How many Hillary Clinton supporters support fracking?

[Seeinghope]

[litlbilly]

1. they support everything Hillary, no matter how stupid it is.

[Seeinghope]

3. I want them to admit it

I want them to concentrate on real issues, not all of this pope silliness coming from them. So I want to ask them som policy questions to Mage get their brains on something more substantive. Feel free to join me. I am sick to death of these threads with "Pope" in them.

[MisterP]

8. ever since 07 we've had people who literally and openly say that they will support

any policy as long as it's their candidate doing it: much of it was cathartic relief that Bush was leaving and "we" had the House coupled with terror of Uncle Lumpy's "4 more wars," but the party's owners have been carefully grooming and weeding their garden for decades now

they've endorsed Pubs as Dems and paradropped them into races while sabotaging the actual Dems in the primary; they screamed about purges and then purged or sabotaged Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, John Russell, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, Wendy Davis, Grimes; they ran punters like Coakley, Mahoney, Alex Sink, and Mary Burke--they even were relieved when the Supermajority was lost since the pressure to pass laws was off and they could just keep cashing their checks and blaming the voters

since 2010 Rahm and DWS lost 11 Governors, 13 Senators, 69 Reps, and 913 state seats; they dwindled to a fourth or fifth of the electorate; the thing is they count on there being no alternative for the disillusioned 60%: they've got the party down to people they can literally say and do anything to, and the system wins even if they lose Congress--or the WH

[Nye Bevan]

2. I do, provided that there are environmental safeguards (nt)

[Seeinghope]

4. Like what kind of safeguards? The number of holes. How deep. Where? ......

How about upsetting what else is underneath the ground?

[PufPuf23]

6. Many of the impacts of fracking to water, air, and underlying geology cannot be mitigated nor is

natural recovery in a human-scale amount of time.

Projects are permitted under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and as such require a Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement, with a Categorical Exclusion requiring the least study and mitigation and Environmental Impact Statement the most.

The shales that are fracked may lie under public or private lands, however, the federal government retains mineral rights to shales underlying most private lands and can put private tracts up for sale regardless of surface ownership and use.

Fracking projects are being approved under Categorical Exclusions, the weakest NEPA document and study. This is a bad faith application of NEPA but policies are implemented to avoid documenting the environmental impacts. Some fracking projects are approved without NEPA.

At the link is a pdf document by the Congressional Research Service about fracking in general and several specific projects where federal and state agencies and promoters argued that NEPA did not apply. This claim is ludicrous. I cannot copy from the pdf to DU.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42502.pdf

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. ALL of them, depending on which way the weather vane is pointing.

Alternatively, none of them. Again, depending.

[Marr]

7. They don't actually 'support' anything but Hillary.

That's why they never talk policy. All that stuff is just window dressing that changes with the seasons. The only constant is their idol, with whom they must agree.

[djean111]

9. All of them. n/t