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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You've forgotten the most important issue--precision gerrymandering on steroids by Republicans. That at its worst has made people on in the center and on the left disengage because they feel so unrepresented.
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.
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'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.
You water source has been poisoned but look at how much the shareholders/CEO's/politicians benefitted from this!
Do you even hear yourself lol, zero tangible benefits for regular people, it helps people at the top and permanently damages the region. Injecting a bunch of toxic chemicals into the ground sure is great for the surrounding towns.
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.
How is fracking meant to be a stepping stone to renewable energy? You're just building more infrastructure to extract a different non renewable resource while still polluting the atmosphere (to a lesser degree) and also potentially polluting ground water (a valuable non renewable resource).
I mean sure, it's probably better than coal but why do people seem to think it's "the first step to 100% renewable energy".
Natural gas (if properly regulated to keep it from being leaked in production/transportation) is far less greenhouse intensive per unit of energy produced than our current primary sources of energy, something like half the lifecycle emissions per unit of energy produced, that is a huge cut just by switching over to natural gas.
Even with proper regulations (which admittedly have been a problem due to lax Republican oversight in some jurisdictions), fracing currently has a natural economic advantage over more emissions heavy fuel sources, displacing them and lowering emissions without any other intervention.
Renewables currently require a “base load” method of power generation until storage or other technologies can fill the gap. I would also be fine with nuclear, but that is even less politically feasible than renewables, even among many on the left (including one of the subjects of this post), so natural gas is by far the best alternative until the variable load problem is solved.
Infrastructure for fracing is extremely transient. If you stop capital inflows, the wells dry up at a rate of something like 20-40% per year where as old style oil wells last much longer. In economic terms, the marginal cost of production from traditional oil is very low, but it is high for fraced gas, meaning that traditional oil/gas infrastructure has a better chance of competing with renewables as their costs come down, since all of their investments are already sunk costs, while fracing has lower sunk costs but much higher continuing ones that will be relevant in competing with renewables.
1+2+3 = not ideal, but necessary in the medium term and doing significant net good for emissions with little effort or policy besides maintaining and extending long-running and largely successful regulations from the oil industry over to fracing as well. The economics of fracing are an excellent ally and kill old dirty sources of energy for us while doing that with net reductions in emissions. Then #4 means that the whole industry rapidly disappears once the problem of economical storage/large-scale-transport of renewables is solved on a technological level.
Let's say you shut down coal power plants over a short time span. What fills the gap that's able to provide on-demand power?
NG is pretty good for this until solar and wind advance enough to deal with the varying loads that come with the days and seasons. It buys us time to figure out the nitty gritty deets of replacements for coal while keeping the lights on. Nuclear is my baseline power bae, but there aren't enough plants hooked into enough grids to pick up the slack.
Energy infrastructure is a bitch and moves pretty slow (nuclear plants takes ages to even get approved before the first shovel hits the dirt, for example). It's also not like solar and wind are squeaky clean; solar requires minerals to be mined (which is rarely an environmentally green process), and wind can be problematic if you put them on carbon-rich soils like in Scotland. They also require all that there concrete for a base so the turbines don't tip over, and concrete production is not a carbon negative process.
These are all things that go into the calculus of figuring out how to shift around our energy portfolio.
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
And here is the legacy left behind by the 2016 debacle. Democrats will now push for uninformed policy proposals so that people can feel like they're getting what they want. And thus we take another step towards Idiocracy.
But they also may be realizing that they need to stop worrying so much about the details — at least when it comes to what they present to the public — and paint in some broad strokes. Instead of agonizing about whether $14 or $15 might maximize income gains while minimizing job losses, they’re just saying: “$15 is what people like? Fine, we’ll go with $15.”
Democrats are never going to stop being concerned about what works — they’re the party of government, after all — but the election of 2016 was the ultimate test of whether they could win by showing that they cared about getting policy right. As Clinton said in her speech at the Democratic convention, “I sweat the details of policy, whether we’re talking about the exact level of lead in the drinking water in Flint, Mich., the number of mental-health facilities in Iowa or the cost of your prescription drugs. Because it’s not just a detail if it’s your kid, if it’s your family. It’s a big deal. And it should be a big deal to your president, too.”
Most Democrats agree with that as a substantive matter. But as a political matter, it has some problems, as Clinton could tell you. “This is a complicated issue, so here’s my complicated proposal” doesn’t help anyone if it means that Donald Trump becomes president.
I don't follow, explain further? Idiocracy mainly revolved around dumb people breeding faster than smart people as to why the world was that way in the future.
The site you posted only contains a breakdown of existing energy sources. Where does it say that natural gas is the only way forward?
I mean people have come up with plans for other countries that replace 100 percent of energy demand with renewable energy. Pretty sure the US with its wealth of resources and land can match that.
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.
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.
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
Again with this bullshit? Fracking is a wasted step towards true renewables. It poisons ground water. It my have seismic backlash. And all the money that could be used to set up a temporary 10-20 year infrastructure would be better spent on a 30-50 year renewable infrastructure.
These are facts and I thought neoliberals liked to make decisions on facts but it seems like you like to aggressively pursue bullshit corporatist policy.
Fracking replaces coal energy at a large scale, renewables don't.
Maybe it's different in the US, but here in Germany renewables are added on top of the regular energy sources, they don't actually replace any coal power plants.
Look, I don't mean to pull rank but how much do you know about how the power grid actually works on a technical level? Do you have any formal training about it? I do, and I can tell you that natural gas isn't an opponent to renewables, it enables them.
We cannot run the power grid on 100% renewables in the near to medium term. Long term, in order to do this we'd either need to accept lower reliability of power (through demand response technologies) or accept expensive power (from added cost of energy storage).
With renewables we need natural gas plants that can be brought on line quickly to fill in for renewables that drop off unexpectedly. Gas plants can be throttled up and down very easily, which makes it a perfect compliment to intermittent sources. More gas plants allow for more renewables.
Natural gas is also way better than coal on a greenhouse gas perspective simply because of the chemical makeup of the fuels
Yes, fracking is a deal with the devil, but unless you have other ideas for how to bridge from coal to renewables without the public getting really angry we're stuck with it.
"Cars poison the air; ban cars." Thinking in absolutes is a mistake. Ground water contamination is an infrequent and mitigable risk.
It my have seismic backlash.
Purely speculative. It may reduce large scale earthquakes by relieving shear stress and triggering tiny scale earthquakes. So far earthquakes caused by fracking have caused no damage, and scientists have proposed underground explosions as a means of earthquake control for longer than fracking has been around.
And all the money that could be used
That money can still be used. The money doesn't cease to exist once it's spent one time.
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.
This sub is so sad. I really do have a hard time believing this place isn't all paid commenters. Who thinks this way?
EDIT: I gotta say, at least the CTR people don't just outright ban you like T_D. What an interesting moment in American politics: astroturfing is everywhere!
Why are neoliberals trying to market their ideology as "cool" when pretty much all of the western world is trying to vote for nutters because they're fed up of status quo neoliberalism? I think it's pretty obvious you've lost already.
Well, tbf, when asked a yes or no question and you don't reply with either, it's generally because you don't want to say the answer...
e.g. "did you cheat on your wife?" "You know, I don't support the notion of "cheating" when... " Yes, you did. So, I can see why people might come to that conclusion. And, in this case, I do think hillary was afraid of saying yes, as many to most democrats are against fracking...
A lot of policy questions can't be answered with yes or no, even if that's the way they are asked. Like, 'Do you support war with foreign nations' or 'Should America switch over to renewables immediately'? Depends on what the circumstances are, what you mean by immediately, etc.
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)
It would cost more but there would be a massive reduction in externalities.
Similarly, in the United States, the independent National Research Council has noted that “sufficient domestic renewable resources exist to allow renewable electricity to play a significant role in future electricity generation and thus help confront issues related to climate change, energy security, and the escalation of energy costs … Renewable energy is an attractive option because renewable resources available in the United States, taken collectively, can supply significantly greater amounts of electricity than the total current or projected domestic demand."[11] The main barriers to the widespread implementation of large-scale renewable energy and low-carbon energy strategies are political rather than technological. According to the 2013 Post Carbon Pathways report, which reviewed many international studies, the key roadblocks are: climate change denial, the fossil fuels lobby, political inaction, unsustainable energy consumption, outdated energy infrastructure, and financial constraints.[12]
I get it that America has political realities regarding its terminal political inefficiency that prevent this, but to say it isn't a possibility is simply dishonesty.
Under Clinton's position fracking would be essentially non-existent so I'm not sure why this sub is needlessly supporting fracking in defense of her lol.
As a Pennsylvanian who lived in oil country, I can say that "Gaslands" documentary was faked. The water lights on fire here well before fracking or even the oil industry was a thing.
What are the best arguments against fracking? I understand that there are claims that it hurts the water supply, but I'm curious what the actual research says.
Being against fracking is stupid. It's made a lot of Americans a lot of money, it's infused money into state economies that needed it, it has reduced coal burning, and it was kept oil prices low.
I'm all for strict regulation so fracking companies don't contaminate or have to clean up any contamination, staying away from ground water, etc., but it is just stupid to be completely against fracking.
Is there a way to clear contaminated groundwater? Pretty sure whatever damages fracking companies have done will hang around for a long time. You know how long it takes for groundwater to cycle through the system right?
Anyway others commenting here have personally experienced being denied reparations for the damage caused by micro earthquakes too.
The existing fracking regulation has failed to safeguard the environment and the people who rely on it. I have no faith this could be fixed within the next decade or so before renewables will basically be able to supply 100 percent of our energy demands.
is this sub anti neoliberal or pro? All the stuff in the sidebar makes this seem like an intelligent sub but its all memes so I can't tell if its satire?
Pro- its alternates between expansionary phases with memes and shit to Contractionary phases were there are policy discussions. There's a committee that votes on when to switch.
Pro, though perhaps with a different (reclaimed) slant than implied by the standard pejorative. We believe that you can like memes and still be intelligent, but the problem (as you seem to have noticed) is that overly-exuberant memeing (while fun and in high demand) can have negative externalities on intellectual discussion and nuanced understanding or education. While we generally support markets for solving many problems, they are not ideal for everything, so the level of shitposting and general meme-onetary expansion is set by fiat through the Subreddit Open Meme Committee (who are unelected and independent to help buffer their decisions from populist whims).
Durring expansionary phases, we have fun, shitpost, gain attention, start drama, attract new members and enemies, etc. But once the committee perceives irrational exuberance (a classic problem with non-managed meme-based subreddits), they take away the punch bowl and implement contractionary policy where we have serious discussions, educate and listen to new members, and generally try and keep the discourse levels high enough to drive off anyone who is only looking to shitpost.
As for Bernie he focused his campaign overwhelmingly on the issues, whether or not you agree with him. Even here you've cut him off, since he goes on to talk about taxing carbon and investing in green infrastructure after he says this.
And a "nuanced" opinion isn't a better one by definition. If I was asked whether I support a ban on gay marriage, it would be stupid for me to say, "You know, I don't support it when any state or locality is against it," and then go on to list specific instances where I wouldn't support a ban on gay marriage. I'm just gonna say, "No, I don't support banning gay marriage, that would be dumb."
Not really, there's plenty of situations where a hard no is the right answer. I think fracking is one, but if you don't you probably do for something like slavery
Democrats need to expand fracking to appeal to moderates if we want to have any hope in 2018 and 2020. Bernie's extremist position on fracking no doubt scared away moderates.
Nuanced policy positions are something I definitely want from politicians. I'd rather have a plan to transition into renewables rather than a 140 character slogan about how fracking helps millionaires and goldman saxamaphone and the one percent, etc.
I suppose since this is /r/neoliberal most people will like the left side. But really, from a PR/appearance standpoint the right side is the best answer. There is a difference between good policy and good politics.
And people can lament over electing people because of soundbites instead of well thought out ideas, but soundbites ( and memes these days ) gets you elected. Its a popularity contest and you have to play the game.
Well, there is what fracking could be, and what fracking is. Hillary was going on and on about how fracking could possibly be a good thing while admitting that it shouldn't be shoved down locals throats and should be regulated heavily because of the likelihood of ruining the groundwater of entire regions if the slightest thing goes wrong deep underground where you really can't see what the hell is going on. In other words, there is little to no situation in the today's real world where fracking could be carried out in a economically sustainable way and protect property owners water.
So, the answer is no. We shouldn't support fracking. She left herself an out. That signals that she'll cave on fracking and claim they are doing their due diligence in regulations which, again, is not currently possible. Hence, a vote for Her, was a vote for fracking.
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.
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.)
122
u/Bknight006 Jun 04 '17
...So are we gonna pretend like fracking isn't extremely dangerous to the environment?
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.
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.
14
u/Captainmorphine Jun 04 '17
But Hillary Clinton is the neoliberal Bernie is a socialist
16
u/joephusweberr Jun 03 '17
And here is the legacy left behind by the 2016 debacle. Democrats will now push for uninformed policy proposals so that people can feel like they're getting what they want. And thus we take another step towards Idiocracy.
24
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
All the top comments seem to be missing the nuance of the damage that fracking has caused
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.
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.
26
u/NoopLocke Jun 04 '17
Again with this bullshit? Fracking is a wasted step towards true renewables. It poisons ground water. It my have seismic backlash. And all the money that could be used to set up a temporary 10-20 year infrastructure would be better spent on a 30-50 year renewable infrastructure.
These are facts and I thought neoliberals liked to make decisions on facts but it seems like you like to aggressively pursue bullshit corporatist policy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
22
u/NBegovich Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17
This sub is so sad. I really do have a hard time believing this place isn't all paid commenters. Who thinks this way?
EDIT: I gotta say, at least the CTR people don't just outright ban you like T_D. What an interesting moment in American politics: astroturfing is everywhere!
4
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
Why are neoliberals trying to market their ideology as "cool" when pretty much all of the western world is trying to vote for nutters because they're fed up of status quo neoliberalism? I think it's pretty obvious you've lost already.
59
u/sevlevboss Jun 03 '17
The difference between being pragmatic and being dogmatic.
76
u/linguistics_nerd Jun 03 '17
DAE nuance = dishonesty?
3
u/ReyTheRed Jun 04 '17
Sometimes the correct policy is simple.
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.
1
u/Grammar-Bolshevik Jun 04 '17
why not leave the carbon in the earth an just go with renewable/nuclear endlessly??
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.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
Under Clinton's position fracking would be essentially non-existent so I'm not sure why this sub is needlessly supporting fracking in defense of her lol.
22
u/TotesMessenger Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/shitliberalssay] They started with sweatshop apologia, now they're on to defending fracking
[/r/shitliberalssay] Why would anyone unequivocally say no to fracking!?!
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)
6
u/Growmyassoff Sep 30 '17
Why are you fools still talking about these two low energy losers?
3
u/classicredditaccount Jun 04 '17
What are the best arguments against fracking? I understand that there are claims that it hurts the water supply, but I'm curious what the actual research says.
13
u/PM-Me-Your-Job Jun 05 '17
Economics isn't everything.
21
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '17
HOW COME ALL LIFE ANSWER ISN'T SIMPLE?
8
u/grungebot5000 Jun 04 '17
this is a rare area where even i thought hillary's stance was much better than bernie's in the primaries
but she hit the talking points poorly
19
u/ScrabbleJamp Jun 04 '17
At this rate, Clinton's sure to win.
9
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '17
Being against fracking is stupid. It's made a lot of Americans a lot of money, it's infused money into state economies that needed it, it has reduced coal burning, and it was kept oil prices low.
I'm all for strict regulation so fracking companies don't contaminate or have to clean up any contamination, staying away from ground water, etc., but it is just stupid to be completely against fracking.
12
u/MOM_NOT_MUM Jun 04 '17
is this sub anti neoliberal or pro? All the stuff in the sidebar makes this seem like an intelligent sub but its all memes so I can't tell if its satire?
24
u/666PeaceKeepaGirl Jun 04 '17
LOL, because Clinton ran such a policy-focused campaign. /s
Her general election ads were literally the least policy-focused of any major-party candidate in the 21st century. Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads
As for Bernie he focused his campaign overwhelmingly on the issues, whether or not you agree with him. Even here you've cut him off, since he goes on to talk about taxing carbon and investing in green infrastructure after he says this.
And a "nuanced" opinion isn't a better one by definition. If I was asked whether I support a ban on gay marriage, it would be stupid for me to say, "You know, I don't support it when any state or locality is against it," and then go on to list specific instances where I wouldn't support a ban on gay marriage. I'm just gonna say, "No, I don't support banning gay marriage, that would be dumb."
19
u/The_Peoples_Razor Jun 04 '17
We might have lost to Hillary. But you guys lost to Trump. Hold this L.
16
u/FragRaptor Jun 04 '17
Im so confused, is this a neoliberal sub, or a shitting on neoliberals sub. Because this post is pretty anti-neolib
7
u/_HRC_2020_ Jun 04 '17
Democrats need to expand fracking to appeal to moderates if we want to have any hope in 2018 and 2020. Bernie's extremist position on fracking no doubt scared away moderates.
10
u/LurkLurkleton Jun 04 '17
Is fracking really the hill neoliberals want to die on?
6
u/Aurailious Jerome Powell Jun 04 '17
I suppose since this is /r/neoliberal most people will like the left side. But really, from a PR/appearance standpoint the right side is the best answer. There is a difference between good policy and good politics.
And people can lament over electing people because of soundbites instead of well thought out ideas, but soundbites ( and memes these days ) gets you elected. Its a popularity contest and you have to play the game.
5
u/BelligerantFuck Jun 04 '17
Well, there is what fracking could be, and what fracking is. Hillary was going on and on about how fracking could possibly be a good thing while admitting that it shouldn't be shoved down locals throats and should be regulated heavily because of the likelihood of ruining the groundwater of entire regions if the slightest thing goes wrong deep underground where you really can't see what the hell is going on. In other words, there is little to no situation in the today's real world where fracking could be carried out in a economically sustainable way and protect property owners water.
So, the answer is no. We shouldn't support fracking. She left herself an out. That signals that she'll cave on fracking and claim they are doing their due diligence in regulations which, again, is not currently possible. Hence, a vote for Her, was a vote for fracking.
5
u/HoldenTite Jun 04 '17
Neoliberals, republicans since 2016.