Campaign 2016

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - Yes, it absolutely came from Hillary's mouth.  It caused an absolute firestorm about a month ago.  Saying that she did not say it does not make it so. She made the statement.

Hillary distorted her own political position, by walking it back once the genie was released from the bottle.  You and Emily can allege a distortion and that is your right.  It is the way I received and processed that speech she gave.  That is my right. 

That is just political propaganda to win an election, by any means necessary, and Hillary lost the state of West Virginia. 

http://www.thestatecom/news/politics-government/article78613502.html   

No one disagrees with your right to believe a fabrication. But just because someone believes a fabrication doesn't make it equal to objective reality. Emily and I are not alleging a distortion because an allegation suggests something that hasn't been proven. The facts demonstrate and prove that the position you are ascribing to Clinton is objectively a distortion. I agree with your point about political propaganda but in this case we do not agree on the source.

[filledeplage]

FdP, I've often wondered if you are dishonest or confused. I must conclude from the above that you are dishonest.

You know perfectly well that the intent of her original statement was manipulated. If you 'received and processed' it the way you claim to have, then you were manipulated by your news sources. And you now know that for a fact, yet you still try find a way to twist the story to support your biases rather than adjust your outlook to fit the facts.
 

Emily - I am neither.  

Hillary made those statements.  Hillary owns them and she walked them back.  It is unfortunate that supporting a candidate colors one's ability to see another's position which differs from one's own.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Hillary made those statements.  Hillary owns them and she walked them back.  It is unfortunate that supporting a candidate colors one's ability to see another's position which differs from one's own.  

Just so we're clear the statement you are referring to are the ones where she said this: "And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."

Again, please explain why these statements caused a firestorm?

[filledeplage]

CSM - Yes, it absolutely came from Hillary's mouth.  It caused an absolute firestorm about a month ago.  Saying that she did not say it does not make it so. She made the statement.

Hillary distorted her own political position, by walking it back once the genie was released from the bottle.  You and Emily can allege a distortion and that is your right.  It is the way I received and processed that speech she gave.  That is my right.  

That is just political propaganda to win an election, by any means necessary, and Hillary lost the state of West Virginia.  

http://www.thestatecom/news/politics-government/article78613502.html  

No one disagrees with your right to believe a fabrication. But just because someone believes a fabrication doesn't make it equal to objective reality. Emily and I are not alleging a distortion because an allegation suggests something that hasn't been proven. The facts demonstrate and prove that the position you are ascribing to Clinton is objectively a distortion. I agree with your point about political propaganda but in this case we do not agree on the source.

CSM - except that one does not need to walk back a story if it is not controversial.  Hillary vowed to take out the mining industry consistent with the narrative of climate change of the Obama administration.  Her adherence to the last 8 years of this administraion to garner it's endorsement which she just got last week, has compromised her campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clintons-coal-industry-comment-backfires-on-her/

[Emily]

CSM - Yes, it absolutely came from Hillary's mouth.  It caused an absolute firestorm about a month ago.  Saying that she did not say it does not make it so. She made the statement.

Hillary distorted her own political position, by walking it back once the genie was released from the bottle.  You and Emily can allege a distortion and that is your right.  It is the way I received and processed that speech she gave.  That is my right. 

That is just political propaganda to win an election, by any means necessary, and Hillary lost the state of West Virginia. 

http://www.thestatecom/news/politics-government/article78613502.html   

No one disagrees with your right to believe a fabrication. But just because someone believes a fabrication doesn't make it equal to objective reality. Emily and I are not alleging a distortion because an allegation suggests something that hasn't been proven. The facts demonstrate and prove that the position you are ascribing to Clinton is objectively a distortion. I agree with your point about political propaganda but in this case we do not agree on the source.

CSM - except that one does not need to walk back a story if it is controversial.  Hillary vowed to take out the mining industry consistent with the narrative of climate change of the Obama administration.  Her adherence to the last 8 years of this administraion to garner it's endorsement which she just got last week, has compromised her campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clintons-coal-industry-comment-backfires-on-her/

A controversy was successfully created around a distortion. She addressed it, correctly saying that her remarks had been misconstrued. You are still trying to push the false construction.
Your above comment seems to indicate you are a climate change denier. Is this accurate?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - except that one does not need to walk back a story if it is not controversial.  Hillary vowed to take out the mining industry consistent with the narrative of climate change of the Obama administration.  Her adherence to the last 8 years of this administraion to garner it's endorsement which she just got last week, has compromised her campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clintons-coal-industry-comment-backfires-on-her/

I would personally say that no one needs to walk back a story if it is controversial for no good reason. And as Emily noted above, Hillary "walking back" the story was correctly calling it out as being distorted.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "the narrative of climate change of the Obama administration" but the US still ranks amongst the worst of industrialized countries for environmental performance though it has improved slightly over the years.

[filledeplage]

CSM - Yes, it absolutely came from Hillary's mouth.  It caused an absolute firestorm about a month ago.  Saying that she did not say it does not make it so. She made the statement.

Hillary distorted her own political position, by walking it back once the genie was released from the bottle.  You and Emily can allege a distortion and that is your right.  It is the way I received and processed that speech she gave.  That is my right.  

That is just political propaganda to win an election, by any means necessary, and Hillary lost the state of West Virginia.  

http://www.thestatecom/news/politics-government/article78613502.html  

No one disagrees with your right to believe a fabrication. But just because someone believes a fabrication doesn't make it equal to objective reality. Emily and I are not alleging a distortion because an allegation suggests something that hasn't been proven. The facts demonstrate and prove that the position you are ascribing to Clinton is objectively a distortion. I agree with your point about political propaganda but in this case we do not agree on the source.

CSM - except that one does not need to walk back a story if it is controversial.  Hillary vowed to take out the mining industry consistent with the narrative of climate change of the Obama administration.  Her adherence to the last 8 years of this administraion to garner it's endorsement which she just got last week, has compromised her campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clintons-coal-industry-comment-backfires-on-her/

A controversy was successfully created around a distortion. She addressed it, correctly saying that her remarks had been misconstrued. You are still trying to push the false construction.
Your above comment seems to indicate you are a climate change denier. Is this accurate?

Emily - a huge controversy arose over her comments.  Hillary came out and said that her words were misinterpreted.

Who came up with this "false construction?"

Hillary made a statement after-the-fact that she was trying to "help coal country." - Does that conflict with her other statement?  

A climate change denier?  People should question the independence of that study, as they would any medical study that was industry funded or a drug company vetting drugs that had study done at it's direction.  It is being a good consumer and informed voter.

When a government agency directs or coordinates a study and pays for it, then construct a policy around it, you can bet it is absolutely subject to scrutiny.  It was not subject to rigorous public comment. We had a vigorous discussion on that topic. It is a conflict of interest. 

There is an inherent problem with that.    

 

[Emily]

CSM - Yes, it absolutely came from Hillary's mouth.  It caused an absolute firestorm about a month ago.  Saying that she did not say it does not make it so. She made the statement.

Hillary distorted her own political position, by walking it back once the genie was released from the bottle.  You and Emily can allege a distortion and that is your right.  It is the way I received and processed that speech she gave.  That is my right.  

That is just political propaganda to win an election, by any means necessary, and Hillary lost the state of West Virginia.  

http://www.thestatecom/news/politics-government/article78613502.html  

No one disagrees with your right to believe a fabrication. But just because someone believes a fabrication doesn't make it equal to objective reality. Emily and I are not alleging a distortion because an allegation suggests something that hasn't been proven. The facts demonstrate and prove that the position you are ascribing to Clinton is objectively a distortion. I agree with your point about political propaganda but in this case we do not agree on the source.

CSM - except that one does not need to walk back a story if it is controversial.  Hillary vowed to take out the mining industry consistent with the narrative of climate change of the Obama administration.  Her adherence to the last 8 years of this administraion to garner it's endorsement which she just got last week, has compromised her campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clintons-coal-industry-comment-backfires-on-her/

A controversy was successfully created around a distortion. She addressed it, correctly saying that her remarks had been misconstrued. You are still trying to push the false construction.
Your above comment seems to indicate you are a climate change denier. Is this accurate?

Emily - a huge controversy arose over her comments.  Hillary came out and said that her words were misinterpreted.

Who came up with this "false construction?"

Hillary made a statement after-the-fact that she was trying to "help coal country." - Does that conflict with her other statement?  

A climate change denier?  People should question the independence of that study, as they would any medical study that was industry funded or a drug company vetting drugs that had study done at it's direction.  It is being a good consumer and informed voter.

When a government agency directs or coordinates a study and pays for it, then construct a policy around it, you can bet it is absolutely subject to scrutiny.  It was not subject to rigorous public comment. We had a vigorous discussion on that topic. It is a conflict of interest. 

There is an inherent problem with that.    

 

Yes there was a controversy. Yes, she said that her words were misinterpreted, which they were and which you persist in. I don't know who originated the spreading of the false construction, but you're doing your best to continue it. 'Helping coal country' is absolutely consistent with her statement that her policy is to direct new employment opportunities to the region.
It's fine to scrutinize a study, but to falsely claim wrong-doing where none was found is dishonest. It's the same you're doing with this coal thing and everything else you've brought up on this thread in the last few days. No wrong-doing found, but innuendo of wrong-doing perpetuated. It's McCarthyism and it's entirely unethical and disgusting.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

[filledeplage]

Emily - I did not give her a pass.  I cited her post-speech comments. There is a difference.  

All studies are subject to scrutiny as to who did it, whether it was scientifically honest and independent.  Having done advocacy work in the environmental context, my postion on the EPA is an informed one and one of considerable duration.  I have little faith in their veracity and less in their concern for workers in the environmental context, let alone the prospect that their contracted-for global studies are free from taint.  Yes it is a strong statement.  In my view, they didn't take care of American workers in that context and are not trustworthy to be involved in global policies.  You may formulate your opinions, based on your own findings.  
 
When people vote in November, they will likely think first, of who will keep them safe, before getting into ideologies whether liberal or conservative. They may think about whether Disney is still the "happiest place on earth" or a terrorist target for a massacre.  They will think about going to a shopping mall or any soft target and if they are safe.  

[filledeplage]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

You agree then that she said nothing wrong in this case? I'm no fan of Hillary's but it would be a shame if her political career were ruined over the perpetuation of a fraud.

[filledeplage]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

You agree then that she said nothing wrong in this case? I'm no fan of Hillary's but it would be a shame if her political career were ruined over the perpetuation of a fraud.

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study. 

[Emily]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

You agree then that she said nothing wrong in this case? I'm no fan of Hillary's but it would be a shame if her political career were ruined over the perpetuation of a fraud.

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study. 

Huh. It's insensitive to say you'll help people at risk of unemployment find new work. Never heard that take before.
No proposed solution? Another lie.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-aid-coal-communities-215789

[filledeplage]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

You agree then that she said nothing wrong in this case? I'm no fan of Hillary's but it would be a shame if her political career were ruined over the perpetuation of a fraud.

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study. 

Huh. It's insensitive to say you'll help people at risk of unemployment find new work. Never heard that take before.
No proposed solution? Another lie.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-aid-coal-communities-215789

Emily - that is a political fact sheet and there are comments that are negative as against Mrs. Clinton.

"It is made-for-campaign rhetoric," National  Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said.  The administration has systematically eviscerated a high-wage industry, coal...and then offers welfare money.  And rather see opportunity to distance herself she now appears to embrace those policies."

Just because one does not agree, does not render it a falsehood. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study. 

In that case, you insist on believing in a fabrication in opposition to reality.

Those who stand in opposition to the EPA must do so with a major historical blindspot that erases the monumentally positive changes that happened as a result of the creation of the EPA.

[filledeplage]

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study. 

In that case, you insist on believing in a fabrication in opposition to reality.

Those who stand in opposition to the EPA must do so with a major historical blindspot that erases the monumentally positive changes that happened as a result of the creation of the EPA.

CSM - many environmental activists advocating for worker safety do not have faith in the EPA.  You are calling it a fabrication.  My opinion of then is not looking in a rear-view mirror.  It is my experience that EPA is a politically-driven agency that is so politicized and subject to industry manipulation that they are no longer credible as a source/resource for the citizens or for worker safety.

Those are not small matters, killing an industry and putting people out of work, and reducing dependence on foreign oil by using wood stoves or coal in the winter. The EPA is supposed to be citizen-friendly and not industry-friendly.   

[Emily]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

You agree then that she said nothing wrong in this case? I'm no fan of Hillary's but it would be a shame if her political career were ruined over the perpetuation of a fraud.

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study.  

Huh. It's insensitive to say you'll help people at risk of unemployment find new work. Never heard that take before.
No proposed solution? Another lie.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-aid-coal-communities-215789

Emily - that is a political fact sheet and there are comments that are negative as against Mrs. Clinton.

"It is made-for-campaign rhetoric," National  Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said.  The administration has systematically eviscerated a high-wage industry, coal...and then offers welfare money.  And rather see opportunity to distance herself she now appears to embrace those policies."

Just because one does not agree, does not render it a falsehood.  

But if it is incorrect, it is a falsehood. And you were incorrect.

[filledeplage]

Just to add to what Emily said above, Hillary in fact says that she was taken out of context rather than misconstrued, which is even more correct. It is not as if she saying anything that could be easily misunderstood. In fact, her words were outright distorted.

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

You agree then that she said nothing wrong in this case? I'm no fan of Hillary's but it would be a shame if her political career were ruined over the perpetuation of a fraud.

No - CSM - not only was it an insenstive comment on her part, but it was almost political suicide.  I do think she said the wrong thing, especially when she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work as a result of a policy change which advantages one industry to the detriment of another.

Specifically, there is a push for natural gas (which always has the explosion risk) to the detriment of people using the renewable energy of trees for wood burning stoves and also coal in those stoves especially in the colder climates who are affected the most.  A whole new EPA list of "banned" stoves was released about a year ago.  This whole dynamic puts a greater burden on those who are trying to live off-grid, and be energy independent with solar and wood/coal stoves.  And those who are poor.  This debacle is not just about this contentious study. 

Huh. It's insensitive to say you'll help people at risk of unemployment find new work. Never heard that take before.
No proposed solution? Another lie.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-aid-coal-communities-215789

Emily - that is a political fact sheet and there are comments that are negative as against Mrs. Clinton.

"It is made-for-campaign rhetoric," National  Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said.  The administration has systematically eviscerated a high-wage industry, coal...and then offers welfare money.  And rather see opportunity to distance herself she now appears to embrace those policies."

Just because one does not agree, does not render it a falsehood. 

Bit of it is incorrect, it is a falsehood. And you were incorrect.

Emily - the miners group opined. It is not incorrect, unless you consider a different viewpoint a falsehood. The miners do not like her and she offended them.

It is great to have passion, to support a political candidate, and be active in the process, but also important to remember that everyone else is not going to support your candidate and agree with his or her positions. 

[Emily]

FdP, you said she hadn't proposed assistance. I proved you were incorrect. There's no opinion on the matter. Just wrong or right, factually.
I'm aware that many people don't agree with me. And I have respect for many people who've disagreed with me, if their disagreement is not based on bigotry, greed or lies.

[filledeplage]

FdP, you said she hadn't proposed assistance. I proved you were incorrect. There's no opinion on the matter. Just wrong or right, factually.
I'm aware that many people don't agree with me. And I have respect for many people who've disagreed with me, if their disagreement is not based on bigotry, greed or lies.

Emily - Hillary did not "bring" assistance. Your suggestion that I am "incorrect" is a semantic. Hillary brought an "illusory" position paper, after she told another audience that was recorded for the world to hear, that she was going to put them out of business.  

For all intents and purposes, Hillary cannot take back what she said. Hillary can apologize (which she did) can attempt to give it better or softer context but she said it, and unfortunately she is not "necessarily" speaking her own mind but parroting the WH in order to continue getting it's support in my opinion.  

How are people (miners) supposed to feel who are being "laid off" en masse from their jobs? Are they supposed to go out and vote for her? Or worry if "she really supported them?"  At the end of the day, we each get one vote, and cast them according to our consciences and other factors.  

If a person differs from you, it does not render them a bigot, a greedy person or a liar. That is offensive talk.  
  

[Emily]

FdP, you said she hadn't proposed assistance. I proved you were incorrect. There's no opinion on the matter. Just wrong or right, factually.
I'm aware that many people don't agree with me. And I have respect for many people who've disagreed with me, if their disagreement is not based on bigotry, greed or lies.

Emily - Hillary did not "bring" assistance. Your suggestion that I am "incorrect" is a semantic. Hillary brought an "illusory" position paper, after she told another audience that was recorded for the world to hear, that she was going to put them out of business.  

For all intents and purposes, Hillary cannot take back what she said. Hillary can apologize (which she did) can attempt to give it better or softer context but she said it, and unfortunately she is not "necessarily" speaking her own mind but parroting the WH in order to continue getting it's support in my opinion.  

How are people (miners) supposed to feel who are being "laid off" en masse from their jobs? Are they supposed to go out and vote for her? Or worry if "she really supported them?"  At the end of the day, we each get one vote, and cast them according to our consciences and other factors.  

If a person differs from you, it does not render them a bigot, a greedy person or a liar. That is offensive talk.  
  

This is what you said: "she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work..."
It is factually incorrect.
Considering that she did not lay them off, but she is proposing policies to help (which you deny), I think it would make sense to support her over someone who pretends they won't be laid off.
Differing from me does not render someone a bigot, greedy or a liar, but some people who disagree with me are bigots, greedy or liars. And yes, they are offensive.

[filledeplage]

FdP, you said she hadn't proposed assistance. I proved you were incorrect. There's no opinion on the matter. Just wrong or right, factually.
I'm aware that many people don't agree with me. And I have respect for many people who've disagreed with me, if their disagreement is not based on bigotry, greed or lies.

Emily - Hillary did not "bring" assistance. Your suggestion that I am "incorrect" is a semantic. Hillary brought an "illusory" position paper, after she told another audience that was recorded for the world to hear, that she was going to put them out of business.  

For all intents and purposes, Hillary cannot take back what she said. Hillary can apologize (which she did) can attempt to give it better or softer context but she said it, and unfortunately she is not "necessarily" speaking her own mind but parroting the WH in order to continue getting it's support in my opinion.  

How are people (miners) supposed to feel who are being "laid off" en masse from their jobs? Are they supposed to go out and vote for her? Or worry if "she really supported them?"  At the end of the day, we each get one vote, and cast them according to our consciences and other factors.  

If a person differs from you, it does not render them a bigot, a greedy person or a liar. That is offensive talk.  
  

This is what you said: "she did not proactively have a solution, at least a vocational retraining solution for those who would be out of work..."
It is factually incorrect.
Considering that she did not lay them off, but she is proposing policies to help (which you deny), I think it would make sense to support her over someone who pretends they won't be laid off.
Differing from me does not render someone a bigot, greedy or a liar, but some people who disagree with me are bigots, greedy or liars. And yes, they are offensive.

Emily - I guess the difference for me, is that she is running to be the President.  She is only "proposing policies" - and - working to wipe out an industry prospectively is "laying them off."  And that is even if she is a step away and far-removed from the collapse of the industry and the calamity to the community which is already struggling.  The impact on those families is tremendous.  There is no balance in the plan and if there is, it is only on paper.  That is all semantics.  

"Some people who disagree with me are bigots"...is what you are saying? We are mere members here, and not arbiters of one another.  We are capable of respectfully disagreeing.  "Correct" or "incorrect" and bigotry, which does extend to classism in my opinion.  The miners' as well as those in the agrarian context, have always been treated less well than the white collar community.  That is another form of bigotry and that is my opinion. They are voting Americans, too.

http://america.aljazeera.com/features/2014/3/as-coal-fades-inwestvirginadrugsfillthevoid.html

This article sort of articulates my position, and mentions the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) - this climate change position takes a bad situation and proposes to make it worse for this population, and not those in the ivory towers.  And a denier?  I deny that this is a good plan for everyone.  A president is the leader for everyone and not just their political action committees or lobbyists.  

[Jim V.]

CSM - in politics you generally don't get a do-over and inflammatory remarks or those that inflame a certain population, tend to stick, even if they are apologized for.   You only get one chance to make a first impression.  And, overcoming that impression cost her that/those state/s.  There is little forgiveness in the world of politics.  A comment or an event, taken out of context can ruin a political career.

I agree with this fdp. So can you explain why this quote is acceptable, and how you can support a man who has admitted he doesn't like our POWs (his words)...

“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

[thorgil]

One of the worst sentiments ever.