www.salon.com
Still nothing to do with what you claimed.Leaked email: Hillary Clinton told "radical environmentalists" to "get a life," defended fracking and pipelines
"I want to defend fracking," Clinton said, criticizing pro-Sanders eco activists in comments released by WikiLeaks
Clearly, someone has reading comprehension problems. I claimed Hillary was for natural gas. I provide evidence multiple times.
Racisminc.com?Now the vast rock is tossed aside for all to see, it is pleasing to watch the horrid critters squirm and scurry.
Fallout begins for far-right trolls who trusted Epik to keep their identities secret
The colossal hack of Epik, an Internet-services company popular with the far right, has been called the “mother of all data lodes” for extremism researchers. Some of those named in the data have already lost their jobs.web.archive.org
For some stupid reason it won't let me post without the huge gaps, for crying out loud.
No, you very explicitly claimed that
without actually showing proof of it. You showed links to her promoting natural gas, sure. You did not show links to her promoting natural gas over solar.
The law of opportunity cost means for one thing to happen, something else cannot be done. If you subsidize natural gas plants, you cannot spend that money on solar panels.
Only if the two choices are mutually exclusive. There is no mutual exclusion at the level you're claiming for those two particular federal government expenditures especially when the US has complete control over its monetary supply. There's also thousands of variables that you have (very clearly) ignored in favor of mindless rhetoric such as institutions/companies/etc with research ready to be funded and other bottlenecks on solar power production/improvement than funding that would make it a literal waste of cash.
Disagree, you can't just spend how every much you want on whatever you want, what about inflation. Hillary Clinton is a shill for natural gas, and Vox used to be a shill for natural gas. We can argue semantics all day long in favor of liberal elites maintaining power. They were wrong.
Lmao, as if there's any political will to push through massive increases of nuclear power that's going to be effective before I can retire.
That's a surrender that will doom millions at the most generous level. At no point is it ever acceptable at this point to argue for increased fossil fuels. Pointing out that NG is better than coal is all well and good, we already extract NG as it is, it needs no further help. There is literally 0 reason to push it.
www.politifact.com
You claimed there was a campaign by vox against solar when Hillary was in election mode and that only now are they in favour of it despite something something godqueen Hillary. Despite their archive of articles showing this is false.
Well, I'd point out that Vox isn't a monolith and I would say there were some journalist were Bernie Bros and others Clinton lovers. If I remember correctly.
The war is lost, so a conditional surrender is the best option. Otherwise you're just Hitler in his bunker, dreaming of fantasy armies that will save the day and throwing away even more lives to make a futile point.
And let me guess, the complete lack of evidence that this is happening is exactly the evidence "proving" your theory? At some point, you should probably stop to consider how many of the conspiracy theories you spout on this forum use that exact same reasoning and question why...
If we're doing Hitler in his bunker, pushing for more fossil fuels out of a sense of defeat is being Hitler shooting himself in the head.
Hitler wasn't the most apt comparison, just all I could think of at the time for someone trying to achieve what the forces against them were always going to squash.
