She totally supports the way that Big Banking has a stranglehold on the nation.

Speaking as someone who narrowly avoided being charged with "forging" a check that was legally made out to me, the Big Banks are now doing everything they can to ensure as many warm bodies are in jail each night.

prisons.

I read a while ago that the Private Prison Industry went Public on Wall St. I can't say how sick this makes me and I would probably starve before accepting a dime from people so reprehensible as to trade off human suffering and something to alien to any nation calling itself a democracy!

I know they are scared to death now that they have dragged out of the shadows and place squarely in the public eye. Not it's up to Americans themselves to demonstrate what kind of country they want.

Thanks for the thread, sabrina.

context. Currently 16% of Federal detainees are in privately run facilities and most of them are involved in immigration related, non criminal detentions. And additional 6% of State detainees are in private facilities as well as a few local and country jail systems in very few States.
Bernie gets extra points for talking about Federal parole and reduction of the prison population as a whole. By reducing times, cutting back on offenses that cause prison time and ending mandatory minimums and three strikes madness we could more easily rid ourselves of the need for either private prisons or the building of more and more prisons.

Another aspect of this issue that needs to remain in focus is that the private ownership issue is not the cause of our many serious problems in the prison and justice systems and that if we took all of them back into public control today we would still have enormous and pressing prison related issues to deal with. Private prisons are just one aspect of this complex and very important set of issues. We can't forget the rest of it. It's far too important.

system we have. However, there is something additionally reprehensible about profiting on Wall St from our supposed judicial system.

Wrt to the detention of immigrants, that is something that so badly needed a light shone it.

Those detention centers, like the prisons, have been guilty of so many human rights violations that it is sad that the country at large has taken few steps to try to end this abominable practice.

The NY Times did a series of exposures of the horrific, inhumane conditions, including the many DEATHS that have occurred in these detention centers, a few years ago.

Congress ignored the exposure. And since then we can only assume nothing has changed, for the better.

Sure, you can talk about "issues" but what does it matter when one candidate is such a rock star?

some of these issues do. But that's just me, I don't trust our system period, so putting on a very distracting show would not surprise me in the least.

Bernie I am certain won't be distracted. Nor will most voters who don't have time for the fighting among, or pretend fighting or whatever it is, Corps win regardless, Political Parties.

This was the first I had read about her no longer taking the private prison lobbyist money.

She needs to go further, I think, and - like Bernie Sanders - say what we all know; "the drug war is a failure and needs to end"

taken already. I give no kudos to would-leaders of this nation who have to be forced to make decisions that should be clear are necessary to any person with any clue as to what they are doing.

I could see it if it was just one or two bad decisions.

And I frankly do not trust people who have no record that they in any way changed their minds from participating in creating a problem, which of course she did with her support for Three Strikes, now finally overturned thankfully, until they see it is hurting their chances of being elected.

The problem with such sudden turnarounds is that if we trust them and give them the job they want, they can just as quickly turn around again, and in fact that happens so often it would be foolish to ignore it.

Activists are pressing to find out what has been done with the money already taken by her campaign.

Thankfully the people are really watching these politicians now because we've all learned some hard lessons over the past number of years.

Im supporting Sanders in the primary.

If Hillary is the nominee, though, I will appreciate Sanders having driven the conversation in the directions he has.

Her entire history on issues is extremely conservative. She shows passion only when she is talking about the poor, see the Welfare Reform Bill eg, not being encouraged to be 'dependent'.

I find her attitude towards those outside her own elite circle to be very condescending. Always comparing how 'hard working' she was and while she's 'willing to support some assistance to those less fortunate', she always makes sure to talk about 'ecouraging a sense of responsibility'

She compares herself, which is ludicrous of course, considering she had parents who paid for her college not to mention back then, college was far more available to far more people.

So our best hope is that Bernie wins the nomination if we want anything to change.

More comfortable.

It is the 2002-2006 Hillary, the Hillary that voted for the Iraq war, the Hillary that showed disregard for the 1st Amendment by pandering on "flag burning", the Hillary of "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman", that makes me nervous.

claims to have changed, we still don't now where she NOW stands on the awful Welfare Reform Bill. She boasts that she used her status as First Lady to get votes to pass that bill, angering every Liberal friend including the Edelmans, who were very opposed to it. Several Liberal members of Clinton's cabinet resigned in protest and their predictions regarding how damaging it would be to mostly poor mothers and children especially minorities, have come true.

As late as 2008 she was still claiming to be proud of that terrible assault and poverty inducing legislation which was the dream of Conservatives for so long. It had racist overtones, the old 'welfare queens' dog whistle.

Then there was DOMA, again she supported that awful legislation. And to be honest I am trying to remember why I ever supported in the first place.

On every major issue she has been very conservatiive. On Gay Rights, on poor minorities, on women through the legislation she supported.

I believe it is imperative that Bernie wins otherwise it will be a further plunge into 'compromise' legislation which it appears to me, she actually supports even when she says she 'changed her mind'.

I'm not sure what she "really" believes, because like her Husband, she is a product of a certain sort of political approach which took away lessons from everything between George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Bill Clinton's original loss of the Little Rock statehouse-

but learned those lessons a little too well. I do believe that a lot of the objectionable things BC did as president were outgrowths of the 1994 congressional turnover. That doesn't excuse him, but he was doing what he does- triangulate from defeat by adopting the positions of the other side.

I'm not sure what these guys would do in a total political vacuum. I want to believe the "real" underlying progressivism would come out- but in some regards, I wonder if they would know what to do at all, without polls or political winds to direct them.

If her principles are truly against it, she can admit it in public.

one knowing the horrors of these immigrant detention centers and private prisons, to me, I would prefer you didn't do it at all.

last time. That's fine to do if it is returned. But it hasn't been. She's going after him, personally now, but her surrogates and Citizens United funded Super Pacs have been doing it all along.

I know he knows how to deal with people like Greenspan, eg. And that is how she deserves to be treated at this point. Like any other politician who is and has been wrong on important issues.