Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Merged into the general Hillary Clinton thread, the woman already has two threads at the top of the North America Forum.

The conflict of interest between the media sources defending Clinton while reporting on this issue are simply astounding. Not that they exist, but that the media fails to mention them trying to leave the impression that there is no conflict of interest.

For example one of the 'analysts' CNN is using to push the evil Comey innocent Hillary meme is David Gregory. The same David Gregory whose wife is a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's staff. His wife is a lawyer for Cheryl Mills and three other Team Hillary members, a defense lawyer. Not that he mentioned the huge conflict of interest.....

With this level of 'analysis' how can any of the voters who just accept whatever they are spoon fed even have a clue what they are being told is a smoke screen?

This kind of thing is exactly why I use as broad a range of news sources as I can access, from AlJazeera and BBC and RT overseas to TheBlaze/Fox/CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/TheHuffPo. When you only listen to one very small slice of news opinion you make yourself dependent on whatever agenda those sources believe in. There interests are not necessarily bad, but they are also not necessarily the agenda that is bet for you as an individual or the county/state/nation/planet.

Thing about these "conspiracy" type investigations is that they generally, in modern times, hurt the accuser at the polls much more than they hurt the target. The web of people and facts gets so complicated and detailed, that most swing voters end up with just a glazed over view of the thing, and get annoyed at the constant harping, while the motivated supporters of the accuser get amped into a frenzy.

Bill Clinton was not harmed by the impeachment process. The Republican party was. It'll be the same deal here. That Trump keeps on running with it illustrates how shallow his campaign organization is; he wants his 40% to really get out there and make a scene, and then reject, perhaps violently, the inevitable result of the election when he loses. Seriously, look at 270towin; the blue marked states total to 272; and I don't see a one of them that Trump has any chance of winning; and not only does Trump have to win ALL of the undecided ones, he has to flip a blue. Its just beyond insane to suggest some meaningless national poll or resurgent energy can reverse that. Demographics > All.

In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.

AgentR11 wrote:Thing about these "conspiracy" type investigations is that they generally, in modern times, hurt the accuser at the polls much more than they hurt the target. The web of people and facts gets so complicated and detailed, that most swing voters end up with just a glazed over view of the thing, and get annoyed at the constant harping, while the motivated supporters of the accuser get amped into a frenzy.

Bill Clinton was not harmed by the impeachment process. The Republican party was. It'll be the same deal here. That Trump keeps on running with it illustrates how shallow his campaign organization is; he wants his 40% to really get out there and make a scene, and then reject, perhaps violently, the inevitable result of the election when he loses. Seriously, look at 270towin; the blue marked states total to 272; and I don't see a one of them that Trump has any chance of winning; and not only does Trump have to win ALL of the undecided ones, he has to flip a blue. Its just beyond insane to suggest some meaningless national poll or resurgent energy can reverse that. Demographics > All.

In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.

+1

Well welcome aboard, Agent. For whatever it's worth -- I think it's pretty darn cool you and me wound up supporting the same candidate.

Personally -- I left the Republican Party, after W. Bush. I could just see that some things weren't getting done, that could help the economy and working and middle class. And Republicans didn't have any plans.. but Democrats did. And, I fell for Obama and "hope and change," hehe.

On foreign policy, McCain and Romney would have done better.

A nice thing about HRC, is she is like Romney, on foreign policy. And then, Democrats have moved farther left on domestic policy since '08. She's actually the perfect candidate, for my views. And she doesn't curse, and she's a nice lady, and she'd be a steady hand at the helm. TOUGH, too.. sticks up for human rights, she's solid on the Constitution and American values.

So anyhow..

I was a lifelong Republican, and have already been a D for eight years now.

So if you're coming aboard, then welcome aboard.

Honestly, a lot of more centrist Republicans should feel comfortable in the Democratic Party. Clinton herself, has a lot of the old Bush team, on her team. (and no, that's not "neocon," it's just competent)

There's a lot of good D senators, in the Senate, like Diane Feinstein (she's good on national security, I like her overall)

Really, Hillary embodies what the Republican Party should be -- she's like how R's were a long time ago, back around Eisenhower, or HW Bush, or even Nixon.. Nixon was Republican on foreign policy, but actually a lot of progressive domestic policies.

Also, Hillary has the support of almost all the generals and admirals, and military / intel establishment. These are men that went to west point and the naval academy etc., and they are educated and have good values -- and the vast majority support HRC.

Clinton has progressive plans and ideas to help people, but yet she's also pro business too.

HRC is a "progressive that can get things done."

and really,

She's also the REPUBLICAN, that can get things done.

Sixstrings wrote:HRC is a "progressive that can get things done."

What has she ever done except extort money from various corporations and foreign governments in order to make her and Bill extremely wealthy?


We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money! We're in the money!

AgentR11 wrote:In any event this stupidity has gone so far as to provoke me to do something I swore I'd never do. Today I sent a contribution to the HRC 2016 campaign.

Sorry I replied with a speech and sales pitch, you're already sold.

I don't want to push you to talk about it, but I'm really curious if you'd want to explain it more, what pushed you (or attracted you) to HRC?

I remember two things you said before, that actually Trump would be riskier even on the Russia issue, because he's volatile (he and Putin would wind up at odds).

And then I remember you saying something like, R's have become too bigoted or something, I can't remember what you said exactly.

So anyhow, I certainly agree with you, Agent.

I've got a lot of FAMILY, voting Trump. And I know where they're coming from.. they actually don't approve of him, and they just assume the rest of the government would "keep him in line."

Personally -- I read international news, and I know a bit about economics, and how the world works.. and Trump is just too much risk. And unlike some Trump voters, I know -- I'm not completely sure the government could keep him in line.

The vote we have in this country is a sacred thing -- I think about the Constitution, #1. We're voting for someone to "protect, preserve, and defend" that document.

There's no way I could ever vote for any candidate that even gives me a hint of concern, about that, so that made me HRC for sure 100%.

But anyhow, I wonder where you're coming from, what your reasons are?

Plantagenet wrote:What has she ever done

Well for starters, she defeated Trump. (probably)

Hillary Clinton, "the little woman that could:"

Hillary Clinton "Donald Trump is Stoking FEAR" at Jennifer Lopez Concert in Miami FL

"Donald Trump is out there stoking fear, disgracing our democracy, and insulting one group of Americans after another. ... Say it loud, with one voice, 'love trumps hate.'"
https://youtu.be/JksKV9Abab4

The crowd shouts "Hillary! Hillary!"

6S wrote: "Also, there's the solar cycles.. and the sun isn't fully understood as yet."

You do, of course, realize that:

1) we can, in fact, measure quite accurately the suns output, and it has been going steadily down in the last few decades, just as the earth temperature has most dramatically been going up!

2) the fingerprint of global warming we are seeing is exactly the opposite of what we would expect if it was from the sun, and it is exactly what we would expect if it were from an increase in greenhouse gasses (which of course it actually is)--

• more warming of night than of day temperatures
• more warming of winter than of summer temperatures
• more warming of tropospheric than of stratospheric temperatures
• actual cooling rather than warming of stratospheric temperatures
• more warming of Arctic than of equatorial temperatures

....

I could go on and on, but really, have you not looked at any of this overwhelming evidence that the warming we are simply is totally incompatible with any supposed explanation having to do with the sun, but is totally compatible with increases in tropospheric greenhouse gasses??

(I can, of course, provide plenty of links if you like, but it's all very easily searchable on the web, if you choose to go with legitimate sources rather than denialist and pseudo-skeptic sites.)

to your point up thread 6 strings......did the government keep Nixon or Bush 2 under control?????


we know they kept Reagan drugged......sorry .....Joke????!!!!

dohboi wrote:6S wrote: "Also, there's the solar cycles.. and the sun isn't fully understood as yet."

You do, of course, realize that:

1) we can, in fact, measure quite accurately the suns output, and it has been going steadily down in the last few decades, just as the earth temperature has most dramatically been going up!

I'm talking about variations in solar output, and solar cycles. We actually may be headed for global cooling, definitely an ice age is coming eventually.

BUT ANYWAY -- I don't want to argue about climate change, if we agree about green energy and that being the future, then there's nothing to argue about.

Clinton has some good plans, like about solar panels.

And yes, I realize the basics about climate change, and the greenhouse effect.

"
I'm talking about variations in solar output, and solar cycles. We actually may be headed for global cooling, definitely an ice age is coming eventually."


Total and utter f'n ignorant wanking

you really got nothin better than that for me bro???

Then all i got for you is music...

enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU

That's some good tunes.

I tell ya what Doh, I've been noticing this kind of news lately, and yeah the reality of the rising seas is undeniable:

Marco Rubio Once Again Denies Climate Change as Florida's King Tides Inundate Streets
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/marco-rubio-once-again-denies-climate-change-as-florida-s-king-tides-inundate-streets

Is sea level rising?
Sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

Global sea level has been rising at an increasing rate since the 20th century. Analysis of a global network of tide gauge records shows that sea level has been rising at the rate of about 0.6 inches per decade since 1900. Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

So, versus 100 years ago, sea level rise has doubled in this century.

That above source about sea level rise rate is from NOAA, so certainly no Republican in state governments or congress (or anyone else), should be denying it.

This could be HUGE news.. was reported on Lawrence O'donnel tonight:

Poll gives Clinton wide lead in Florida, with strong GOP support

Democrat Hillary Clinton enjoys an eight-point lead over Donald Trump in Florida, a key presidential battleground, according to a new survey, and that’s due in no small part to significant crossover support from 28 percent of early voting Republicans.

TargetSmart CEO Tom Bonier said on the show that its tracking survey of early voters in Florida, combined with its projections for likely voters, found that Clinton led Republican nominee Trump in the state, 48-40 percent. He said 28 percent of early voting Republicans cast ballots for her, while just six percent of Democrats who voted early sided with Trump.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article111978267.html

That's not just a "poll" -- that's a poll OF PEOPLE THAT ALREADY VOTED. Almost 4 million have voted in Florida.. and Clinton's 8% ahead!

And, Hillary is carrying a JAW DROPPING 28% of the Republican Party!

Usually, the Democrat nominee only gets about 6% of the GOP vote.

Early analysis suggests that perhaps retirees went strong for Hillary, and also latino vote -- with perhaps the Cuban community making an historic switch to Democrats.

Many of the Florida Republicans voted Clitnon, but still voted R for other offices.

Without winning Florida, TRUMP CANNOT WIN the wh!

Florida poll: 28 percent of GOP early voters picked Clinton

More than a quarter of Republicans who have already voted in Florida cast their ballots for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

The poll also showed Clinton ahead of Trump 48 to 40 percent overall, with a larger lead — 55 to 37 percent — among those who said they already voted.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303910-florida-poll-28-percent-of-gop-early-voters-picked

great news ....if its accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kiwichick wrote:great news ....if its accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well yep, there's actually some other polls that show Trump ahead, and even one having him ahead nationally. And one showing he's ahead in NC, and OH.

But.. as far as I know, this is the first poll that includes *people that actually voted*, so that's like an exit poll.

If that margin holds up, that's 8% margin for her, out of Florida. Trump has no path to victory, without Florida; whereas Clinton has several paths, without Florida.

But heck, 8% or whatever, 1% margin would do.

Anyhow, I sure hope those Florida numbers hold up!





Madame President!






Glory, glory, hallelujah..

Battle Hymn Of The Republic
https://youtu.be/4VsE9T4Sr30

She's a fighter!

Hillary Fight Song
https://youtu.be/3JMLO07645s

She can be counted on, 100% without doubt, to defend THIS:

But do we know what number of Democrats voted for Trump? And what number of previously non-affiliated and non-voters cast their vote for him?

Anyway, good news for Hillary, since winning Florida pretty much clinches a victory for her, assuming she holds all the states that are currently leaning her direction.

dohboi wrote:But do we know what number of Democrats voted for Trump? And what number of previously non-affiliated and non-voters cast their vote for him?

6% of D's said they voted Trump (which is a normal crossover number in any year).

I'm not sure what number of independents voted Clinton, but generally she has a slight lead with independents.

HRC campaigning hard in Florida, rousing speech:

Hillary Clinton after dark in Florida: 'I could be here all night!'

"This is so much fun. But it's really late. I could be here all night," she exclaimed in a speech in which she frequently seemed to veer off prepared remarks.

There were some protesters in the audience and Clinton responded to one more directly than she has tended to in the past.

"I'm sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people who support Donald Trump," she said when a man held up a bright green sign that accused her husband of being a rapist — a not uncommon occurrence that has been encouraged by right-wing websites.

Clinton again tore into Trump over what she said was his pattern of mistreating women, and spoke directly to boys, advising them not to follow his example.

"Show respect. Because that shows you're a real man," she said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-hillary-after-dark-i-could-be-here-1478054905-htmlstory.html

Hillary takes on a protester:

"And I am sick and tired of the NEGATIVE, DARK, DIVISIVE, DANGEROUS vision and BEHAVIOR of people who support Donald Trump!

It is time for us to say no!"
https://youtu.be/7qWhw4Yaj4g

dohboi wrote:Anyway, good news for Hillary, since winning Florida pretty much clinches a victory for her, assuming she holds all the states that are currently leaning her direction.

He's got no path to victory at all, without Florida.

Hm, I looked at Nate Silver 538 blog.. he's got Florida at 50%-50% total tie tossup.

So, it's close.. we'll see what happens.. but I like the looks of that early banked vote that's so much for Clinton.

Another interesting thing going on: the African American vote seems to be a lot lower this year, which hurts Democrats. BUT.. Clinton's maybe getting a lot of Republicans! That could make up for it, and suburban Republican women.

Kiwichick

First - there are circles here in the USA where I would be excoriated as a sexist pig and worse for calling you anything with the word "chick" in it. Seriously!

Second - at this instant, and until the votes are tabulated I would trust NOTHING I see relating to polls. In my 65 years I've never seen anything approaching the amount of spin and overt influence by puntative "news" agencies. The "polls" are all over the place. There are accusations, probably true, of the pollers being highly selective about who they query, so as to get the results they want.

BELIEVE NOTHING.

That said, what I'm seeing reported as the Vegas betting odds still have Hillary about a 3-1 favorite. But they are trending heavy to Trump. It was about 8-1 late last week. That's about as honest as you get here these days. Use with extreme caution.