"Another Wall Street Dem is running for pres.Once again we must choose btn acquiescence & rebellion"

[Rilgin]

104. Once more

I did not bash HRC. I did not mention Warren or Sanders at all except in the context that HRC has adapted some of EW's phrasing in her recent speeches. This could be a good thing depending on HRC's solutions to this problem when she actually develops or publishes some. However, I did not say anything about EW or Sander's current policies or their qualifications for office.

The only one bashing was you of the OP. I did point out that it was disingenuous of you to bash the OP by demanding he discuss policies that HRC has not released.

The OP discusses his concerns over HRC's past in the context of his OPINION on what he thinks we need now.

If you want to discuss HRC's past actions votes, you can find many threads where people discuss their specific problems with HRC's past actions, votes and speeches endlessly. My opinion is HRC has a record that is a mixed bag. I have even said this in my past three responses. I could find some good stuff in links put out by HRC supporters but also find great negatives in things they and presumably you would totally ignore.

Ultimately, I agree with the OPINION of the OP. She is a bad candidate for the democratic party in the current election cycle. That is the substance of the OP and what is being discussed. You want to turn this into a discussion of HRC's current policy positions in the 2016 election. However, since she has not put those out, you cant. I am sure you will find lots of people to discuss such positions when she does publish some.

Until she puts out specific solutions it is totally conjecture as to her current policies. if you want to see what supporters of the OP find troublesome in her past, there are plenty of posts and articles that mention specifics.

To humor you, one of your links is about a speech HRC gave showing her support for natural gas over oil presumably. There is a nod to it being a bridge to greener technologies. However, as the article (not me) notes she addresses these issues while "playing it safe". She says natural gas has problems but then supports it anyhow. She says America has the technology and resorts to that chestnut of it creates jobs. The speech if it is any indicator of her policies as president is that natural gas production will be increased.

There are two problems I have with her speech. First, natural gas is now being produced in quantity by the use of fracking technologies. Whether its a good speech or a bad speech for supporting HRC depends on your view of fracking. HRC has supported such fracking technologies in the past. In fact, there are recent articles showing her urging of fracking on foreign countries as the solution to energy issues during her tenure as SOS.

However, more to the point, if I want to hear a speech indicating future policies, I want it to support renewable energy. Not oil. Not natural gas. Not fracking. Not nuclear. I would like HRC or any candidate to discuss their policies to expand energy independance through wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Not a nod to play it safe. This speech is about expansion of natural gas as cleaner than oil but is not discussion of long term clean green energy solutions. My opinion is that we need a candidate that focuses on expanding renewables not the side track of increasing supplies of non-renewables as a "bridge".

That link of yours if it is an indicator of future policy shows HRC will support natural gas as the solution to our energy needs. She might support renewable energy as a goal but I do not see any policies in support of that bridge in this speech.

There, I discussed your links in the context of the orginal post. Again, till she actually releases policy all we have is opinions or speculation based on her past and that past is a very mixed bag.