A question for the HRC group

[MSMITH33156]

47. My Answers would be

- immediately give back any campaign contributions that she has received from various corporations that exist in the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries

No. Not fighting this election with one hand behind her back. Also, it implies that those donations will corrupt her, when her entire record argues the obvious. She's spent months arguing, correctly, that those donations don't mean anything. To give them back would say the opposite.

- support a complete and total ban on fracking

No. I'm not a fan of fracking, but other forms of energy generation can be worse, it will devastate the economy in certain parts of the country. Just to ban it is Draconian. I'd restrict it, and also more importantly invest in clean forms of energy generation so this sort of thing isn't necessary. But you always have to transition. It's not a light switch. I think her stated position is the correct one.

- support a framework of moving to a single-payer healthcare infrastructure. Of course, keep the ACA....but move towards single-payer

She already supports this.

- support revised Glass-Steagall act which prohibits the intermingling of commercial and investment banking

Again, too simplistic, IMO. The financial system is so complicated. HRC understands that, so her position should remain nuanced. Monitor, don't trust, verify, but don't blow up the entire world economy.

- support for cap and trade on CO2 emitters

She already supports this.

- a pledge to overturn Citizens United, and support the complete end to SuperPACS, thus relying only on individual contributions for campaign funding. And to nominate SCOTUS Justices who support such policies

She's already there. But, and she hasn't said this, while Citizens United is a problem, privately funded campaigning in general is a larger problem. Bernie taking everyone's $27 isn't fixing the problem. It's showing that you need to raise a ton of money to even be heard. That's the root of the problem. It's BETTER if the money comes from small donors because then they have no way of owning the candidate, but that still isn't good. Anyway, tha twas a tangent.

- a pledge not to engage in further military action in any Mideast conflicts (unless we're directly attacked), and to support a policy of supporting other Mideast countries taking the lead to combat terrorism

No way. I don't want another war, but you never "pledge" away any foreign policy option. She's not nearly dumb enough to do this.

- a $15 federal minimum wage

She's pretty much there.

- Release of the speech transcripts

No, and this fake issue he created should not even be responded to. Is he going to release transcripts of all the meetings he held with lobbyists in DC? Of course not. He literally had nothing to prove that she was in bed with Wall Street, so he created a fake issue. No way she should even acknowledge this.