2
   

If this is true (IF) what do you make of Hillary

 
 
CVeigh
 
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 12:28 pm
Look at this, this is Hillary on the Keystone Pipeline. It is literally unbelievable (but nevertheless true)

October 2010: We're "inclined" to back it
"We haven't finish all of the analysis," Clinton, then secretary of state, told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "So as I say, we've not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons."

June 2014: "I can't respond" but we're "trying to get it right"
"I can't really comment at great length because I had responsibility for it and it's been passed on and it wouldn't be appropriate, but I hope that Canadians appreciate that the United States government -- the Obama administration -- is trying to get it right," Clinton told Canada's The Globe and Mail as she promoted her book, Hard Choices. When asked if she personally agreed with the pipeline, she said, "I can't respond."

January 2015: "I'm not going to express an opinion"
"We have differences and you won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion," she told an audience in Winnipeg. "It is in our process and that's where it belongs."

July 2015: "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question"
"I am not going to second guess (President Barack Obama) because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said just two months ago in New Hampshire. "I want to wait and see what he and Secretary (John) Kerry decide."
She added, "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question."

September 2015: "I oppose it"
"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change," Clinton said Tuesday in Des Moines, Iowa. "And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues. Therefore I oppose it.
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 12:31 pm
@CVeigh,
CVeigh wrote:

Look at this, this is Hillary on the Keystone Pipeline. It is literally unbelievable (but nevertheless true)

October 2010: We're "inclined" to back it
"We haven't finish all of the analysis," Clinton, then secretary of state, told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "So as I say, we've not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons."

June 2014: "I can't respond" but we're "trying to get it right"
"I can't really comment at great length because I had responsibility for it and it's been passed on and it wouldn't be appropriate, but I hope that Canadians appreciate that the United States government -- the Obama administration -- is trying to get it right," Clinton told Canada's The Globe and Mail as she promoted her book, Hard Choices. When asked if she personally agreed with the pipeline, she said, "I can't respond."

January 2015: "I'm not going to express an opinion"
"We have differences and you won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion," she told an audience in Winnipeg. "It is in our process and that's where it belongs."

July 2015: "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question"
"I am not going to second guess (President Barack Obama) because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said just two months ago in New Hampshire. "I want to wait and see what he and Secretary (John) Kerry decide."
She added, "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question."

September 2015: "I oppose it"
"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change," Clinton said Tuesday in Des Moines, Iowa. "And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues. Therefore I oppose it.



I see literally nothign wrong with this, the timeline, her statements.

What, in particular, do you have issue with?
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 02:45 pm
I think that Trump's plan to withdraw from NATO, thereby opening up the now independent Eastern European countries to Russian re-conquest, is so much more important than just about any other issue by a wide margin.

So I oppose the Keystone Pipeline, because it goes over the country's biggest aquifer, but it is not as important as stopping Trump from getting elected and handing victory in the Cold War over to Putin.
ossobucotemp
 
  4  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 02:52 pm
This is a pellet gun poster. Why feed?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 02:12 am
If this is true? Consider the source, an obvious troll who's been on less than a week, insulted a host of long term members and now posts unattributed gossip.

Such nonsense isn't even worth reading.

CVeigh
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 12:35 am
@izzythepush,
If you didn't read it, how do you know it's nonsense. Really, curiosity is making my lower cocyx spasmodic
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 01:50 pm
@CVeigh,
CVeigh wrote:

If you didn't read it, how do you know it's nonsense.


The source.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 02:42 pm
@izzythepush,
Amen
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2016 01:19 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
I think that Trump's plan to withdraw from NATO, thereby opening up the now independent Eastern European countries to Russian re-conquest, is so much more important than just about any other issue by a wide margin.

Trump isn't planning to withdraw from NATO. He is planning on having other democracies shoulder more of the burden of preserving world order instead of the US being the world's global policeman.


Blickers wrote:
So I oppose the Keystone Pipeline, because it goes over the country's biggest aquifer, but it is not as important as stopping Trump from getting elected and handing victory in the Cold War over to Putin.

All sorts of pipelines go over that aquifer, and I believe some were even approved after the Keystone kerfuffle. And the part of the Keystone Pipeline that goes over the aquifer was approved and has been built. It is only the end of the pipeline near the Gulf coast that has not been approved.

Opposition to the pipeline is pretty silly.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2016 02:35 am
Trump, whose policies don't deserve the name, did indeed say in the recent past that the United States should withdraw from NATO. Now he's trying to buddy up to Putin, because he is so popular with much of the far right in the Republican Party--Trump constantly appeals to those who are already sold on him. This reveals not only how unsteady Trump is, but once again reveals that he doesn't know how the government works. He can't pull out of NATO. It's a treaty organization. Only the Senate can ratify or rescind a treaty, and then you need two thirds of the Senate to approve. The Republicans don't control two thirds of the Senate, and after the election, they may well not control the Senate at all.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2016 02:52 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Trump, whose policies don't deserve the name, did indeed say in the recent past that the United States should withdraw from NATO.

Yes, but the Democrats are taking that way out of context. Trump is using the threat of withdrawal if the other countries don't start pulling their weight, to bully them into doing more of their share of the work.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2016 03:16 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Trump, whose policies don't deserve the name, did indeed say in the recent past that the United States should withdraw from NATO. Now he's trying to buddy up to Putin, because he is so popular with much of the far right in the Republican Party--Trump constantly appeals to those who are already sold on him. This reveals not only how unsteady Trump is, but once again reveals that he doesn't know how the government works. He can't pull out of NATO. It's a treaty organization. Only the Senate can ratify or rescind a treaty, and then you need two thirds of the Senate to approve. The Republicans don't control two thirds of the Senate, and after the election, they may well not control the Senate at all.


Every presidential candidate makes promises they have no intention of keeping. That's hardly news.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2016 03:17 pm
@McGentrix,
Also, hardly commendable.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2016 03:17 pm
@roger,
Only because you disagree with it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If this is true (IF) what do you make of Hillary
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/24/2019 at 05:48:24