While it certainly would be nice for Clinton to stand with the Water Protectors, I'm more concerned with the absence of media coverage. Thanks, though, for the Earthjustice link for the full history and documents.
"With Dakota Access Back in Court, Activists Ask (Again): Where's Clinton?"
Hillary Clinton's silence on the DAPL, the violations of indigenous people's treaty rights, the physical assaults on Native peoples, and attempt to arrest journalists, speaks volumes regarding her positions on these issues.
Hillary lacks the courage of her convictions, whatever her convictions are.
If Clinton came out for the Sioux, it would unleash a torrent of mainstream media coverage--just what this peaceful occupation of a Dakota plain requires.
Indeed, a closed circle. I don't know how to break into it.
Hillary is a plutocratic, political weasel who is wholly owned by industry and billionaires.
Including the fossil fuel industry.
Quite hypocritical in light of many mainstream media outlets allegations of biased reporting by international press such as RT and Sputnik News and the mainstream media, and mainstream media journalists, readiness to critique abuses of journalist, such as Jason Rezaian, by foreign governments.
One more source of information on DAPL, and news from indigenous perspectives is:
Clinton is following Obama's lead of more domestic travel to meet with bag men (including petrochemical industry bag men) than to make public appearances. She doesn't have time to visit the tribes who (like the labor unions) support and vote for Democrats no matter how bad the Democrats treat them.
Tribes and labor unions need to unite in supporting the Green Party, a party that will actually be their advocate.
HRC had invested in the KPXL pipeline, which Enbridge also is a part of. She most likely is invested in the DAPL considering that most of the pipelines investors are also banks and and financial institutions. Don't hold your breath on this one. We will need to stand and fight hard at every turn.
I'm afraid Stein's stepping in made it less likely that Clinton will. It wouldn't be appropriate for a sitting President to trespass and vandalize (legally speaking) or intervene in a matter before the federal courts. While she can't be seen giving quid pro donors' quo, she also can't be seen directly opposing their interests. The campaign is between a rock and a hard place, and the media silence gives her needed cover.
Sorry, Earthjustice. Will edit.
Where is Clinton? What a naive and sophomoric question! She breaks all the rules that benefit her personal agenda, so the last thing she would ever do is back the Lakota Sioux against her personal, vested interests.
Snowden knows HRC well:
" Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit and you could be POTUS."
Clinton's silence is tacit support for the pipeline.
Not true. Nobody's silence is tacit anything.. It's up to those who want her to take a position to push her to say something. But as I always told my children, if you're not prepared to hear all of the possible answers, don't ask the question. I frankly prefer to let her keep silence, so she has room to take appropriate action next year.
Ah, I almost thought you'd actually taken a progressive position on the pipeline instead of your usual 'Clinton can do no wrong' spiel.
Thanks for the correction.
Exactly my point. If Clinton did now what Stein did, she would make it more difficult to take the appropriate and effective action next year, when she's President. And if she did it after Stein has done it, you-all would just say she was riding Stein's hem ("coattails" being a gender-bound word). Clinton will be a sitting President, in a position to continue and even expand the actions begun by the Justice Dept. now. Stein is free of that prospect.
I think what would be nicer, is if Clinton wasn't so compromised on this issue, thus resulting in her silence. I too really appreciate the Earthjustice link.
We are on the same page and topic on this one.
Just realized I should break that down a bit…we are both on topic, as both of us are commenting on nicety in regard to Clinton's stand relative to the article's topic, and we are on the same page as being oh so appreciative of the link you mention.
I don't recall hearing any statement of her stance on these topics, do you? I don't speak for her. And personally, I'm in a holding pattern until I see what happens in the actual election.
Hillary doesn't campaign, she fundraises. That way, she never has to face hard questions. She sends Bill out to campaign for her, as he did in NM, so he can stick his foot in his mouth for the two of them.