Would Hillary Endorse Bernie Sanders if He is Nominated?

[Baobab]

For party unity, even if a Sanders victory means giving up her policies to the chagrin of cherished insurance companies, banks, etc. backroom trade deals, breaking some longstanding secret deals on things like health care and pharmaceutical prices, etc.

Saving families maybe half a million dollars per person over their lifetimes on health care.

Restoring our ability to have New Deal type country-preferential (discriminatory) economic stimulus again.

Restoring our ability to have affordable health care (we would have to pull out of the WTO GATS deal and the three pending T-deals.)

What say? Could Hillary act in the country's best interest or will she leave the country in the clutches of a despotic madman - an admirer of Hitler- instead?

[daleanime]

1. Yes....

And it would mean as much as anything she has said.

[Baobab]

9. But the costs of pulling out of the trade deals would bankrupt the country, wouldn't it?

I suppose it would be smaller than staying in them though.


Look at what happened to Slovakia when they tried to honor the wishes of their people - who voted overwhelmingly for single payer in 2006.


There is also a clear, short description of what happened with Achmea v. Slovak Republic in here. That could be us after this election. Imprisoned by Bill Clinton's ever-lasting WTO deal.


They failed to escape the insurance trap. Voting doesn't matter once you sign on the dotted line. GATS is also setting up a huge global temp job trading program. Which will force wages down if it becomes popular. To avoid that, we just have to always submit the lowest bids on work, even here in America, not too hard, is it? Oh, and lots of the public sector will likely be privatized to pt jobs into play.

Now, guess what, Slovaks are turning to fascism.

Did you know that a similar situation, reparations as it were, exacted by a treaty - was why Germany voted for Hitler?

Totalitarianism is what happens when the good guys turn out to be BAD, and people lose faith in democracy to be able to help them escape the clutches of global scammers. Then they do things like allow the Khmer Rouge into the capital. "Anything would be better than this" they say.

Little do they know.

Year One, they called it.

The honest candidate has my vote.

not the one whose husband was given $600000 to speak to them for an hour while the above case was still pending.

[Baobab]

32. Would she do her best to get us out of THIS MESS? (must read)

Would she work to get us out of this?

What the GATS Rules Require
Broadly speaking, there are three “tiers” of GATS rules affecting health care.
The first tier of rules, General Obligations and Disciplines, apply equally to all
service sectors of all WTO member countries, regardless of whether those sectors
are committed in a country’s schedule or not. The second tier, Specific Com-
mitments, apply only to those sectors that a country commits to its schedule. These
rules are more far-reaching, and members were given the opportunity to write
any exceptions or limitations to them into their schedules. Finally, under GATS
Part III, Article XVII, WTO member countries are allowed to negotiate a third
“tier” of rules to govern their commitments above and beyond the underlying
Specific Commitments rules that normally apply. Citing this provision, the United
States has inscribed its Financial Commitments schedule with the “supplemental”
rules of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. These rules
apply in addition to the underlying GATS Specific Commitments rules on
Market Access and National Treatment (described below).
Table 1
Selected rules included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services
Rule tier Binding upon Rule content
General
Obligations
(Tier 1) All member states of the
World Trade Organization 1. Most-favored nation treatment.
2. Prohibition on “new monopolies”
3. Disciplines on domestic
regulation
Specific
Commitments
(Tier 2) Only those service sectors
that members choose to
bind in their schedules of
commitments 1. Open market access obligations
2. National treatment of all
foreign service provider
Supplementary
Voluntary
Commitments
(Tier 3) Service sectors already
scheduled that members
choose to make additional
liberalization commitments
in (financial services in the
U.S.) 1. Subjection of public entities
to GATS rules
2. “Standstill” of existing
exceptions to liberalization
3. Requirement to allow any
new financial service
4. Requirement to “endeavor
to remove or limit any
significant adverse effects” of
domestic regulationInternational Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform
/ 367
General Obligations and Disciplines. These rules apply to all service sectors of
all WTO member countries, regardless of whether or not the sectors have been
committed to a nation’s schedule. While these are generally the least controversial
provisions, several may have serious implications for reform or regulation of
the health sector (4).
Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: This provision requires a member to give
service suppliers of any other WTO member no less favorable treatment than it
gives service suppliers of “any other country” (4, Art. II).
Prohibition on New “Monopolies”: This provision requires that if a country
grants new “monopoly rights” regarding the supply of a service covered in its
schedule, the country granting the “monopoly” must enter into negotiations to
provide compensation to any other member adversely affected by it. If an agree-
ment is not reached, the affected member may refer the matter to arbitration, and
the “monopoly” may not go into force until the compensation required by the
arbitration has been made. The term “monopoly rights” is not defined anywhere
in the agreement (4, Art. VIII).
“Disciplines” on Domestic Regulation: In sectors where no commitments
have been undertaken, the GATS states that a special Council for Trade in Services
shall develop “disciplines” that assure that qualification requirements and proce-
dures, technical standards, and licensing requirements for the provision of services
are “not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”
Regarding sectors in which commitments have been undertaken, however, it
is unclear whether such a “necessity test” is already in force (4, Art. VI).
Specific Commitments. These rules apply only to service sectors that members
have volunteered to submit to the rules by inscribing them in their schedules.
Members were also given an opportunity to reserve specific exceptions to the
rules during the negotiations of their schedules. Rules in this section fall into two
broad categories, Market Access and National Treatment.
Market Access: The rules in this section are aimed at preventing governments
from limiting the number, type, form, or size of foreign service suppliers in their
markets or intervening to affect or regulate the way the firms provide the service.
Examples of prohibited measures include (4, Art. XVI):
•
•
•
•
Limitations on the number of service suppliers
Limitations on the total quantity of service output
Requiring a specific type of legal entity (e.g., nonprofit)
Limitations on the “total value of service transactions or assets”
National Treatment: This set of rules requires that foreign service suppliers
receive, “in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services,” the same
treatment that a nation gives to its own service suppliers. It is easy to think of
situations in which a country may want to shape policy to favor domestic industry368
/ Skala
over foreign operations, but the GATS rules go even farther than these require-
ments. Under the National Treatment rules, any measure that modifies the condi-
tions of competition in favor of a domestic supplier is a GATS violation. In other
words, even if a policy has no intent to discriminate against foreign service
suppliers—indeed, it can be totally unrelated to service provision at all—if it
has the effect of disadvantaging them, it is potentially a violation of the GATS
(4, Art. XVII).
Special Rules for Health Insurance. The United States committed health insurance
to its schedule under the Financial Services section. Two special sets of rules
apply to commitments made under this section. The first is the Annex on Financial
Services, a unique set of constraints that apply to all commitments in financial
services, no matter what nation makes them. The second is an even more expan-
sive Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, a set of extreme
liberalization rules that are an optional “attachment” to commitments in finan-
cial services that the United States has chosen to take. These rules go so far in
constraining governments that only developed countries have signed on to them.
The Annex on Financial Services: Most financial services are related to banking
and investment, hence the Annex provisions pertain mostly to them. One provision
in particular is significant in assessing the impact of the GATS on health care:
• Subjection of “Public Entities” to GATS Rules: Normal GATS rules make an
exception for government services and procurement (with significant limita-
tions). The Annex specifically states that if a nation allows domestic service
suppliers to compete with “public entities,” those entities are subject to
GATS rules. This will have significant implications for Medicare, as we will
see (4, Annex on Financial Services, §1(b)(iii)).
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services: The most far-
reaching document in the GATS, the Understanding binds signatory nations to
an extreme level of financial services liberalization. The commitments undertaken
by signatories to the Understanding include (interpretation of the Understanding
[5] aided by Kevin C. Kennedy, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
College of Law):
• The “Standstill” Provision: The signatories pledge that any exceptions to
the commitments they have made are limited to existing measures. The
implications of this vaguely worded provision are not entirely clear. Some
commentators believe that the signatories bind themselves to never enact a
limitation on their commitments in the future that was not in effect when
the Understanding was inscribed in their schedule. In effect, the level of
privatization at the time of the implementation of the Understanding is
“locked in” (5).International Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform
/ 369
• New Financial Service: Signatories pledge to allow foreign firms to offer
any new financial product in their territory, as long as another WTO member
offers it (5, Art. B(7)).
• Domestic Regulation: Signatories pledge to “endeavor to remove or limit
any significant adverse effects” on foreign investors of any laws that “affect
adversely” the ability of foreign firms “to operate, compete, or enter” the
domestic market (5, Art. B(10)).

[AgingAmerican]

2. She would have to run it by focus groups and internal polling first

Cuz that's the 'pragmatic' way to deal with issues of basic morality..

[Baobab]

25. what about the trade deals, did you read my links?

For example, the long-existing GATS would block Bernie's entire health care platform.

(Good paper about how it could do that in Canada if they allowed any privatization)

The 1995 deal quietly stops- stops affordable health care in states. Unless it was done by globalizing it and throwing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of nurses and doctors out of work. (and THAT would only be a temporary fix, because the huge waste layer would all still be there).

the more recent deals would block new public education.

[brooklynite]

41. Nothing like some stereotyped insults to start you day...

...Clinton endorsed and supported Obama in 2008

...Sanders suggested primarying Obama in 2012

[AgingAmerican]

45. To hold Obama to his promises

Which he broke after elected. Sanders was quite specific about it.

[Baobab]

50. Is it democratic to push secret deals that take so much away from democracy?

And give essential services to corporations, forever?

All around the world?

"Progressive Liberalisation" as its called 9which means irreversible privatization) is a scheme to make it impossible for more and more people to get an education or health care, just as people need government to work, neoliberalism is a really evil scheme to divide and conquer, its trying to disinvest in the public interest, giving all that for free to corporations forever.

[RATM435]

3. She will have to consult lord blankfein of goldman sachs.

[Dragonfli]

20. .

[Baobab]

38. There is this huge global scheme called "progressive liberalisation"

Which is basically a scheme to let the developed countries maximize profits in the developing countries and in exchange, someday they have been promised jobs. Lots of jobs. If they can work for cheap.

Which of course they can.

Jobs in developed countries.


In order for that to happen first they had to develop "disciplines on domestic regulation" which has taken a very long time, more than a decade, a decade and a half, maybe two.

Now its almost ready.

[Dragonfli]

39. I am well aware, but thanks for posting for those that aren't /nt

[Darb]

4. Not to worry, it ain't gonna happen.

When the time comes, Hillary supporters will show up and crush the socialist dream. We just don't want to go to caucuses and listen to the bagger half-truths and innuendo.

[Baobab]

11. But what if she loses?

What if there is a landslide for Sanders that is too big to cancel out convincingly?


For example, in Cumberland County, NJ...

[Darb]

14. She will endorse him, duh.

Every Hillary supporter I have seen on this site have said they will back Bernie pretty much. On the other hand, the bernies don't seem quite so...............what is the word?...........pragmatic. That'll do.

[snooper2]

35. Heckler doesn't stand a chance

[djean111]

5. It does not matter what she "says" - for a couple of reasons.

First, she would laugh merrily at the thought that Bernie would win. It would be like me saying, in a way, that yes, I will buy my grandson a Porsche if I win the lottery. I am not planning on winning the lottery, so what the hell, why not say that.

Second - why believe her?

[Onlooker]

6. Of course she would

I don't think many people doubt that. It's Bernie who only became a Democrat for opportunistic reasons who people doubt. It's Bernie who chose a one man show that has little to show for itself over trying to influence the Democratic Party over the years who people have doubt about. I mean, one thing for sure, Hillary is a Democrat.

[Biaviians]

22. Someone had told me she was a Republican in disguise, is that true?

[Dragonfli]

42. Ideologically true, she is a "New" "Democrat" that believes in adopting Reagan fiscal policies

While trying to keep long time allies the party needs to win by adopting, or at least giving lip service to some social issues, Ideologically she is what we would have called a Moderate Republican in the 80's.

Read DUer Madfloridian's post (link below) for some clarification.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027191121

Or for a primer read first an Op I authored on the Subject of such "New Democrats" some time ago:

[font size="3"]New Democrats, The DLC and the Third Way[/font]


[font size ="1"]President Bill Clinton with Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, at a conference in 2000.[/font size]

New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner. The DLC disbanded in 2011 during an apparent re-branding of the New Democrat movement when money ties to the Koch bros. and Koch representatives placed on the DLC's board embarrassingly became common knowledge among the Democratic left. The DLC is survived by the Third Way, The New Democrat Coalition, and Al From's Progressive Policy Institute among other corporate funded groups that continue to sell their Economic-Right/Social-Left brand of "Centrism" to America.



The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various center-right progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats.

I strongly believe it's time for a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various center-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the neoliberal corporate policies previously popularized by Reagan and Thatcher! For thirty years we have all but abandoned liberal solutions to economic problems, chasing instead the snake oil of supply side economics, austerity and neoliberal trade policy. These right wing policies have failed miserably, and rather than learn from the New Democrats failed experiments, the center-right faction of the democratic party has chosen instead to double down on failure with more free trade and austerity measures (to include cuts to Social Security).

In the face of a new gilded age of extreme wealth contrasted by an exponentially growing rate of poverty,  a rapidly shrinking middle class and the emergence of an elite class of  bankers, politicians and other predatory behemoths that are held firmly above the law and enabled to steal the remaining crumbs of wealth held by the masses without repercussion, it is not only time to return to Democratic principles of old that created the strongest most prosperous middle class in our history, it is time to reverse the damage done by the right thinking "New" Democrats and their failed policies with a new populism based on the needs of the people over the elite.

We do not need a "Fourth Way" to accomplish this, all we need is a return to the fundamentals of Keynesianism, a strong commitment to labor, increased spending on social programs (rather than cuts), progressive taxation, and an end to the cancer of privatization that would reduce the commons and the basic needs of the populace (such as health care and drinking water etc.) into the cash cows of profiteers of human suffering

Time to dump the "Third Way" for the unquestionably effective "Democratic way" made successful by the New Deal, The Great Society, and civil liberties. Our party can not serve two masters, the choice is clear, they must serve the financial elite, or the economically struggling populace

My choice has already been made

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

[Biaviians]

51. This is amazing thank you very much!

[marions ghost]

23. whatevr you want to call Bernie

People like what they hear. His message resonates and his track record is impressive.

Yes, Hillary is a Democrat. And the party is clear that it has no room for a LOT of people--basically the whole progressive wing can go eff off.

It's really no wonder that Bernie's meteoric campaign draws such a crowd. Be brave enough to LOOK at what the party has become. You will find the answer there.

[Baobab]

54. She's a divider

BUT, if we want to end the stranglehold the two party system has on this country, she and Trump are the way to do it.

[marions ghost]

59. We all see that

the two parties are clearly divided now. But I don't see how the stranglehold is ended anytime soon. Because there is no mechanism that allows more parties. The ideologically divergent groups are reduced to warring factions. The party controllers have no incentive to change anything. Hillary becoming president would in no way further the goal of third party, even though her candidacy has forced the chasm to open even wider.

The Democratic party is actually more split IMO. The R party has more loyalty to whoever wrestles it to the ground. Conservatives are more likely to band together, lock step.

If there were three parties--it would look like:

Progressive (liberal)
Democratic (centrist)
Repuglicon (conservative)

But this is all speculation. I don't know what is the solution. The fact that Independents are now 40% and growing makes them the deciders. But they are certainly not a true third party.
I am all for Independents, for sure. And open primaries. Otherwise many people would not vote at all.

So how do you see it ending the stranglehold?

[Dragonfli]

40. He has always caucused with the Democrats, he is more a Democrat than most in the party re issues

An independent in name only in many ways

He caucused with the Democrats for, 16 years in the United States House of Representatives, 10 years in the United States Senate;

where he served on many committees Representing the Democratic party such as the:

Committee on the Budget (Ranking Member)
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy
Subcommittee on National Parks
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging (Ranking Member)
Committee on Veterans' Affairs (chairman)

He has every right to expect respect from those he served with such loyalty and in so many capacities.
The Democratic party must consider him a true blue ally to have given him seats on so many committees.

He was also a founder of the Democratic Progressive caucus.

It appears to me the only one's that are offended by his Independent status are all the Moderate Republicans that are far less honest and register as "Democrats" while voting for Republican policy, those "Democrats" are most often both conservative and liars, among them Hillary Clinton.

[FlatBaroque]

7. WHo the hell would want Her endorsement?

Is he going to seek Debbie, Rahm and Chuck Shumer's endorsements? I hope the hell not.

[tammywammy]

8. Of course she would, just like she endorsed Obama. n/t

[Baobab]

16. She did endorse obama and now Obama is going to take the blame for the three deals I am sure

Now we're starting to see the new world which GATS started leading us to, in 1995, emerging.

No more threat of public healthcare, education, water etc. being too efficient and preventing a race to the bottom on wages, just a flat level playing field for the world's corporations.

Informative paper - note it's pro- Mode Four

[MadBadger]

10. Were you alive in 2008?

[Baobab]

24. I certainly was but I suspect that the situation is quite different. Both Obama and Hillary

are neoliberals, privatizers, and Bernie is not.

It's not some little thing, its a huge global scheme based on a whole new ideology which - for example, the act of WTO accession recently successfully gutted the worlds most populous country's constitutional right to education.

In exchange, they get market access to services contracts in the world's biggest economies, if they can simply submit the lowest qualified bids on contracts, which should be easier for them than us, because of their competitive advantage - low wages.

its worth looking at the debate they had in India last year, thats a debate we should hve had- when - when were we supposed to have that debate? can anybody tell me? When was it?

See:

GATS and Public Service Systems

The World Trade Organization and Health Care

European University Association Statement on TTIP and TISA

Fight against inclusion of higher education in WTO - The Companion

[TheBlackAdder]

12. Clinton endorsed Obama after the normal deals were made. Perhaps Chelsea appointed to the Fed?

[MineralMan]

13. Sure. I doubt very much she'll be in that position, though.

And Bernie will endorse here if she is the nominee.

[Dragonfli]

15. NO, because he will not bribe her with an appointed position. /nt

[StevieM]

57. Hillary didn't endorse Obama because she hoped to become Secretary of State. She endorsed him

because she wanted him to win the presidency.

Actually, when Obama first asked her she said no. He had to talk her into taking the job.

[pampango]

17. "or will she leave the country in the clutches of a despotic madman - an admirer of Hitler- instead?

I think you answered your own question. She endorsed Obama against McCain and McCain is only half as crazy as Trump or Cruz.

[cosmicone]

18. Hypothetical that will never reach reality. n/t

[gollygee]

19. Yes, whoever does not get the nomination will endorse whoever does.

This is just a normal election year, folks, at least on the Democratic side of things. I know people are acting like Hillary and Bernie hate each other and are diametrically opposed, but nope. They're just two politicians running against each other for the nomination.

The only thing different this year is that we have a narcissistic fascist on the Republican side.

[JoePhilly]

21. This is a pretty silly question.

The only people talking about not supporting the eventual Dem nominee are alleged Bernie supporters.

[Baobab]

27. Bill Clinton signed us into the WTO which included the huge GATS FTA in 1995

Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Which hijacked our policies in dozens of really important areas and didnt tell the country, and now are lying through their teeth about them. Pretending they are not there. Deceiving even economists, who dont seem to know about them. At te same time its the US's official position that these deals BLOCK everything in Bernie's program.

So what gives?

[pampango]

34. "You all are missing my entire point. I have to conclude you're all sock puppets; idiots or crooks."

That should provoke some 'intelligent discussion'.

Your OP title asked a question. You provided your answer and your reasons in the OP. That's fine. Don't get upset when some posters choose to answer the question that you asked and don't agree with your opinion. When people don't agree with you doesn't make them sock puppets, idiots or crooks.

[Baobab]

36. What is democracy?

Democracy is when people get to decide what decisions are made by governments.

You are missing my entire point. What is it that I am trying to say here? I know exactly what's going on and you are proving my point if you cannot discuss this particular issue.

And you know exactly what I am talking about.


Here, this is an example of the really horrible attack on the world's future they are engaged in:

Article I:3 of the 1995 (GATS) agreement states:

"For the purposes of this Agreement…

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."

Google that.

If you self-alleged Hillary supporters can't discuss this important issue intelligently here, what's the point of expecting anything better from your candidate than more lies?

Or is discussing anything of substance above your pay grade? Lots of hope that gives me for a future Administration. NOT.

[pampango]

46. The question you asked to lead the OP was a good 'hook' to get people to read.

The downside in using a 'hook' like is that you run the risk that many people will want to respond to the 'hook' question rather than what you really wanted to discuss. You will get more on-topic responses if the title reflects what you want people to discuss.

And calling them 'sock puppets', 'idiots' or 'crooks' does not elicit 'real discussion' in the teal world or in DU.

If you self-alleged Hillary supporters can't discuss this important issue intelligently here, what's the point of expecting anything better from your candidate than more lies?

I thought my sig line made clear that I support Bernie. Does that make me less of a sock puppet, idiot or crook? Or does anyone who disagrees with you about anything still belong to one or more of those groups?

[Baobab]

47. Thanks to the GATS, India had to give up its right to higher education. And Europe likely has to,too

These are from the European Education Association and the main US and candian university accreditation organizations.

This is their most recent statement. They don't mince words- the GATS and its successors currently being negotiated threaten the very existence of public education

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf?sfvrsn=0


http://www.csee-etuce.org/en/policy-issues/12-trade-and-economic-governance/education-trade/67-gats

http://cfs-fcee.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/05/fs-7(4)-gats.pdf

More from india:

How government is planning to put India's education sector on sale

Will the GATS close on higher education? - The Hindu


See the results of this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.in+India+GATS+WTO+education&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

https://brahmagyani.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/gats-in-education-revival-of-the-caste/

http://newsclick.in/international/wtogats-plans-make-education-tradable-commodity-what%E2%80%99s-next

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=894826

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-07-11/news/64308981_1_general-agreement-education-sector-service-charges

http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/04slr

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/National-convention-against-higher-education-offer-to-WTO-GATS/articleshow/50059201.cms

http://peoplesdemocracy.in/2015/0816_pd/higher-education-india-way-nairobi-gats

[pampango]

48. If I am a sock puppet, idiot or crook in your opinion, you really aren't interested in mine. n/t

[Baobab]

49. What is it? is it as important as losing health care and education forever

Losing our right to spend money to stimulate our country's economy preferentially, creating jobs here

how is important is losing that forever due to a dirty trick.

its not wise to trade in higher education..

[Funtatlaguy]

26. For the unneeded millionth time

Either Hillary or Bernie will undoubtedly endorse the nominee that comes out of the convention.
100%
And, they will work hard to see that person is elected.

[Baobab]

31. What about GATS?

Answer that question.

This is what I am talking about.

[Orsino]

28. Of course.

If she does not win the nomination, she should still l have a lot of influence at the convention.

We've been here before, remember?

[peace13]

29. We waited weeks for Hill to concede to Obama.

She failed to show up to press conferences that she had set. If she is not selected at the convention I fear that her breakdown will make endorsing anyone irrelevant. She is running with the throttle wide open now. I can't imagine the shape she will be in should she lose.

[bettyellen]

53. her breakdown? I don't know where this bullshit comes from. LOL.

[StevieM]

58. She announced that she would be suspending her campaign less than 24 hours after the final primaries

I'm not sure what press conference you are talking about, but a cancelled press conference isn't exactly shocking.

She endorsed Obama 4 days after the final primary votes.

If Bernie gets the nomination she will endorse him. End of story. And this imagined breakdown is just silly talk.

Of course, if Clinton wins more votes and more delegates I imagine that a lot of people will think it is unfair if he is the nominee. But she will still support him. Somehow I doubt he would do the same if she got the nomination after he won more votes and delegates.

And the same Sanders supporters who are screaming for a convention fight, regardless of the vote count, would denounce her for trying to steal the election.

[stone space]

30. What did she do in 2008?

I expect that she'd do it again.

[winetourdriver]

33. Endorse

Someone should check to see if she supported/campaigned for PBO after she lost the nomination to him in 08.

[Codeine]

37. If course she would. Stupid question.

This place sometimes.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Absolutely and unhesitatingly. And she would campaign for him. (nt)

[Marr]

44. You may have to ask the Warden. /nt

[brooklynite]

55. How witty; please tell us the criminal statute she'll be convicted of.

[Marr]

56. What a silly question.

Here actions as SoS are still being investigated.

[PonyUp]

61. Zing! Can prisoners vote? n/t

[bettyellen]

52. Of course. Are you new to this or something?

[baldguy]

60. Yes, no question.

The fact that there's no chance she wouldn't - and with Sanders and his supporters threatening to go full Nader if he loses - should speak volumes.