Hillary Clinton

CRandy

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
13
Hillary Clinton can't be trusted because of the series of allegations that she's been facing. If I was facing such allegations, I would be sent to prison but she's getting off scott free. That is sad. Because of these allegations, I would rather have a dog catcher for President.
Also, Hillary said that she's going to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Coal miners are human beings just like everybody else and they need their jobs. What will the coal miners and their families do when they go hungry or are evicted because they can't afford to buy food and or pay their bills? If coal miners vote for Hillary, they'll be slicing their own throats.
I'm also worried that she may not stop at just putting coal miners out of work. What if she puts other people out of work also? I honestly believe that no votes would be better than votes for Hillary.150506082950-hillary-clinton--las-vegas-5-large-169.jpg
 
Werbung:
I agree with some of what you said and disagree with some.

Hillary Clinton can't be trusted because of the series of allegations that she's been facing. If I was facing such allegations, I would be sent to prison but she's getting off scott free. That is sad. Because of these allegations, I would rather have a dog catcher for President.
She can't be trusted for much more than that. She has occasionally lied throughout her entire political life. She has flip-flopped repeatedly. She has said one thing and acted in the opposite way in some cases. She's a real problem, but much less so than Trump.


Also, Hillary said that she's going to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Coal miners are human beings just like everybody else and they need their jobs.
Lots of miners where put out of work when coal drilling/digging became more mechanized. People were put out of work when typewriters were replaced by computers. The problem is not whether people are put out of work, but whether alternative employment is provided for them. In this case it's simple: coal is a 2, 3, 4, hundred year old "technology"; it is filthy and polluting; it is a big contributor to greenhouse gasses and global warming; it needs to be stopped, and fast; it needs to be replaced by wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro generation technology. And those alternative energy sources offer a HUGE opportunity for coal miners to find new, cleaner, safer, higher-paying jobs. So in the interest of their safety, you should be advocating a huge national effort to replace coal with alternative energy and for their employment in those fields.


I'm also worried that she may not stop at just putting coal miners out of work. What if she puts other people out of work also?
There it is. Propose worry over what maybe, could, might, happen. I'm worried about police killings of blacks becoming police killings of anyone not a policeman or a politician. Is that reasonable?
 
The left told us years ago that they were intent upon killing the coal business. BO got the ball rolling and HRC would continue.
Senter does not seem to realize China owns the wind and solar biz so no jobs there (note the long string of failed solar and wind ventures here, remember Solyndra ?).
On the other hand there are new technologies using coal that are massively cleaner and efficient.
And with the biggest two month drop in temperature ever, co2 is no concern.
 
Senter does not seem to realize China owns the wind and solar biz so no jobs there (note the long string of failed solar and wind ventures here, remember Solyndra ?).
Many of those companies in China are actually American businesses that moved to China for cheap labor. And the legislation that incentivized that move also incentivized other Chinese businesses to get into the alternative energy business. We gave up our leadership in it.

Regarding Solyndra, you might not remember the U.S. government involvement in the development of the computer. It went on for years at great cost with numerous failures. But because it was deemed to be worth it, the effort continued with great investment. Similar with the Internet.

The alternative energy effort has not cost nearly what the computer effort cost the taxpayers, and the alternative energy effort is as important as the computer development effort if not more so. We need a huge national push to develop alternative energy in spite of your parroting of fossil fuel shills.


On the other hand there are new technologies using coal that are massively cleaner and efficient.
No there aren't. There is no "clean coal" technology. It's a coal industry scam and fraud. You can't clean up coal. And wind power is already cheaper than coal energy so high-tech scrubbers and such only make it more expensive and prohibitive. That's why it isn't catching on.


And with the biggest two month drop in temperature ever, co2 is no concern.
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Nice, if pathetically feeble, try. Nobody is going to believe a worsening condition due to CO2 concentrations is going to dissipate in two months. LMAO!!!!!
 
Many of those companies in China are actually American businesses that moved to China for cheap labor. And the legislation that incentivized that move also incentivized other Chinese businesses to get into the alternative energy business. We gave up our leadership in it.

Regarding Solyndra, you might not remember the U.S. government involvement in the development of the computer. It went on for years at great cost with numerous failures. But because it was deemed to be worth it, the effort continued with great investment. Similar with the Internet.

The alternative energy effort has not cost nearly what the computer effort cost the taxpayers, and the alternative energy effort is as important as the computer development effort if not more so. We need a huge national push to develop alternative energy in spite of your parroting of fossil fuel shills.



No there aren't. There is no "clean coal" technology. It's a coal industry scam and fraud. You can't clean up coal. And wind power is already cheaper than coal energy so high-tech scrubbers and such only make it more expensive and prohibitive. That's why it isn't catching on.



LOL!!!!!!!!!! Nice, if pathetically feeble, try. Nobody is going to believe a worsening condition due to CO2 concentrations is going to dissipate in two months. LMAO!!!!!
Wind is cheaper than coal.. ?
 
In the sense that you don't gave to buy v the moving air itself sure. Everything else you need is, of course, quite expensive.
The point I was going to make, getting rid of Coal doesn't hurt me. But it's devastating to the poor..
 
The point I was going to make, getting rid of Coal doesn't hurt me. But it's devastating to the poor..
Puts West Virginia out of business that's a lot of folks of limited means.
Doesn't hurt you ? Good for you that the increased cost of power at your home/business and the incremental increase in cost for everything you buy that required electricity to be made is of no consequence.
But the most troubling aspect is the fraud behind it all.
If this were about pollution I would be able to be supportive. But it's not.
I was quite surprised at the new climate agreement regarding what was referred to as tremendously potent greenhouse gasses. Have we not been told that CO2 was the big boogeyman? Now it seems fluorocarbon are tremendous. Could it be that science is returning to "science" ? We do know that stuff is truly bad for ozone so good if we are dialing that back some more.
But I digress...
 
Puts West Virginia out of business that's a lot of folks of limited means.
Doesn't hurt you ? Good for you that the increased cost of power at your home/business and the incremental increase in cost for everything you buy that required electricity to be made is of no consequence.
But the most troubling aspect is the fraud behind it all.
If this were about pollution I would be able to be supportive. But it's not.
I was quite surprised at the new climate agreement regarding what was referred to as tremendously potent greenhouse gasses. Have we not been told that CO2 was the big boogeyman? Now it seems fluorocarbon are tremendous. Could it be that science is returning to "science" ? We do know that stuff is truly bad for ozone so good if we are dialing that back some more.
But I digress...
I hope you didn't think i was being arrogant in my "it doesn't hurt me" remark, your preaching to the choir here. I could go on for hours..
 
I hope you didn't think i was being arrogant in my "it doesn't hurt me" remark, your preaching to the choir here. I could go on for hours..
No, just pointing out that this impacts everyone it's just a matter of degree. And I know you know that.
And yes that degree is harshest to those with limited and fixed incomes.
We need to be developing solutions that put a downward trajectory on energy costs. There are several developments in coal that not only reduce emissions but make far better conversion to power generation. Are we looking at that? Uncle Sam says no way. Why ?
 
Ha ha, I would want a dog catcher as a president also. I watched her change her mind on the coal miners, she was talking at one of her speeches that I just can't completely watch, only like the first 5 minutes, then I turn it off. She said that they needed to be protected, and kept working, I believe it was in Ohio, or some where. I forgot, but she changes her mind when it's convenient.
 
Ha ha, I would want a dog catcher as a president also. I watched her change her mind on the coal miners, she was talking at one of her speeches that I just can't completely watch, only like the first 5 minutes, then I turn it off. She said that they needed to be protected, and kept working, I believe it was in Ohio, or some where. I forgot, but she changes her mind when it's convenient.
Not only does she have a public policy and a private one you have to have a different public one for whoever the audience is and rely on the msm to not report it.
 
If a woman becomes president will her husband be known as The First Gentleman?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top