Would you endorse policies that, for example, force countries like India to give up their (former) constitutional right to education?

So that soon to be dominant in the domestic market US corporations can hire really cheap teachers, putting huge numbers of hardworking US teachers and academics out of work-- cough.

"export education services" to India.


A vote for Clinton is an endorsement of more privatization and globalization of health care to increase profits, preserving the injustice with even more tiers, and preventing single payer using both long existing and future trade deals with standstill, ratchet and rollback clauses that make it impossible to change anything unless that change is more privatization and globalization.

Its making sure that any public provided anything is not attractive enough to attract anybody who doesn't have any other choice.

(the above is all called "competition policy&quot

Can public pressure from the outside influence HRC as CIC? Or is the bubble closed?

She is basically continuing the global disinvestment agenda. Giving it to the already wealthy. Trickle up economics.

Indeed, should she be the nominee, she will have to prove otherwise, and I do not know how that can be done at this stage.

Especially Hillary Clinton?

I will vote for her in November if she gains the nomination. But it will be the most difficult vote of my life. And I was born in the 1940's!

I was proud to vote for Bernie Sanders in MI.

But Hillary Clinton is wrong on so god damned many issues that I hold dear, my November vote hangs by a thread.

And the media ignores Bernie and the Clinton supporters revile him.

Shame on both of them.

I am disgusted by this campaign season, especially by any Clinton entitlement argument.

For Christ sakes. The US Presidency is not passed through families! One has to earn it. Hillary Clinton has not!

Particularly when you look at the gulf between their views and those of, say, Drumpf or Carnival Canadian Cruz.

The main difference is that HRC has a few friends on the Hill--she can get legislation passed. BS can't even get people he's worked with for a QUARTER OF A CENTURY, continuously, to back him as a super delegate.

The guy may be loved on the stump by his fans, but he's not liked at his workplace. That's not the reputation HRC has.

And all this comes down to is HRC's reputation? Let's just say that the most negative of all the Democratic presidential candidates will likely lose in November. Unfortunately for us all, that would be Hillary Clinton.

get up off their behinds and vote for Clinton. Her popularity might not be of the flashy, stadium-filling variety, but keep this in mind: Justin Beiber fills stadiums too.

I'm looking forward to seeing the first woman POTUS. It's long overdue.

That is the measure?

First, I will unhesitatingly support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

My problem is that I do not think Hillary Clinton can win in November. Her approval polling has been below sea level for months and the GOP has made sure of that. Regardless of her capabilities and her political positions -- nearly all of which I disagree -- I will vote for her.

I think that she loses in November.

Clinton and Sanders have more in common than they have differences.

He calls her his friend, and he has said that for 25 years--he should call her his friend; she gave him a ton of money (and called her friends to contribute, too) for his Senate Campaign.

Why would Saint Bernard take money from the Devil Herself?

You're hyperbole disqualifies you from mature and reasoned discussion.

smh.

As for winning in November, how do you expect the guy who gets FEWER votes than Clinton to win, really?

It's all about the math, not the stadiums, not the shirts, and artwork, and buttons and internet memes, or online polls.

She with the most votes, wins.

She speaks out all of the time against the corporatists in this country.

But she is a Canadian citizen, not an American, and she has no business commenting on our election if all she is going to do is to continue perpetuating the GOPer meme that the Democratic front-runner is not trustworthy. It is total and absolute B***S*** and continuing to repeat it will not make it less so.

IMO, those who continue to post such things have no business on DU. Go to Free Republic and feel right at home. The faster, the better.

Go enable the Republicans somewhere else. Not here.

of which she's an expert, it's everyone's business so I appreciate her input tremendously.

And Clinton is definitely not trustworthy so she's right about that too.

And it's not a GOP meme, are you kidding me? It's standard and public consensus supported by facts and backed by historical evidence. Lots of it.

pollution,fracking and the like just affects the land/air/water that causes it. Canada is lucky that it doesn't have to worry about all the crap we are doing here.

I guess it depends on which side of the bread their butter is on.

canada - the people - were thrilled we'd stopped that travesty against the planet! the only folks not thrilled were trans-canada - the corporation - and harper, the conservative PM.

so it's not so much which side of the bread is buttered, but who is doing the buttering and how healthy it will be to consume the buttered bread, eh?

you do realize your taking this perspective of nitpicking about naomi's citizenship, as well as your completely missing the point (however nuanced) that trans-canada's sad went against the wishes of the entire country, just wholly ignore the real issue here, which is the need to save the planet! parties and countries be damned! the planet is at stake here!!

not to put too fine a point on it, tho, it does strike me as consistent that hillary supporters would make that unconscionable error. sadly.

issue. Prime Minister Trudeau expressed disappointment with President Obama's rejection of the Keystone pipeline XL. It was the NDP that would have rejected the pipeline, not the liberals.

My point being that a countries governments are motivated by what they perceive are in the best interest of their country, and Trudeau thought the pipeline was in Canada's interest, while Obama thought that it was not in the best interest of the United States.

People love to paint everything with a black and white value, but not everything can be represented in such binary terms

Planet Clinton, that is, if a mere Brit may comment (sarcastically, I suppose I should point out).

edit: I know you get it, ellennelle. Biosphere destruction is indeed the huge tsunami heading fast straight towards us all.

Canadian citizens have every right to comment on our elections. Hell, anyone who wants to has every right to comment on our elections - that's why they call it freedom of speech.

You aren't going to silence dissent - a good number of people who have been here for years - who have been voting for democrats for years, are right here telling you they do not trust Clinton. It's not a GOPer meme, it's a matter of personal opinion about a person who might possibly be our next President. She is not the nominee yet.

I'll stay right here, thank you.

can foreigners comment on our campaigns (something we probably cannot stop) but they can help to finance candidates.

That bothers me very much.

If you agree with me that that is a terrible effect of Citizens' United, what do you think we should do about it?

Do you think Hillary is getting foreign money in some of her superpacs or her donors?

But only as shareholders in some corporation that operates in US territory, right? Not as private citizens - unless as members of a lobby group such as AIPAC, I guess, correct?

And we need to make that next to impossible and against the law.

I also want to see federal law on corporations that defines them as business entities not entitled to the rights of citizens and humans under the Constitution. They should be given rights by law. They are not persons in my view that were contemplated by the term "person" as used in the Constitution. There were very, very few corporations, mostly universities, maybe the trading companies, at the time the Bill of Rights was written. It is absurd to consider corporations to be citizens or humans. They simply are not. They are legal fictions. They are the creation of pieces of paper. Chimpanzees are closer to being humans than are corporations.

Per the FEC, it DOES seem to be the case with Bernie. Prove exactly what you are saying about Hillary with facts instead of innuendo, please. Or shut the heck up about it.

There certainly do seem to be several one-time contributors who have given much in excess of the USD 2700 to Bernie that those of us who legally contribute can.

That should bother you much more than your created "scandals" because this is actually happening.

From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=0

From USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/

From the Burlington Free Press: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/news/

FEC Letter of February 11, 2016: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf

FEC Letter of February 25, 2016: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf

You can see the donations for yourself in the letter links. There are several one-time donations >$2700, in addition to several persons who have made several smaller contributions where the total exceeds the maximum donation allowable. The latter situation is certainly more understandable than the former. There are also several individuals with foreign addresses where donations have raised red flags.

I am currently traveling and visiting family and friends in the West so am not on DU all that often. I just saw your response about an hour ago.

Money will be returned. It won't be a matter of huge amounts of money.

I don't think Bernie ever expected the kind of response that his campaign has met up with.

No one in their right mind would think that these discrepancies are due to any malice or even carelessness on the part of Bernie's campaign. He is just overwhelmed by a response to his candidacy that is way beyond his expectation.

He is going to win by good margins in the Western states, especially those of us who border on the Pacific ocean I think.

He has plenty of money to be able to deal with these minor questions about his financial reports. It is just a matter of taking care of details he never expected to have to deal with.

Campaign finance law and regulation is important but quite cumbersome. I think we need publicly financed campaigns so we don't have this kind of reporting to deal with.

Bernie is a wonderful human being.

Hillary has much bigger problems. I thought originally that the e-mail controversy was just another Republican "scandal" with no there there, but now I am reading about the problems with the classified information sent to Sidney Blumenthal. What a mess. A much worse scandal than Bernie's overly zealous and uninformed donors.

Bernie will work this contribution problem out. It should not be difficult.

A lot of people are like us. We send small amounts of money to Bernie as often as we can, anything from $3 to $25 or so. We don't have any idea how much the total we have sent is. A lot of people are sending money to Bernie in the way we are. We are a couple. My husband sends the money in his name, but it is from both of us. When he reaches the limit (which he probably won't), then I can send the money in my name.

If you look at the crowds Bernie attracts, maybe 30,000 in Seattle alone tonight, you see that what he is raising in terms of money represents small donations from many, many people for the most part.

He has no real superpac unless you count the nurses association and other groups of working people. No superpac.

Compare the small donors who give to Bernie to the big wags who give to Hillary and have their accountants and lawyers make sure they adhere to campaign finance law. It's a very different ball game.


The errors in Bernie's accounts are not intentional failings but rather the result of being overwhelmed with small donations that are hard to track.

believe that "Emailgate" will harm Hillary. No material that she shared was marked classified when it was shared. Period. You can have a lot of non-lawyers or lawyers with little knowledge of criminal law and/or no litigation experience who will argue otherwise. They are wrong. If something is marked "classified" AFTER it is shared - which has indeed been the case with any information that Hillary may have shared, the mens rea requirement for a felony is simply not met.

But keep hoping if that's what floats your boat. I wouldn't advise holding your breath though. You wouldn't last it out.

Bernie's FEC problems are real and, if they aren't properly addressed, will continue to cause trouble for him, even after his campaign has ended. Certainly they CAN be addressed, but when the same problems keep recurring, that is not a good sign.

"Being overwhelmed with small donations" does NOT explain one-time payments of MORE than the $2700 limit that the campaign has accepted. Requiring proof of US citizenship is also an ABSOLUTE requirement for contributions from outside the US to be legal. This I know well, since I am an expat myself and must provide a copy of my US passport to campaigns when I contribute. These rules MUST be adhered to and, in Bernie's case, before March 31.

It's interesting that you are so sure that Bernie will "work this contribution problem out" but are so ready to believe - and disseminate - GOPer TPs against Hillary.

informants from the Sudan were mentioned. That kind of information should not have been exchanged on insecure e-mails. Names.

Hillary is being quite hypocritical since on the one hand, she criticizes Snowden for revealing state secrets and on the other turns to legalistic but unpersuasive arguments to justify having discussed the names of secret informants on an insecure e-mail service. I wonder what happened to the informants whose names are now public.

Buh-bye!

In early February, after the end of the fourth fund-raising quarter, Mr. Sanders’s campaign announced that it had more than 1.3 million donors, an astonishing number for so early in the campaign cycle. And last week, the campaign announced it had received 3.25 million total donations, the most of any presidential candidate in the race. The campaign’s most recent F.E.C. filing was nearly 100,000 pages long.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=1

And the number of donations that are questioned are according to the NY Times in the hundreds. This is a non-problem. Sanders will simply ask for an extension and be given it. There won't be any problem since his supporters will make good on any donations that have to be returned.

This is more baseless than even the Benghazi scandal.

is that someone who is effected by the decisions made by the US government, should not comment on it?
I guess that you also feel the same way about the US being involved in so many countries' affairs that the US has no business anywhere but in the US?
If that is the case, I feel sorry for you, because you live in a shell, and want to remain there.

in our country or in any way support their campaigns.

We should not be meddling in the campaigns by giving money or other things of candidates in other countries either.

I know we do that, but it is undemocratic and wrong in my view. Very wrong. It nearly always causes us problems.

Our practice of supporting candidates in other countries makes a mockery of the lip service we give to democracy.

Democracy is about government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is not about government of foreigners, by the foreigners and for the foreigners. If you are not a US citizen or as an individual person, a resident (not as a corporation or shareholder in a corporation), you have no business donating to our candidates or involving yourself in any way in our campaigns.

You cannot become an officer in our government unless you are a citizen. You should not have a voice or influence on who becomes an officer in our government such as a mayor or senator or the president unless you are a US citizen.

And when we allow corporations to pay for ads, etc. we are often if not nearly always allowing non-citizens to meddle in our elections and in our government in ways that should not be legal -- not if we want even a pretext of being a democracy.

Have doubts about any politician.

More so, any politician who is taking funds from the groups they will be expected to regulate.
That being said, the public will have to be very vocal during a Hillary presidency. Her, and Bill's views have been swayed in the past by opinion polls, so, we will have to make sure that the leftward pressure is kept on her through out her run.

Always push for more progressive policies, because negotiation is going to swing them back to the right, so the farther we push, the less we will lose on the pushback.

Be loud, and be heard. That's the only way to handle a Clinton presidency. Just make sure it's not a Trump presidency.

Question: "You'd pick Clinton over a climate change denier?"

Naomi Klein: "Obviously...obviously yeah, yeah."

Clinton or a climate-change denier? Yeah. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Apparently, Naomi Klein does trust Hillary!

than any other candidate of either party!

I'd say she is trusted!

Only half the states or about half have voted and they are, one after the other, either the most conservative or the swing states.

DU has become a cesspool of anti-intellectualism.

and I trust her implicitly. If you do not trust her, than you trust the establishment, and do not see all the damage that the establishment has done to society as a whole.

(If the understand her work and positions).

That is a right wing position (to despise her).

These folks who don't trust and/or appreciate her must be closet RepubliCONs.

People really need to get off of the D/R labeling.

As soon as she gets the nomination she will flip on things she felt pushed into from the progressive side.

I could never and will never vote for someone I don't trust...

Oh that's right, she can't.

It's their head that is in a different part of their anatomy.