What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (5 Viewers)

SacramentoBob said:
Looks like the science is settled.  When do we get to label people fracking poisoning deniers?
Click to expand...
"I do think the risks are low, but it has never been adequately demonstrated," said John Apps, a leading geoscientist who advises the Department of Energy for Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. "Every statement is based on a collection of experts that offer you their opinions. Then you do a scientific analysis of their opinions and get some probability out of it. This is a wonderful way to go when you don't have any evidence one way or another... But it really doesn't mean anything scientifically."
Click to expand...
It's currently "hope and pray" science.

In a 2008 interview with ProPublica, one EPA scientist acknowledged shortcomings in the way the agency oversees the injection program.

"It's assumed that the monitoring rules and requirements are in place and are protective — that's assumed," said Gregory Oberley, an EPA groundwater specialist who studies injection and water issues in the Rocky Mountain region. "You're not going to know what's going on until someone's well is contaminated and they are complaining about it."
Click to expand...

 
Gr00vus said:
People who invest in companies that frack are people who have an interest in the success of the companies who frack - most likely proportional to the amount of their investment.

I guess some of those $27 donations Bernie's been getting could be from people who invest in tracking companies. I don't think that's anything like the money that HRC is getting  from investors at her corporate fund raisers. So, no, no hypocrisy on Bernie's part.

If you want the best argument against frackers influencing HRC, it's that energy doesn't even crack the top 20 in terms of which industrial segments are the biggest contributors to her campaign.
Click to expand...
The email doesn't say how much of their portfolio is invested in companies that frack, nor does it say how much of their business is fracking-related.

Its one thing to say you're subject to undue influence on fracking issues because you took millions from Halliburton or Schlumberger. It's quite another to say you're subject to undue influence on fracking issues because you took money from some employees of a fund that puts 0.5% of its assets in a broad multinational energy company that has a subsidiary that does some onshore domestic production.  I assume we can at least agree on that, yes?

 
TobiasFunke said:
The email doesn't say how much of their portfolio is invested in companies that frack, nor does it say how much of their business is fracking-related.

Its one thing to say you're subject to undue influence on fracking issues because you took millions from Halliburton or Schlumberger. It's quite another to say you're subject to undue influence on fracking issues because you took money from some employees of a fund that puts 0.5% of its assets in a broad multinational energy company that has a subsidiary that does some onshore domestic production.  I assume we can at least agree on that, yes?
Click to expand...
Yes. And you're right, the email makes an accusation without any supporting data to back up the claim. But, given the two people involved, I tend to believe his take on it. I'm sure if that's inaccurate, if he's wrong about it, a correction will be forthcoming shortly from the Clinton camp.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I think you've overreacted to my position, which was only that that Sanders' assertions that it was some sort of environmental holocaust was not backed up. I'm aware of both the confirmed and suspected dangers.  And in any event it wasn't my point; my point is that connecting politician to policy via donor investments is kinda silly.
Click to expand...
While you have a point when it concerns isolated contributions, million dollar fundraisers featuring numerous big-wigs from the same industry most certainly DO connect a politician, and to try to suggest otherwise is more than just "kinda" silly.

 
renesauz said:
While you have a point when it concerns isolated contributions, million dollar fundraisers featuring numerous big-wigs from the same industry most certainly DO connect a politician, and to try to suggest otherwise is more than just "kinda" silly.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely.  Which is why I have no problem at all with criticizing her fundraising as a general matter. Just with casting this fundraiser in particular as meaningful w/r/t fracking. That part I don't see.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yes, absolutely.  Which is why I have no problem at all with criticizing her fundraising as a general matter. Just with casting this fundraiser in particular as meaningful w/r/t fracking. That part I don't see.
Click to expand...
I guess if we knew the hedge fund and could see just how much they've allocated to fracking related companies, we'd have a clearer notion. I'll stick with my unjustified outrage in the meantime. It's more fun than being reasonable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think I've been on this board in years, but just wanted you all to know I approve of this thread. :thumbup:

 
This recent fracking debate sums everything up well.  Fyi, i voted for bush and obama.  Bush, right oil, obama, left fracking.   All about oil and who makes the money off it, but the people benefiting are different.  Sanders, is about what is best for all, no money ties to either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah me neither tbh. Turnout looks way down. Tough to spin any positives here, just say keep pushing on past the SEC primary with the message.

 
Question for Bernie fans: Chuck Todd on MSNBC is implying that Bernie really didn't make too much of an effort in South Carolina, and not too much of an effort for Super Tuesday either. Do you think this is true? And if so, does he really want to win here? Has he given up? 

 
timschochet said:
Question for Bernie fans: Chuck Todd on MSNBC is implying that Bernie really didn't make too much of an effort in South Carolina, and not too much of an effort for Super Tuesday either. Do you think this is true? And if so, does he really want to win here? Has he given up? 
Click to expand...
I mentioned several pages ago this was not a focus according to the Nashville campaign HQ, and that treading water past Mar 15 was the goal. Just given the narrative by that time will be so hard to overcome I'm not sure it will matter how demographics shape up past that point.

Massachusetts is the real sign, if he can't win there it's over 

 
Also, all the talk on /r/SandersForPresident is about not being discouraged by results through Mar 15. Spin and hype machines for states after that time is real tho.

 
timschochet said:
Question for Bernie fans: Chuck Todd on MSNBC is implying that Bernie really didn't make too much of an effort in South Carolina, and not too much of an effort for Super Tuesday either. Do you think this is true? And if so, does he really want to win here? Has he given up? 
Click to expand...
I'm guessing he just doesn't have the resources to try and play everywhere. How much would he have had to invest to lose by 15 instead of 30 in SC?

 
hagmania said:
I mentioned several pages ago this was not a focus according to the Nashville campaign HQ, and that treading water past Mar 15 was the goal. Just given the narrative by that time will be so hard to overcome I'm not sure it will matter how demographics shape up past that point.

Massachusetts is the real sign, if he can't win there it's over 
Click to expand...
MA currently projected as 81% likelihood for Clinton win by 538 right now.  The margin tonight and in recent polling is a problem.

 
Reflecting back on an earlier discussion in this thread...

Is the consensus still that  Sanders would be dishonest if he continues to raise funds "running for president" in order to continue to spread his message, in order to fuel the revolution once the presidency starts becoming out of reach?

Or, is it time to consider that maybe the message was always more important than the candidate, the office?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Reflecting back on an earlier discussion in this thread...

Is the consensus still that  Sanders would be dishonest if he continues to raise funds "running for president" in order to continue to spread his message, in order to fuel the revolution once the presidency starts becoming out of reach?

Or, is it time to consider that maybe the message was always more important than the candidate, the office?
Click to expand...
The dem race is going to be % based all the way to the end.  If it were me, I'd keep running.  He doesn't owe this party anything.  They've certainly done him no favors.  I hope he stays in until the end personally.  The more the message can be heard, the better off we are IMO.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
462
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top