Is that what Clinton said?
Somewhat. This is from an op-ed she did on California:
Third, letās do more to protect our natural resources from the impacts of climate change. Californians understand better than most why we must improve how we manage water supplies that are challenged by higher temperatures, diminished snowpacks, and longer droughts.
My plan will increase federal investment in water conservation through a coordinated, multi-agency Western Water Partnership. And it will unlock new resources for local water infrastructure, expand water reuse, and establish a new Water Innovation Lab to develop and deploy technologies to improve water efficiency and extend supplies.
The United States has 17 national energy laboratories but not a single one focused on water. As president, Iāll make it a priority to discover new ways to enhance environmental restoration projects across the country.
Iām actually ok with it. Iād prefer more detail, but it at least shows some thought.
Nothing about storage systems; it is all about signing (more) pacts, and vague plans about new sources. Moreover, it was published after your post criticizing Sanders for not having āa fāing answer.ā The fact is that there isnāt much difference between the candidates on this issue, so is not a reason to vote for one over the other.
(I wonder which candidate would be more likely to go after Nestle, who is bottling more then 400 million gallons out of California underground supply every year.)
Oh that was just her op-ed. In Fresno she talked about investing in new water infrastructure. I just was too lazy to transcribe it.
Oh, infrastructure. Sanders was pushing for infrastructure reform, including water infrastructure, long before he was running for President:
Also, he just gave a speech in Davis from the top of a water tower (since too many people showed up to see him on the original dais), so he is obviously a believer in sound water storage policy.
I see that NPR has decided Hillary becomes the presumptive nominee tomorrow, barring an FBI stunner.
Theyāre still counting non-binding superdelegate endorsements. Hillary needs to win more than 90% of delegates up for grabs tomorrow to reach 2382 without them.
Thatās immoral.
I had no idea, and Iāll bet plenty of other folks didnāt either. Iām over here on top of an aquifer thatās doing fine, drinking my tasty well water, not buying bottled. So I donāt know what I could do about it. Except not buy Nestle products, and tell everyone I know.
Fuck. Itās so disappointing to see short term profits put ahead of the long term survival of human beings in a whole section of the continent.
A lot of us in California have known this for some time and many news outlets (BBC, the L.A. Times, Mother Jones, and Time) have covered this over the past year. My phone isnāt multitasking today or Iād give you the links. (I tried several times, but grrr.)
No worries, Iāll look it up when I have a chance. Or, I might get my mom talking about water next time I call. Sheās in Southern California, and sheāll catch me up; sheās always been my roll model for environmentalism.
Thanks, though!
I was just reading through posts and realized I could take everything I was saying about Republicans like Jeb, and apply it to neoliberals like Hillary and those who support her in the āliberalā media and on so-called liberal blogs, comment sections, etc. during this primary.
Who needs Republican enemies with so-called āliberalā friends?
By they way, this was the point I was making before I was censored and eventually banned from Boing Boing a while ago. Now, am I being too real here again?
If so, just go ahead and delete my fucking account.
Oh, and @OtherMichael? I saw your post after my banning about burning bridges. You have no idea what you were talking about. The publisher of Boing Boing burned bridges, not me. I got a PM making it clear that I needed to shut up about their lack of support for Bernie or thereād be repercussions.
Meanwhile, Iām building bridges across this nation while some at Boing Boing frankly dropped the ball on the opportunity of a lifetime to truly support a progressive in executive office. Millennials are moving away from Boing Boing and they are the future. This stale, tepid support of progressive change by Boing Boing was pathetic. There should have been a fundraising link for Bernie stickied to the top of Boing Boing since 2015. Instead, we just got a lot of Trump chatter for the most part.
Before anyone condescendingly asksā¦ yes, Iām disappointed in the publisher of Boing Boing and how the censorship of my post went down. Yes, I get itā¦ this is a private business and they can do whatever they want to. I just expected better from a blog that pisses and moans about all the problems we have in the USA and then doesnāt step up to the plate when the time was right.
You have an odd way of playing the long game. Yes, the DNC is corrupt. The media is corrupt. Other shit needs ti happen rather than pin our hopes on one candidate, though, because weāve seen, over and over, how that works out.
Of course, thatās why Iāve stated from the very beginning of Sandersā campaign and repeatedly afterwards that he was only a part of our larger grassroots movements. Iāve been an activist for decades, I donāt pin hopes on any one person, group or movement.
My grievance with Boing Boing is how the publisher flaked out on a progressive candidate and I was targeted due to my support.
You canāt play the long game with āGood bye, cruel world.ā
ā¦That sounds a whole lot like you were pinning your hope on one person.
Boing Boing isnāt the āworldā and Boing Boing is becoming less relevant to this world the more the publisher flakes out and alienates Bernie supporters. Millennials are the future, Boing Boing is getting old and tired.
Iām expressing disappointment in how Boing Boing flaked out on a candidate and progressive movement that supported him.
If you stop taking my thoughts out of context and read my other posts, youāll see where Iāve repeatedly said that Bernie is merely one part of a larger whole. That said, it was important to support him and his movement. To misconstrue that as me saying that Bernie was and is the only hope is to ignore everything Iāve ever posted here and ignore my point.
I get it. Time to circle the wagons to defend your beloved Boing Boing and trash me. Fine.
The editors werenāt in 100% agreement, but early on there was a lot more pro-Sanders material than for any other candidate. Cory and Xeni were on board. JLW wasnāt. Being belligerent to JLW wasnāt going to persuade him why Sanders is a better option, it just got you banned (which I really hated to see). I love you, man, and Iām with you on your principles, but donāt think your behavior always promoted your principles well.
Iām not defending anyone. If you hadnāt noticed, a bunch of us are planning to start our own thing, at least in part because we want to air our own views and are not exactly satisfied with BBās front page stories either.
I get it. Bernie lost. It hurts. But striking out at us, and swearing at us, and blaming the other commenters who largely agree with you, is not going to help your cause, and is only going to project a bad taste when I think back on your time here. And as the loudest and most ardent Bernie supporter and the closest thing to one of his representatives that we have here, some of that distaste is probably going to carry over.
Could BB have done better to promote Bernie? Sure. Would he have gotten more votes if the media had covered him more fairly? Iām sure of it. Would it have won him the nomination? Iām not so certain of that. Certainly I doubt BB could have made up the difference on their own, regardless of how they had covered the race.
So, fine, throw your relationships with the people on this site down the tubes if you want. Tarnish our perception of enthusiastic Bernie supporters. Yell at the top of your lungs that BBās coverage of Bernie was unfair. But if I remember anything about the circumstances of your probably upcoming ban, itāll be the swearing at other commenters, the asking (for the second time) for the mods to delete your account, and your previous attempt at ban evasion.
What probably wonāt stick with me are your concerns about how they covered your preferred candidate. Because how you say something is as much, if not more, a part of the message as the ideas that youāre trying to convey, and the message youāre sending is, āI donāt care enough about the ideas Iām fighting for to keep fighting here, nor enough about the people Iām trying to convince to remain a part of this community.ā
If they ban you today, Iāll be sorry that youāre gone, but not particularly surprised. I donāt think that youāve quite earned it, but youāve certainly squandered the chances youāve been given to avoid it.
