment can NOT support this potential disaster of a bill.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)People are often fooled by wonderful sounding rhetoric. She is hoping there is a mass movement. But will she support a mass movement with anything other than rhetoric? Will she convince Goldman-Sachs (one of her sponsors) that they need to change their business model? Most likely "hoping" is as far as she will go.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)how so often the difference is so obvious it's a wonder any of it works at all.
If she really means that about hoping for such a movement, we will be hearing her loudly denouncing the TPP and withdrawing any support she has given it up to now.
But I won't hold my breath. However that is a question she should be asked, over and over again if she decides to run.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Sorry, forgot that HRC is part of the 1%.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)How do you know that wouldn't encompass income inequality?
When she and Bill left the Governors' office, his state salary was $32K, her lawyer salary was about $100K and they didn't even own a home. They haven't always been wealthy.
mucifer
(23,579 posts)Then slowly it became bye bye jobs.
But, this thread is about climate change and I'm glad she is for fighting that.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)still_one
(92,479 posts)pandr32
(11,635 posts)...and attended the NAFTA ceremonies in all three capitals in Mexico, Canada, and here in December 1992. He and Mulroney, and Salinas all ceremoniously signed it. All Clinton did was officially sign it into law.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I guess it's the American Dream to get Wall Street Corps to hand you hundreds of thousands of dollars for having tea with them.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)she's been putting money from speeches into the Clinton Foundation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are sold. And PAC's are often the major book buyers. I certainly looks more legitimate than accepting $400,000 for a few minute of lecture.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)that an investment on her book will pay off for the publisher.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Newt Gingrich made millions from his books also. Rupert Murdock bought most of them.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)run out of decent arguments. Her wealth puts her as part of the 1%. She is very chummy with Wall Street especially Goldman-Sachs, possibly the worst of the worst. I see no indication that she will do anything but continue the widening wealth gap, continue the NSA/CIA Security State, and continue the Wall Street economy. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd be interested.
And we know she has serious integrity problems after she threw her allegiance in with the Republicans in her vote to authorize the IWAR.
We need someone that truly represents the people and has Democratic Values.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 09:29 PM - Edit history (5)
to a Democratic book author instead? Ted Kennedy, for example. He made money from writing, too.
Or was he different because he came from old money, and Hillary and Bill are greedy upstarts?
http://www.amazon.com/Edward-M.-Kennedy/e/B002KLN1Y4/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
Or to Bernie Sanders. He's an author.
http://www.amazon.com/Outsider-House-Bernie-Sanders/dp/1859848710/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1411003511&sr=8-4&keywords=bernie+sanders+books
Or to President Obama. His first substantial wealth came from a book, just like with Hillary and Bill.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=obama+book&sprefix=obama+book%2Caps%2C232
No -- you only want to compare her to a Rethug like Newt Gingrich. Because it's fine when other Dems write books -- just not Hillary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)represents the 99%. I think she has ties to Wall Street and in particular Goldman-Sachs.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)With a nice house and two high salary jobs, the President and Mrs Obama were better off financially when they went into office than the Clintons were. The Clintons had a partnership in a little Arkansas law firm and a $32K a year governor salary to support them, and no house. The Clintons know as well as the Obamas what it is like to have been part of the 99%. Neither couple is in the 99% anymore, but for some reason you reserve your rancor for Hillary.
former9thward
(32,106 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)on board, let me know.
BeyondGeography
(39,388 posts)Wow, man.
still_one
(92,479 posts)supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and took the following positions:
No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased. (Jul 2007)
Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
Minimum wage increases havent kept up with Congress wages. (Dec 2006)
Passed 2 planks of 7-plank platform, New Jobs for New York. (Oct 2006)
Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
Pushed for extension of unemployment insurance. (Feb 2004)
The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
Recently were in it together became youre on your own. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
Sponsored bill linking minimum wage to Congress' pay raises. (May 2006)
Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and chew bubblegum at the same time.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Has anyone here said that Republicans are better on climate change?
Which of her potential Dem challengers in a primary doesn't believe in climate change, and doesn't hope that young people will be much more committed than older ones have been on addressing the issue?
I congratulate Hillary on announcing that she takes the standard Democratic stance on climate change.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)And they're either lying or greatly misinformed.
still_one
(92,479 posts)with everything, the vast majority of her actions are liberal, but of course that is forbidden to say to some
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've seen it, thanks.
still_one
(92,479 posts)LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You, of course, don't have to honor my request. You can instead be rude, and passive-aggressive and insult me because I asked you not to.
Of course, that says a lot about the kind of person you are.
Do you want to be known as rude and insulting?
still_one
(92,479 posts)that information is incorrect? Third the person I was responding to was the person who started the main thread.
You call me rude, perhaps you should look in mirror, accusing someone of posting "spam" is rude for your information.
and so I will say right back at you
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And mistake which comments are posted under others. I thought you had posted it under mine, not someone else's.
Personally, I don't think mistakenly asking you not to do something is rude, but that's your call.
still_one
(92,479 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Thought he'd posted it under my comment, not one just below mine. But I don't delete my mistakes, I let people see when I screw up.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...gotta respect honesty, especially in regards to politics!
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)in the exchange, you'll realize that I wasn't referring to 'comments in a thread' by using the word 'my'. I mistakenly thought still_one's reply was to 'my' comment, meaning 'the comment I wrote'. The reason I made it 'comments' rather than 'comment' is that under another OP, a day or so ago, I believe it was, still_one had posted the exact same link under another comment I personally wrote. I wasn't trying to 'claim' all comments nested underneath mine as 'belonging' to me.
So my comments belong to me, your comments belong to you, and joe schmoe's comments belong to joe schmoe. In this one case, as I have a couple of other times before over the last few months, I simply got the nesting confused, and thought he was replying to a comment I actually wrote.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)answer would be, even if the first commenter has heard it before.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)was just to simply ask the poster simply not to post the same comment to me over and over.
Now he wasn't, because he was actually posting to someone else (you?), but if I started posting a single sentence in response to comments you posted, how many times would it take before you assumed I was trolling you and asked me to stop?
MADem
(135,425 posts)POV on the issues of the day.
It's not spam.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)if she's the nominee, even if she's not my first choice. But I must say some of her supporters come across as unnecessarily defensive.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Although the party has shifted so far to the right in the last few decades that there probably were Republicans to the left of her on various issues in the past. I seem to recall Nixon, for instance, was the one who created the most sweeping pro-environmental changes the country has seen to date. EPA, Clean Air and Water, iirc.
merrily
(45,251 posts)strategy of the Democratic Leadership Council, of which she and Bill were founding members around 1985, along with Gore, Lieberman, Pryor and others. The Koch brothers were among the early contributors.
The DLC/New Democrat philosophy philosophy took over the Party after Bill became the first DLC-endorsed candidate. Hillary traveled abroad with the CEO to spread the DLC philosophy, which supposedly gave us Tony Blair.
Democrats including Kerry, joined New Democrat Caucuses in the House and Senate. Gore was the second DLC endorsed Pres. candidate. Kerry was the fourth because the DLC had endorsed founding member Lieberman first, but everyone, with the possible exception of Lieberman, knew that Lieberman would drop out early. Obama was the fifth.
By then the Party basically WAS DLC, at least as far as the professional, several other third way type think tanks existed and CEO Al From allegedly wanted to do other things. So, it folded, leaving its papers to the Clinton Presidential library.
As you said, the party shifted to the right over the last several decades. That's why.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)The Democratic party shifted with it. You are correct that some old Repubs, like Dwight D. Eisenhower, would be considered liberals these days.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)what they believe and what they call themselves.
When you poll the bulk of Americans, they consistently agree by 2-1 or 3-1 with policies that are considered 'liberal', but then turn around and call themselves 'moderates' or even 'conservatives'. There was also a study out a while back (6 months? a year?) that showed that the politicians representing districts were almost to a person, voting more conservatively than the people they supposedly represent.
So I don't think Americans as a whole truly did shift all that far rightward. I think politicians did, and Americans still vote for what they can get, but are almost in every case, given more conservative representation than they actually want, because of the limited choices given to them within the two party system.
cali
(114,904 posts)she's hardly cutting edge on LGBT rights but she's better than any repub. She's good on choice and most other social issues, but she's lousy on a lot of important issues. She's big on fracking. She's a major defender of the worst of Wall Street and don't forget she's done such things as co-sponsor a bill to fucking criminalize flag burning which damn well is criminalizing political speech.
she's a shameless opportunist and panderer.
MineralMan
(146,339 posts)to make you think she means it. Yeah, that's the ticket...
cali
(114,904 posts)I've provided links in other posts.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oooo. Inspiring. Look at that leadership.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nothing should be done about it? She is absolutely right. It will take a mass movement.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Though good try at assuming the problem was doing something about it, instead of Clinton avoiding doing something about it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She cannot do it alone. It will take a mass movement.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)that it's 'someone else's' job to save the planet. She says it will take a mass movement before it happens, which is absolutely correct.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She also says it will take a mass movement, and then does not talk about how to create or encourage that mass movement.
In other words, she said "This is a big problem. Someone should fix it".
bunnies
(15,859 posts)while defending Hillary Clinton. Thats some funny shit right there.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)good catch!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)....irrelevant looks like!
Good catch!
Do you believe that politicians will singlehandedly save us from climate change, or do you think it will take a mass movement?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)breathtakingly hypocritical for someone to promote the Keystone pipeline as she has - link for reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353 and then pontificate about the perils of climate change.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It won't take a mass movement to spark significant change in our policies toward carbon emissions? Hey, even my broken clock is right every now and again.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)That was never more clear than when trying to pass meaningful gun control after Sandy Hook. The masses - over 90% of Americans -supported it, but Congress couldn't get it done.
Rhetorical platitudes aside, it will take a compliant Congress to effect sweeping change in policy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I agree with what she said, because it's true.
cali
(114,904 posts)after all she has been a very good friend to big oil and pushes fracking all around the world.
yeah, she really cares.
hatrack
(59,594 posts)But we need a mass movement so that:
A. I will be forced to do the right thing ... Someday ..
B. I can pretend to be leading it.
Whatever.
merrily
(45,251 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Still, I am glad to know she is against fracking, offshore drilling, keystone and the Wall St speculation that leads to so much unnecessary waste.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)pnwmom
(109,016 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Goddammit, I wish she would just lead.
marmar
(77,102 posts)...... She must have had her weathervane out.
packman
(16,296 posts)like being in favor of motherhood. Would feel better if Hillary would get around making some statements about the destruction of the middle class in America, a decent living wage in America, the homeless in America, the corruption in our banking and in Wall Street, the drug problem in America. Hey, I'm all for addressing climate change issues, but Hillary needs to take a few lessons from Elizabeth Warren and begin to act like she gives a fuck about what problems Americans have living in America.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)Hillary Clinton denounces income inequality in populist speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025548623
packman
(16,296 posts)Guess I just want to hear more of it.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)If she's "inevitable" then I'm crossing my fingers that Sanders and Warren influence her to shift left. Even just a little.
riversedge
(70,362 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Makes me giggle. Maybe she means it and maybe she sees a big show that she wants to use for herself. Donno. But I will be at our local Climate March. We the people and all that, smile.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Cause that was soooo effective.
All those active, motivated New Yorkers couldn't even convince their senator to vote NO on going to war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Looking at you, Hillary.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)against the Iraq war. There was a mass movement for civil rights, however.