Clinton Snaps..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
When ? What ? How ? Where ? a pic with no details......lame.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
OK that's better.
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton went off on an environmental activist on Thursday, after being asked about the large sums of fossil fuel-linked cash she has received.
At a Clinton rally on the State University of New York at Purchase campus, Eva Resnick-Day, an activist with the environmental justice group Greenpeace, asked Clinton, “Will you act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?”
Clinton quickly lost her patience. Her smile promptly morphed into a scowl and she yelled at the environmental activist, “I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies.”
“I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me,” Clinton shouted, pointing angrily at Resnick-Day.
This incident comes mere days after a top official in the Clinton campaign insisted Hillary would not debate fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders unless he changes his “tone.”
Environmental justice group Greenpeace uploaded video of Clinton’s irate response to its YouTube channel.
Greenpeace has detailed Clinton’s many connections to the fossil fuel industry, arguing her campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from those who work in it.
Although the activist from the environmental group asked if the former secretary of state will “reject fossil fuel money” overall, Clinton implied she has not received any, instead making a misleading distinction between the corporations themselves and individuals tied to them.
It is true that Clinton’s campaign has not gotten money directly from fossil fuel corporations, or any other companies, as this would violate election law. Rather, many of the people raising money for Clinton’s campaign work for large oil and natural gas corporations.
“Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry,” Mother Jones revealed in a July exposé.
She has received enormous help, Mother Jones reported, from “Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.”
Environmental news website Grist has also shown how Clinton rakes in money from fossil fuel interests. The outlet notes that her campaign does not receive money directly from fossil fuel companies; rather, she “is getting a lot of money from fossil fuel executives and lobbyists acting as bundlers (fundraisers who collect donations) who represent fossil fuel companies.”
At a Clinton rally on the State University of New York at Purchase campus, Eva Resnick-Day, an activist with the environmental justice group Greenpeace, asked Clinton, “Will you act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?”
Clinton quickly lost her patience. Her smile promptly morphed into a scowl and she yelled at the environmental activist, “I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies.”
“I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me,” Clinton shouted, pointing angrily at Resnick-Day.
This incident comes mere days after a top official in the Clinton campaign insisted Hillary would not debate fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders unless he changes his “tone.”
Environmental justice group Greenpeace uploaded video of Clinton’s irate response to its YouTube channel.
Greenpeace has detailed Clinton’s many connections to the fossil fuel industry, arguing her campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from those who work in it.
Although the activist from the environmental group asked if the former secretary of state will “reject fossil fuel money” overall, Clinton implied she has not received any, instead making a misleading distinction between the corporations themselves and individuals tied to them.
It is true that Clinton’s campaign has not gotten money directly from fossil fuel corporations, or any other companies, as this would violate election law. Rather, many of the people raising money for Clinton’s campaign work for large oil and natural gas corporations.
“Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry,” Mother Jones revealed in a July exposé.
She has received enormous help, Mother Jones reported, from “Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.”
Environmental news website Grist has also shown how Clinton rakes in money from fossil fuel interests. The outlet notes that her campaign does not receive money directly from fossil fuel companies; rather, she “is getting a lot of money from fossil fuel executives and lobbyists acting as bundlers (fundraisers who collect donations) who represent fossil fuel companies.”
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
The pointing finger is what to note.
Among the prominent contributors to Clinton’s campaign are lobbyists for Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP America, America’s Natural Gas Alliance and more.
Clinton’s campaign also has links to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project of the corporation TransCanada that has faced a series of delays since it was commissioned in 2010. Environmental scientists like former NASA official James Hansen have warned it would mean “game over for the climate,” and activists have protested it for years.
In June 2015, Clinton’s campaign announced that it had hired a former major TransCanada lobbyist as a consultant.
As secretary of state, Clinton also pushed for the pipeline. In 2010, she said her department was “inclined” to sign off on the project.
During her tenure as head of the State Department, Clinton also advocated strongly on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, or TPP, which environmental and labor groups warn would be disastrous for the climate and local economy. Although the deal is 6,000 pages long and addresses a variety of obscure issues, it does not mention the phrase “climate change” once.
Despite openly supporting them for years, after pressure from the Sanders campaign, Clinton now claims she opposes both the Keystone XL pipeline and TPP.
Clinton has also received millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street banks and corporations. In fact, in just 12 of such speeches, Clinton made approximately $3 million, more than most Americans will earn in their lifetimes.
She has been asked numerous times to release transcripts of her paid speeches, but refuses to do so.
An investigation by the Wall Street Journal furthermore revealed that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees grew rapidly when his wife served as secretary of state.
Fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has refused to take contributions from fossil fuel corporations. In July 2015, The Nation magazine created a pledge calling on presidential candidates to reject money from fossil fuel corporations. Clinton did not endorse it.
Clinton’s campaign also has links to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project of the corporation TransCanada that has faced a series of delays since it was commissioned in 2010. Environmental scientists like former NASA official James Hansen have warned it would mean “game over for the climate,” and activists have protested it for years.
In June 2015, Clinton’s campaign announced that it had hired a former major TransCanada lobbyist as a consultant.
As secretary of state, Clinton also pushed for the pipeline. In 2010, she said her department was “inclined” to sign off on the project.
During her tenure as head of the State Department, Clinton also advocated strongly on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, or TPP, which environmental and labor groups warn would be disastrous for the climate and local economy. Although the deal is 6,000 pages long and addresses a variety of obscure issues, it does not mention the phrase “climate change” once.
Despite openly supporting them for years, after pressure from the Sanders campaign, Clinton now claims she opposes both the Keystone XL pipeline and TPP.
Clinton has also received millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street banks and corporations. In fact, in just 12 of such speeches, Clinton made approximately $3 million, more than most Americans will earn in their lifetimes.
She has been asked numerous times to release transcripts of her paid speeches, but refuses to do so.
An investigation by the Wall Street Journal furthermore revealed that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees grew rapidly when his wife served as secretary of state.
Fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has refused to take contributions from fossil fuel corporations. In July 2015, The Nation magazine created a pledge calling on presidential candidates to reject money from fossil fuel corporations. Clinton did not endorse it.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
She'll never release her speeches. They coddle the banks, why else would they pay her that much money to speak?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
not disagreeing with you but presenting a different perspective:
Why Hillary Clinton is justifiably annoyed by criticism of her Big Oil fundraising
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/
Both Democrats have received money from "the oil and gas industry." The total for Clinton's campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders's, it's about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer. If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.
As a percentage of all the money campaigns have raised, both Clinton and Sanders have only raised a fraction of their totals from that industry.
I'm a Sanders supporter. That said, I'm not buying the negative stuff out there regarding Hillary without giving my own fact check. This one comes in sort of true but exaggerated. Not stinking pile of garbage false. Also not angel trumpet truth.
$308k is a lot of coin but not the coinage that will buy a presidency.
Why Hillary Clinton is justifiably annoyed by criticism of her Big Oil fundraising
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/
Both Democrats have received money from "the oil and gas industry." The total for Clinton's campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders's, it's about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer. If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.
As a percentage of all the money campaigns have raised, both Clinton and Sanders have only raised a fraction of their totals from that industry.
I'm a Sanders supporter. That said, I'm not buying the negative stuff out there regarding Hillary without giving my own fact check. This one comes in sort of true but exaggerated. Not stinking pile of garbage false. Also not angel trumpet truth.
$308k is a lot of coin but not the coinage that will buy a presidency.
Donnybrook
Well-Known Member
now..and as commander-in-chief?
this is the handwriting on the wall.
you men are the scary ones who wish to vote her in.
excuses, excuses.
that's why we're here..different perspective and debate of same.
i accept your challenge
soooo..what about indirectly from wall street..where is it you think they get their money?
it's way more than $308k.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Would you consider Bernie a "bank coddler" when he voted to raise the debt ceiling ?
Or do your blinders only come off when the Wicked Witch Hillary "coddles banks" ?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Carlin would never make up anything that kookie. I think a progressive got hold of that meme.
It's not the banks you have to worry about. There are no "criminal friends" on Wall Street who can take your assets without your consent. That's stupid. It's socialists like Obama, Billary and Sanders you have to worry about. They can (and will) use "the law" to steal your money. There's recent talk that Obama is trying to figure out a way to get a part of people's retirement funds, 401K.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
No question about it, she screwed up. She's got a nasty temper.
clinton has been quoting maya angelou's 'when someone reveals their true selves, believe them' to dig at trumps abortion comments.
so hillary, now that you've given us a glimpse of the 'true' you..what would you say to the men here?
if i were a man when i saw that photo, my balls would have shrunk and sucked back close to my body similar to diving in cold water..instead i got goosebumps and the hair on my neck stood up.
politics aside, i was shocked when i saw that photo.
hello Mommie Dearest!
so hillary, now that you've given us a glimpse of the 'true' you..what would you say to the men here?
if i were a man when i saw that photo, my balls would have shrunk and sucked back close to my body similar to diving in cold water..instead i got goosebumps and the hair on my neck stood up.
politics aside, i was shocked when i saw that photo.
hello Mommie Dearest!
Last edited: