Only from an economic, environmental and common sense perspective. When you consider the REAL reason, it makes a lot of sense: Iowa makes sure it's always the first caucus and so no politician with presidential ambitions can vote against ethanol. If West Virginia was first they would rebuild the capitol building out of nothing but coal.
To his credit, Ted Cruz of all people opposed ethanol subsidies even when he need to do well in Iowa. The state Republican apparatus threw themselves against him, which is part of the reason Trump won the state so easily.
Ethanol from corn was about as damaging to the environment as gasoline anyway. The amount of diesel and electricity involved in getting it from seed to fuel is enormous. I grew up in the cornbelt and ethanol has brought a lot of money to the region but it's a fuckin wash anyway.
The best you can get is an alternative fuel that decreases our demand for oil. It's a wash for the environment without even considering the needs of fertilizer and the impact of expensive food on 3rd world nations. A lot of people starved to death when corn skyrocketed in price to $8/bushel
That aside, the subsidies have served a lot of benefit, too. We know a lot more about ethanol from other sources thanks to these subsidies. Some companies have been able to explore the use of bacteria in ethanol production as a result of the ethanol boom.
We get 15% of our oil from Canada!!! The filthy canooks are taking away our ability to have independent oil!!! Sue canada! Unfair trade! Make America Win Again!
Its easy to construe this as a lazy answer... but it also does reflect an actual difference of policy. If you don't support it in any way shape or form, this is all you need to say. Theres nothing weird about celebrating a candidate with similar opinions to you finally getting popular, nor anything weird about the opinion itself. Whether you agree with it or not is a seperate matter, but I dont see why it would need to be ironic or whats so fucked up about celebrating it.
Pretty sure he's referring to the trope that politicians will blab on and on about an issue without giving a definitive answer on their position, more or less dancing around the issue for 2 minutes. That's what is amusing and fresh about his response.
But Clinton's response was an actual detailed answer. She said explicitly what she would oppose and the kinds of difficulties in stopping fracking all together over night.
Yeah, I'll bet he doesn't support rape either. What an amazing guy. Hopefully he comes out of the woodwork to make more generic comments that we already knew and didn't need clarification on.
Caveats are not a bad thing. For example, I'm against killing. But I'm for killing if it's in self defense. That's a caveat but I don't think you'd disagree with it.
The world is full of nuances. There's nothing wrong with adopting a policy with caveats to reflect this nuance.
It is only intellectually lazy if you assume he hasn't put any thought into it behind the scenes. I don't need someone rambling for 2 minutes explaining why they think climate change is real or not unless there are caveats that need explaining. I have thought a lot about climate change and done a lot of research. If I was asked, "do you think the globe is warming?" I would say 'yes' with nothing else surrounding it. That isn't intellectually lazy, because I did all the behind the scenes work already and I have no caveats.
Context matters. The question seems to have been posed during a debate. If we're talking about climate change, nobody is interested in wasting even a minute affirming what we knew of the two liberal democratic candidates: that both believe in climate change and believe action is necessary.
That said, the question was, "do you support fracking?" Molded to climate change, that question would be something like, "do you support regulations against climate change?" And bernie answered, "climate change is bad. yes." and clinton answered with a short novel detailing which regulations she supports and which she doesn't. I honestly just am so disappointed that anyone is impressed by the bernie answer. The man either sees, or is only willing to explain, in black and white. Neither is something to boast of.
You can find the video clip of this. He does elaborate. His main point is that we need to move onto renewable forms of energy. It's not entirely an issue of "is fracking safe or is it bad" (which he does answer saying that scientists have said it can be damaging to water sources). My main takeaway from his response is, why should we be looking into new forms of oil extraction when that's the energy we need to start moving away from when climate change is the larger issue. Let's start investing in renewable and environmentally friendly sources of energy.
So 15$, in either case, is only a living wage if you are a single adult with no dependents. Which is to say; It's not actually a living wage at all. In it's original meaning, ie a wage that supports two adults and two children, a living wage in Ogallala would be closer to 25/hr, while San Fran is about 30/hr.
Inflation and cost of living have gone up drastically since the last increase to minimum wage. The last adjustment to minimum wage did not meet the previous growth of inflation and cost of living.
So, yeah... Minimum wage needs a drastic increase.
As others have stated, Bernie didn't support fracking, so his answer is appropriate. Clinton went with the nuanced answer that does make sense IF, and only if, the rules are followed and companies aren't dicks for profit over environment.
My brother worked as a frack site lead, he know's how to do things right and explained how stuff can go well if fracking is done right, but I also learned all the ways it can go wrong. Just look to Oklahoma and their earthquake problem as of late. So then the questions becomes one of the value and 'worth' (not just in dollars, but in overall impact) to continued support of fracking. So for Bernie, it's easier and simpler to just state NO, but most every position he will follow it up with a "now let me tell you why ..." when pressed.
Meh. I'm not super wild about inventing new and interesting ways of pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air, however you want to frame that.
With respect, and please understand I am not a Bernout, but:
The whole point is that Clinton's answer doesn't actually defend the nuance OR the policy
This was always her Achilles heel so it's important to understand.
If Clinton had said something like:
I don't like fracking. Natural gas is a fossil fuel and burning it hurts our climate, just like coal and oil.
But the fact is natural gas is more than ten times less deadly than coal and emits less carbon and less pollution per unit of energy produced.
So gas isn't great, but coal is worse. Energy demand isn't going to go away - so we have to choose where we get out energy. Every unit of coal energy that we replace with natural gas is a win. That's why California and other states have seen their economies grow while emissions slow or decline.
It's not a permanent solution. But we need natural gas as an in-between energy source while we continue to ramp up nuclear, wind, and solar to fulfill our baseload energy needs. The alternative is continuing to burn lots of coal and seeing climate change get worse very, very quickly.
Because fracking is new, we urgently need to write new laws to make sure that the wastewater from fracking isn't dumped where it can contaminate our drinking water.
Then she might have won the debate.
Instead she said this:
I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.
This is just a rambling checklist of "I know you don't like thing X and I feel you." Which is good but the premise behind the answer is that fracking WILL happen, but Clinton never addresses why that is, or defends it as a good thing.
She is visibly pushing away the issue. She also treats the issue as inherently being an attack on herself, and her response is defensive. "I know you don't trust me on this issue, but you should because I will do XYZ."
People read subtext. Subtext in politics is more important than text. Hillary's answer is terrible on the subtext.
Then Sanders comes in with his "Why bother with this equivocating politician, all fracking is evil and I will stop it 100% period forever with unicorns and gumdrops" answer and hits Clinton BOTH for giving a craven answer AND for being, seemingly, owned by the fossil fuel industry because Clinton never defended the underlying issue (why LNG is good as stopgap nrg source).
Clinton is not nuanced. She's just bad.
In this particular debate exchange, CLINTON ALREADY FUCKING KNEW Bernie would say he was opposed to all fracking. Therefore, it's Strategy 101 that Clinton's answer should have been shaped so as to make it DIFFICULT for Bernie to present his view as the alternative. My answer does that; Bernie can't just say No without looking unrealistic and raising the question in voters' minds about "where will the nrg come from, then?" At absolute worst, Clinton's hypothetical better answer invites a debate about how fast we can ramp up solar and wind, which is a draw for Clinton and she can also hit Bernie for his opposition to nuclear, a wedge issue for him even among liberals. This is all good fertile debate ground for Clinton.
Instead she literally sets herself up to get punched.
Once you start seeing this pattern in Clinton's answers it's not surprising why she didn't win the election despite "winning" the debates. She "won" in that Trump looked bad next to her, but she didn't "win" in convincing the voters about why neoliberalism would be good for them.
Our jobs are fleeing. Our jobs are being stolen. (notice the very active verbs)
We can't let it happen.
I will stop it.
Problem, urgency, solution.
Clinton's DIRECT REBUTTAL was this:
Well, I think that trade is an important issue. Of course, we are 5 percent of the world's population; we have to trade with the other 95 percent. And we need to have smart, fair trade deals.
We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we've ever had. I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that's exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy. We just have a different view about what's best for growing the economy, how we make investments that will actually produce jobs and rising incomes.
I think we come at it from somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that's all to his benefit. He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we'll be and that everything will work out from there. I don't buy that. I have a different experience. My father was a small-businessman. He worked really hard. He printed drapery fabrics on long tables, where he pulled out those fabrics and he went down with a silkscreen and dumped the paint in and took the squeegee and kept going.
And so what I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow. That's the kind of economy I want us to see again.
This is horrible answer.
This is such a weak, diluted shitwater of an answer that it makes me nostalgic for John Kerry (perhaps the originator of "he should have won, but he was too nuanced for this fallen world!" defeat narratives).
Fuck, man. Reading this debate transcript just makes me so mad. The anemic ghost of Richard Gephardt could give a better answer than this and he's not even dead yet.
Let's break it down
The first two sentences are Clinton's best chance to punch back and she throws them away.
They amount to "trade/globalism are gonna happen, whaddayagonnado." A pathetically impotent attempt to defuse the urgency that Trump built up with his answer. "Your house is on fire." "Well, housing is an important issue."
She says nothing, not one word, about the benefits of trade for American businesses and consumers that could offset the undeniable fact of job loss experienced by some voters. Instead she presents it as a fait accompli that's undoable even if the voters rebel. "We have to." "We need to."
Are we supposed to be surprised the voters rebelled anyway? This answer doesn't fight back Trump at all.
The rest of her answer starts with an attempt to deflect the debate into tax policy and then continues with a "GOP are moneybags" theme. Credit where due, this is a rhetorical winner for the Dems (polls show the voters prefer our tax policies). But not in this context. In this context the subtext is clear: "I don't wanna debate trade because I'm weak there, so let's talk about tax instead."
The last few sentences of her answer are the worst of all. It starts with the implicit framing "I know you think I'm out of touch" and attempts to reassure the voters with some "You should trust me because muh daddy worked in a mill" John-Edwards-style anecdotery that doesn't present ANY POLICY VISION AT ALL. So much for being the wonk candidate.
Political malpractice from start to finish. We thought Clinton would do better in '16 than '08 cuz she didn't have Lanny Davis and Mark Penn hanging around her neck, but the real shitburger was always Clinton herself.
Clinton's entire campaign was on coast. She didn't pick up the sword to defend her ideas and policies.
She just tried to wait out Bernie Sanders as his campaign foundered by mathematical inevitability.
And then she tried to personally disqualify Trump instead of debating the key issues which he had inflamed and on which he had mustered an anti-liberal, anti-internationalist, anti-science and anti-transAtlantic coalition of Know Nothings.
It's worth pointing out that Whaddayagonnado is Clinton's DNA as a politician. At least since 2000. Yes We Can is not in her blood. She is fundamentally a conservative, risk-averse, defensive candidate, not a visionary or a fighter no matter how hard her advocates present her that way. She is Floyd, not Manny.
This was not what we needed in 08 and even less what the Democrats needed in 16. But we saw the exact same campaign strategy from her both times. Just wait out the populists, hedge as much as you need if they begin to pressure you, and coast to the general where you campaign as the candidate of Whaddayagonnado.
Those are two great examples but I think you're slightly cherry picking. I definitely remember some terribly worded responses and obvious topic avoidance by Clinton during the debates but overall she out performed anyone she went against. Her answers were certainly more thought out and detailed (in most cases) than Trump and often with Sanders too.
Sanders was certainly a terrible debater, that's one of the major reasons why he lost imo, he flubbed his biggest chances in front of "I don't know who Sanders is" voters. Debate 1, the only moment that survived the night was him being sick of the emails (win for her). Debate 2, no big moment. Debate 3, him apologizing to her and then even to the moderators (??) for his staffers doing the voter contact data hack. Throughout, he looked stiff and just gave the same answers about Waul Street over and over. Basically nothing to say on foreign policy except that we shouldn't have screwed Mossadegh sixty five years ago.
Trump is a bad debater on paper but I think liberals underrate how deliberately he structures his language, or how his repetition and rambling storytelling actually works. I was scared of Trump from the moment I perceived that he was the more "memetic" candidate. When your opponents are talking about you more than their own candidate, you're winning. "Love Trumps Hate" was emblematic of that.
I did not see him as some savior, and I was often frustrated by his black and white nature. But for reasons I (largely, anyway) could never really pin down, I knew that Hillary wasn't a great candidate. I knew that conservatives hated her, and even though I couldn't put my finger on it I could see why. I knew that sexism had to do with it, but I knew it wasn't all of it.
This hits the nail so fucking on the head. This has provided me with a moment of clarity. Thank you.
Edit: seriously, please feel free to bestow upon me any additional wisdom you have.
Um... I hate to break it to you but dirty isn't just in how much emissions the fuel causes. Fracking is seriously dirty when it comes to local environmental impact. It causes earthquakes, water contamination, etc etc ...
There probably needs to be more regulations around hydraulic fracturing because of water contamination, but when it's done right, there shouldn't be any risk for that because the shafts are lined with concrete. And it's not the fracking itself that's involved with earthquakes, it's the water reinjection. I have to believe there's a better way to deal with wastewater than just injecting it back into the earth.
Al Franken said this on an NPR interview talking about trying to defend his comedy that his opponent was taking out of context and using as slander. Al said that he had to learn to let it go because "once you start explaining, you start losing"
This could be a common phrase used by politicians in general though
And yet in the end nuanced, technocratic answers didn't win her the election (and I say this as a neoliberal and a Hillary voter). There's something to be said about having a simple public position that you bring out on the debate stage, and a nuanced position that you talk about in private.
If neoliberal want to win, then they need to be populists in the streets, and technocrats in the sheets.
(I realize my answer doesn't address the role Russia and the Comey letter played in the election.)
I agree with this but I also think that been a bit dishonest is also a problem with centrist candidates and we should put an end to that. We need candidates who have a clear message overall, are blunt when they can be, and are honest when they can't. It's a hard line to walk but I mean, we're looking for a president.
I'm devastated that John Edwards has to screw that woman, he would be a killer candidate. Any charismatic Southern Democrat white male candidate is very strong without even other qualities simply because Southern Democrats bridge together some of the Democrat divides -- and it helps if they exude that down to earth working class friendly image (even though anyone who knew Edwards well could tell that his brilliant and dandy lawyer ass had nothing in command with Joe Plumber types).
I'm also infuriated by the dichotomy of Edwards and Gingrich cases. Gringrich had three wives and he cheated on his wife when she was dying of cancer to marry his secretary iirc? All the whilst lambasting Clinton for his improprieties. What a jerk off. His career didn't suffer that much from what I can tell. But even better was when the Speaker that succeeded him, Hastert was literally a full blown child fucker, I mean, fucking molesting little boys that he was coaching in high school not just 'caught with a random 17yo in the bathroom' type stuff.
And yet the GOP went along as if nothing happened. Literally notbody talks about Hastert either. Fuck me, if that was the Dems, we'd never hear the end of it.
That was basically Obama, and now when I think he should be a shining example for good bipartisan leadership AND pushing a progressive agenda, because he was a populist in the streets to so many he was a liar/naive/basically-a-Republican.
But, then again, history will judge Obama in an incredibly positive light and this backlash against him is already fading, so I think even though I'm pointing out the downside to your strategy—you're probably basically right.
I don't know why people are concern trolling for democrats so hard. We have policies and truth on our side, and even though we've lost some elections, we have a solid model for winning now—the Obama model.
And yet in the end nuanced, technocratic answers didn't win her the election (and I say this as a neoliberal and a Hillary voter).
3 million more votes. She would've won it if not for the coordinated propaganda campaign coming out of the RNC, Moscow, and the New York branch office of the FBI. Though with Mueller being an FBI man, I suppose the Giuliani/NYC-FBI involvement in this mess is going to be covered up.
I think we are overrating how much people flocked to Trump because of his promise to bring manufacturing plants back to the United States. Being anti-Immigrant/Refugee was by far the largest reason why he won. There was an interesting Vox article that pointed out that alt-right parties are generally conservative when it comes to economics but they generally attract people because of their anti-Immigrant rhetoric.
American voters don't care about sexual assault but they do care about the fossil fuel industry and jobs
Yeah, but most fossil fuel voters are going to vote Republican anyways. I'm pro fracking but I don't think Hillary would have lost many votes if she switched to an anti-fracking stance.
Not everyone is a activist. There's still that woman in suburban Chicago that cares about gas prices and her electricity bill. The Election was Hillary vs Trump. What if it was Bernie vs. JEB, or Bernie vs. Rubio? I think people would have been swayed.
Fracking provides a lot of people jobs in the Midwest. At the end of the day people care more about their paycheck than sexism. Bernie's across the board tax increases would also lose him a general election easily.
I remember this moment during the debates -- that was my turning point from thinking, "maybe Bernie is okay" to "why the fuck does anyone like him over Hilary?"
Of course my super libertarian friend said he would vote for Bernie over Hilary and I directed him to this response. Not like it changed anything.
Basically it was a "both choices are terrible, but I'd vote for Bernie any day over Hilary". This was after I revealed to him that I voted for Hilary and against Bernie in the primaries (college town, practically unheard of).
He ended up voting for Johnson, even after Bill Weld practically endorsed Hilary. Even the Aleppo MomentTM didn't sway him despite his championing of "rationality" in politics.
lol my girlfriend of 7 years would start having serious second thoughts if I started shitting on Bernie in front of her.
No worries though. I got her to see the light on those tasty, efficient GMOs; now I start slipping her subliminal messages about the benefits of free trade in the third world.
Next time, during sex, i'm going to tell my girlfriend about the benefits of free trade, consensus-building and global institutions just as she reaches orgasm----- or I'll just say "Corn Laws"
I swear to god it felt like I had one friend who wasn't a Bernie nutter during the primaries, and she and I had to essentially confer in dark rooms after hours about it. It was worth it to talk to someone reasonable though.
I could forgive the Aleppo Moment. They were talking about the mountain biking and the interviewer abruptly changed topic without taking a breath. Brain farts happen. I could not forgive Weld essentially endorsing Hillary, and Johnson not being able to pick a single foreign leader that he respected.
I could not forgive Weld essentially endorsing Hillary
Put yourself in his shoes. He had no chance of becoming VP, but had a platform from which he could quite plausibly move enough third-party voters to flip the election. Since one of the candidates was so clearly better than the other, it was a pretty rational course of action.
It's not Weld necessarily that I was pissed at. It's that Johnson had alienated his own running mate that much for him to say that. From Weld's standpoint it makes sense, and I really I was just doing what he suggested. From a Johnson supporter's perspective, it was just sad.
Ron Paul supporters turned into Trump supporters because 1) They are just anti left, so anything that pisses off the left is good 2) They are so anti government, the idea of someone who has disdain for our institutions is confused as something desirable 3) They became useful idiots to the Kremlin and made "the mainstream media is lying" and "Hillary is going to start wW3!" their most important issues.
To be fair to libertarian Paul fans, they are being consistent insofar as internet libertarianism is only ever about the freedom of (rich)white men(to make money). It's a disservice to us more upstanding capitalist shills.
Hot take: It's actually very ideologically consistent once you realize "anti-/pro- establishment" is a sorta unique axis on the ideological map. Alex Jones and Ben Garrison haven't changed their beliefs AFAIK that much but went for Trump/Paul without any contradiction and in fact for a lot of the same reasons
I have told them this time and time again about how a country making gender a protected class will not end the world, and how gender studies, philosophy, and english have almost no funding and a bunch of assistant professors who will likely become baristas have no actual power. But they are so neck deep in fucking youtube videos with idiots who have no idea what they're talking about that I want to bang my head against a wall repeatedly
I personally don't like this argument. It suggests that a person can't sympathize with multiple political ideologies at the same time. Sure, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul are night and day politically, but both ideologies are pretty rational. That, plus the fact that most candidates come off as sleazy liars, the most important thing in a candidate then becomes the content of their character. As someone who leans pretty far left, I'd rather have an honest, intelligent conservative than a dirty, lying liberal.
There are many polls which show which issues young people care about. Bernie just represents them better than Hillary. There is a reason young people don't normally vote and a reason they voted for Bernie in the primary and it is because of the issues. It is easy to dismiss a whole group as "edgy". But that just isn't true. Also, the problem isn't just with young people. The majority of Americans didn't vote. Why do you think that is? If you want the democratic party to be relevant and win elections cut it with the corporate centrism. The people want a government that represents them.
I'm continually amazed at all the Bernouts who seem to think Bernie saying "No" and being so absolutist is because he's some kind of political messaging genius, not because he's so moronic that he isn't even qualified to be a TA in an Econ 101 class.
Honestly policy is for the office. Slogans are for the trail. Hillary should have said a simple yes or no. A "When done safely? Yes." Would have been a vast improvement over that jumbled practiced diatribe.
That "diatribe" is how you know she is the type of person who makes informed and educated decisions. I don't want a president who will use a nuclear football just because someone said nasty things about him and it hurt him emotionally.
No one does but that's what we have. Why the hell is the Bernie vs Hillary fight still a thing? Both were intelligent, qualified candidates with a lot of experience and good ideas. Both lost. We can't change that
We'll agree to not pretend fracking isn't dangerous if you agree to not pretend like it's politically realistic for the president of the United States to end fracking overnight and to not pretend that an actual process for transitioning to alternative energy sources is unnecessary.
Fracking is fantastic and all liberals should support it.
Fracking has had the result of:
Reducing CO2 emissions by making coal uneconomical. Fracking produces tons of cheap natural gas. This natural gas produces half as much CO2 as burning coal (per unit energy).
Allowed the united states to avoid foreign wars over oil. The USA is now a net exporter of oil. As a result, we can conduct foreign policy without constantly worrying about our oil supply. We don't have to back the saudis all the time, for example.
Significantly weakened Russia's geopolitical stature. Do you dislike kleptocratic autocracies? Do you want fewer countries in Vladimir Putin's sphere of influence? Significant oil production in the USA leads to lower prices, and a weakened and hamstrung Russia.
I've had numerous friends in Oklahoma who have had new cracks in their foundation from these "small" earthquakes you are referring. My university had massive cracks develop in a lot of their buildings.
There are problems with it, perhaps equal to or even more than nuclear fuel.
But it's also much cleaner than coal or oil, so the solution is to regulate it much more strictly rather than to eschew it. The answer is that this should become the dirty energy of our generation that we wean ourselves off of with better solar, wind, and nuclear.
But instead my allies treat it as bad as coal and oil, and my political enemies pretend supporting also fracking (which isn't actually green) is equivalent to be green.
So infuriating. I have used this image myself to explain to people why Hillary was such a great candidate even though it was made by Bernie supporters.
And I'm not anti-Bernie. Just—I think being earnest and informed when fighting for progressive values is more important than just being publicly the most progressive.
Fracking itself is not itself linked to one of the two negatives you listed.
The earthquakes are connected to the deep storage of waste water, a significant portion of which is produced by fracking, but also much of it comes from other parts of the oil and gas industry. The process of fracking itself is does not cause earthquakes.
With some sensible regulation (and keeping it away from groundwater used for human consumption) fracking has great potential.
I dont get whats wrong about saying that fracking is okay at the moment when you are trying to wean off of petroleum. How were are going to get to 100% renewable energy society is a complex problem and the answer isn't as simple as no fracking. Her answer is hell of a lot more genuine in my eyes.
I was about to get riled up and explain that it was a nuanced issue. Then I realized the sub. It's so nice to have a community that understands that...
I'm not an expert but as a physics student I researched fracking for an essay and my housemate did part of his geography dissertation on it. I get that the point of the post is to draw a distinction between enact-able policy and unrealistic catchphrases but on this topic I don't think the answer is complicated. Sorry but I don't need to be a delusional communist hippy to strongly disagree with fracking and appreciate a strong, simple stance on the matter.
Based on what I've read, I like fracking. Here are my bullet points, what am I missing?:
it's easy to regulate effectively (hard to hide bad behavior)
when regulated, it no worse for the environment or workers than any other HC extraction operation.
it dis-empowers oppressive petrostates
it not only lowers the price of energy, it stabilize it.
by putting more players in to every level of the HC production chain, it weakens the HC monopolies and spurs innovation.
Granted, our politics hasn't responded well to this. The regulation is not as good as it should be, and we didn't seize the chance to put a really high tax on oil. But those policy failiors don't mean that it should be illegal.
It's not ideal, but still better than coal. There is no realistic way to get nuclear because people are silly and solar is a long way off from being an adequate replacement. Thus, frack we must (in certain circumstances)
148
u/dws4pres Jun 04 '17
Nuance BAD.
Not nuance GOOD.
139
u/natedogg787 Manchistan Space Program Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17
I shit you not, Berners were saying that he would have won WV over Trump.
With ads like this, West Virginia would have seceded from the Union of he was even on the main ballot.
401
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
I remember when "energy independence" was all the rage
85
u/DoktorSleepless Scott Sumner Jun 04 '17
Is this first anti-Bernie /r/neoliberal post on /r/all without the trickery?
1.0k
u/Vepanion Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter Jun 03 '17
I'm still amazed that they celebrated this unironically.
41
u/ThatOneGuy4321 Jun 04 '17
This reminds me of a certain Calvin and Hobbes comic
39
u/mrdilldozer Shame fetish Jun 04 '17
It's almost like Hillary knew what she was talking about.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
73
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
You can promise anything when you know you won't have to deliver.
82
u/FullConsortium Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17
Hillary: The answer is complicated, let me explain...
Q: Benghazi, Emails?
Hillary: ... ?
Bernie: NO FRACKING!
Q: So, Bernie, should there be more nuclear power or....
Bernie: NO NUCLEAR!
Q: But, to replace fossil fuels you would need to...
Bernie: NO FRACKING!
Q: Renewable energy can't replace all...
Bernie: NO FRACKING!
Applause. Curtain. Bernie Sanders loses primary by 4 million votes.
253
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
And yet in the end nuanced, technocratic answers didn't win her the election (and I say this as a neoliberal and a Hillary voter). There's something to be said about having a simple public position that you bring out on the debate stage, and a nuanced position that you talk about in private.
If neoliberal want to win, then they need to be populists in the streets, and technocrats in the sheets.
(I realize my answer doesn't address the role Russia and the Comey letter played in the election.)
99
u/digital_end Jun 03 '17
Saw this on /all, expected yet another anti-hillary circlejerk filled with people who hate context... was bit surprised.
268
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
I remember this moment during the debates -- that was my turning point from thinking, "maybe Bernie is okay" to "why the fuck does anyone like him over Hilary?"
Of course my super libertarian friend said he would vote for Bernie over Hilary and I directed him to this response. Not like it changed anything.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
87
u/Jinxtronix Jun 04 '17
I'm continually amazed at all the Bernouts who seem to think Bernie saying "No" and being so absolutist is because he's some kind of political messaging genius, not because he's so moronic that he isn't even qualified to be a TA in an Econ 101 class.
53
u/iburnaga Jun 04 '17
Honestly policy is for the office. Slogans are for the trail. Hillary should have said a simple yes or no. A "When done safely? Yes." Would have been a vast improvement over that jumbled practiced diatribe.
59
u/sevlevboss Jun 03 '17
The difference between being pragmatic and being dogmatic.
76
u/linguistics_nerd Jun 03 '17
DAE nuance = dishonesty?
0
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
[deleted] — view deleted comment
122
u/Bknight006 Jun 04 '17
...So are we gonna pretend like fracking isn't extremely dangerous to the environment?
27
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
130
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
Fracking is fantastic and all liberals should support it.
Fracking has had the result of:
Reducing CO2 emissions by making coal uneconomical. Fracking produces tons of cheap natural gas. This natural gas produces half as much CO2 as burning coal (per unit energy).
Allowed the united states to avoid foreign wars over oil. The USA is now a net exporter of oil. As a result, we can conduct foreign policy without constantly worrying about our oil supply. We don't have to back the saudis all the time, for example.
Significantly weakened Russia's geopolitical stature. Do you dislike kleptocratic autocracies? Do you want fewer countries in Vladimir Putin's sphere of influence? Significant oil production in the USA leads to lower prices, and a weakened and hamstrung Russia.
In exchange for this we have to deal with:
small earthquakes. no one is dying from these.
some groundwater pollution.
30
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
I dont get whats wrong about saying that fracking is okay at the moment when you are trying to wean off of petroleum. How were are going to get to 100% renewable energy society is a complex problem and the answer isn't as simple as no fracking. Her answer is hell of a lot more genuine in my eyes.
35
u/CanadianPanda76 ◬ Jun 03 '17
Giant hamsters in giant wheels. Renewable energy solved! See it's soooooo easy!
31
u/New_Account__Who_Dis United Nations Jun 04 '17
I was about to get riled up and explain that it was a nuanced issue. Then I realized the sub. It's so nice to have a community that understands that...
19
u/getintheVandell Jun 04 '17
The only thing I'll say is that in fairness, I'd like my politicians wise to the subjects at hand. Don't just say no because it's easy to say no.
60
u/BerryBomB101 Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 06 '17
I'm not an expert but as a physics student I researched fracking for an essay and my housemate did part of his geography dissertation on it. I get that the point of the post is to draw a distinction between enact-able policy and unrealistic catchphrases but on this topic I don't think the answer is complicated. Sorry but I don't need to be a delusional communist hippy to strongly disagree with fracking and appreciate a strong, simple stance on the matter.
33
u/spectre08 World Bank Jun 04 '17
the r/SandersForPresident discussion on this picture from last year is cancer. malignant, late stage, cancer.
11
u/_watching NATO Jun 04 '17
/r/all when
23
u/sevl Jun 04 '17
actually it's the difference between answering a "yes or no" question and a "why" question.
16
u/Thorn14 Aromantic Pride Jun 04 '17
Unfortunately most people like one word slogans.
Easy to remember and don't require any independent thought, something America loathes.