• Hillary Clinton gets frustrated at Greenpeace activist in New York
    30 replies, posted
[QUOTE]In a rare heated moment on the campaign trail, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton told a climate change activist on the rope line after an event that she is "so sick of the Sanders campaign lying" about donations from fossil fuel companies and lobbyists. In video footage posted online by Greenpeace, shown below, the group's activist spoke to Clinton as she was greeting supporters along the rope line in Purchase, N.Y. "Thank you for tackling climate change," the woman said. "Will you act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?" Clinton replied: "I do not have, I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies," Clinton replied. When the woman followed up, asking, "and registered lobbyists?" Clinton appeared to get frustrated. "I'm so sick!" she said. "I'm so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about this, I'm sick of it!" [video=youtube;dC4Pvm6Oj4A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A[/video][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-gets-frustrated-at-greenpeace-activist-in-new-york/[/url]
Yeah, im so sick of politicians lying so damn much, then getting away with it! Oh wait
[url]https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01%20%20&cycle=2016&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U[/url] So uh...?
you mad hilary?
Copying relevant discussion from the duplicate thread in the video section: [QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;50051286]Sanders is on that list too.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;50051667]People don't realize that most of these donations are from people who work for certain companies, (Laborers), if a company wants to donate to a candidate, then they would through an unaffiliated super PAC.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=rilez;50051956]Except for the millions that oil lobbyists give to Priorities Action USA, a PAC which has given over $1 million to Correct the Record... another PAC which Clinton is [B]actually[/B] coordinating with, due to a legal loophole involving PACs and posting political ads online So yeah, she's definitely utilizing money from the oil lobby, albeit in a roundabout way. [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/[/url] [URL]http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-says-she-does-not-coordinate-super-pac-she-reportedly-raised-money[/URL] [quote]However, the Greenpeace report says that when you add in the bundlers’ donations (lobbyists with some alleged tie to the fossil fuel industry), Clinton's total rises to nearly $1.8 million. The fossil fuel industry's share of the Clinton coffers goes up to 0.8 percent.The Greenpeace report goes a step further to include $4.25 million going to Priorities Action USA, the super PAC that supports Clinton.[/quote] [/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI[/media] we're sick of your lies too Hillary
"I'm so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about this, I'm sick of it!" Pretty hypocritical to complain about Bernie lying when you're an extremely big liar yourself don't you think Hilary?
[QUOTE=EmilyVasquez;50052122]"I'm so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about this, I'm sick of it!" Pretty hypocritical to complain about Bernie lying when you're an extremely big liar yourself don't you think Hilary?[/QUOTE] You can practically feel the projection oozing off of her. On the bright side, this means that she got nervous enough to snap at someone.
To be honest, Greenpeace activists frustrate me too.
Greenpeace is a shit organization, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to tolerate them.
Glad to see Greenpeace is still active. Even happier to see hillary get nervous when confronted with the truth [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50052796]Greenpeace is a shit organization, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to tolerate them.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with Greenpeace?
[QUOTE=gastyne;50052806]Glad to see Greenpeace is still active. Even happier to see hillary get nervous when confronted with the truth [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] What's wrong with Greenpeace?[/QUOTE]Their rampant bullshit about nuclear energy is mind-numbing and disgusting. Not to mention their regular attempts to break in to nuclear facilities. They do it with other subjects as well, but their nuclear crap is a major fuel for the dipshit nuclear scare we've been experienced in recent years.
The video had nothing to do with Greenpeace. We've seen [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQREztMbZqo"]similar videos with similar questions[/URL] from non Greenpeace members — their Greenpeace affiliation has got jack shit to do with the subject at hand, so stop being distracted over it.
I don't get it when she says [quote]I do not have, I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies[/quote] Is that her backtracking?
[QUOTE=gastyne;50052806]Glad to see Greenpeace is still active. Even happier to see hillary get nervous when confronted with the truth [editline]2nd April 2016[/editline] What's wrong with Greenpeace?[/QUOTE] they're anti science I get they're well intentioned and are good at highlighting important issues to the public. But to call yourself an environmentalist but to be anti-nuclear is just unacceptable. It's buying into the smear campaign orchestrated by oil and gas, and it ignores the science behind it.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50053265]they're anti science I get they're well intentioned and are good at highlighting important issues to the public. But to call yourself an environmentalist but to be anti-nuclear is just unacceptable. It's buying into the smear campaign orchestrated by oil and gas, and it ignores the science behind it.[/QUOTE] I dont know about that. I can totally see why some people find Nuclear power kinda fishy, and would rather resort to the renewables if the option is there. I do agree that nuclear power is misunderstood though, and that the disasters we have seen have basically all been caused by shittily designed uranium-based facilities. But say what you will, A windmill CANT explode and irradiate areas the size of countries, but a nuclear power plant can. I think that's the lynch-pin of the argument. Also Hillary fucking sucks. Big smelly corporate dick that is.
Minor correction that all nuclear accidents were caused by human error, and bad management.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;50053277]I dont know about that. I can totally see why some people find Nuclear power kinda fishy, and would rather resort to the renewables if the option is there. I do agree that nuclear power is misunderstood though, and that the disasters we have seen have basically all been caused by shittily designed uranium-based facilities. But say what you will, A windmill CANT explode and irradiate areas the size of countries, but a nuclear power plant can. I think that's the lynch-pin of the argument. Also Hillary fucking sucks. Big smelly corporate dick that is.[/QUOTE] More people have died per Gwh produced from wind turbines than nuclear power plants. Think about that. A nuclear power plant isn't going to irradiate a country anyway, especially not with more modern reactor designs.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50053323]More people have died per Gwh produced from wind turbines than nuclear power plants. Think about that. A nuclear power plant isn't going to irradiate a country anyway, especially not with more modern reactor designs.[/QUOTE] I dont disagree. But i dont agree either that the concern people have for nuclear energy is totally unfounded.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;50053346]I dont disagree. But i dont agree either that the concern people have for nuclear energy is totally unfounded.[/QUOTE] It's massively overblown and misfounded.
[QUOTE=Saturn V;50053378]It's massively overblown and misfounded.[/QUOTE] does anyone have a link to that huge post debunking literally all the anti-nuclear power hysteria a few years back?
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;50053417]does anyone have a link to that huge post debunking literally all the anti-nuclear power hysteria a few years back?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&viewfull=1#post43252922"]I should really bookmark this instead of googling "nuclear power site:facepunch.com" and clicking the first result each time.[/URL]
[QUOTE=helifreak;50053450][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&viewfull=1#post43252922"]I should really bookmark this instead of googling "nuclear power site:facepunch.com" and clicking the first result each time.[/URL][/QUOTE] That guy's title links to that post if that helps.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;50053277]I dont know about that. I can totally see why some people find Nuclear power kinda fishy, and would rather resort to the renewables if the option is there. I do agree that nuclear power is misunderstood though, and that the disasters we have seen have basically all been caused by shittily designed uranium-based facilities. But say what you will, A windmill CANT explode and irradiate areas the size of countries, but a nuclear power plant can. I think that's the lynch-pin of the argument. Also Hillary fucking sucks. Big smelly corporate dick that is.[/QUOTE] Don't windmills do a ton of ecological damage?
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;50053346]I dont disagree. But i dont agree either that the concern people have for nuclear energy is totally unfounded.[/QUOTE] No, it is unfounded. They are scared by what they don't understand. There is no doubt that nuclear fission is a very complicated and in their worlds, scary, technology. And when they have historically failed, it was a large fuck up. But each one was avoidable. Each one and we learned a lesson. To be honest, with better fuel types, more high tech reactor designs.. and your renewables aren't even going to match the power output or safety of the reactors.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;50058406]No, it is unfounded. They are scared by what they don't understand. There is no doubt that nuclear fission is a very complicated and in their worlds, scary, technology. And when they have historically failed, it was a large fuck up. But each one was avoidable. Each one and we learned a lesson. To be honest, with better fuel types, more high tech reactor designs.. and your renewables aren't even going to match the power output or safety of the reactors.[/QUOTE] Current renewables and non renewables already don't meet the safety and power output of current reactor technology. The only thing holding nuclear power back is uninformed people and the media perpetuating the false idea that nuclear power is big and scary and Chernobyl tier shit is going to happen monthly.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50053323]More people have died per Gwh produced from wind turbines than nuclear power plants. Think about that. A nuclear power plant isn't going to irradiate a country anyway, especially not with more modern reactor designs.[/QUOTE] You're still failing to mention the hundreds of thousands of birth defects, spike in cancer diagnosis, and the other symptoms associated with nuclear reactor meltdowns. Why the fuck would someone base the severity of these events solely on death numbers alone?
If you want another example of bs from Greenpeace just read up on golden rice.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50058758]If you want another example of bs from Greenpeace just read up on golden rice.[/QUOTE] Another? You didn't contest the validity of this article except implicitly just now. Don't presuppose.
[QUOTE=helifreak;50058692]Current renewables and non renewables already don't meet the safety and power output of current reactor technology. The only thing holding nuclear power back is uninformed people and the media perpetuating the false idea that nuclear power is big and scary and Chernobyl tier shit is going to happen monthly.[/QUOTE] I agree. I lived under the shadow of Byron NPP. I used to wake up to see its steam plumes over the horizon. Never once have I feared that I was in danger of being in proximity with the station. In fact, I felt safe in its shadow. More safe than an oil or coal burning power station. I may not be a nuclear physicist or technician, but I am aware on the cycle of the plant and its basic operation. The thing is, the world needs the technology to be accepted in awe of its energy, and florish in every day life. As many of these reactors will hit their maximum life in a couple more decades, we need them to be replaced with more effecient designs that will continue to produce the power that these communities depend upon. Frowning on the potential issues by looking back at history and bringing up 3mi island, Chernobyl and Fukashima is only going to push us back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.