For me, the overarching issue here is that we need regulatory agencies that are standing up for us, that do not have a revolving door between, you know, Monsanto, and then suddenly Monsanto lobbyists are in charge of, you know, telling us whether GMOs are, you know, good for our food or not.

Women do not have to embrace principles of imperialism, corporatism and militarism in order to be a feminist. There is another feminist choice, which is consistent with the broader principles of feminism.

Neoliberalism, arguably, sets the course for this kind for this kind of neo-extremism, this right-wing extremism that we are facing. The only way we solve that crisis, the rise of the right-wing extreme, is by truly progressive policies that address this crisis of economic security. That will not come from the lesser evil.

To my mind, to say that says to young people "and you probably are not going to get out of debt, and you probably do not have a climate that's going to be here come 2050." And, in my view, the point is not necessarily to win now but it's to begin building our power.

That is enough to win a three-way presidential race. If young people understand they have the numbers and they have the power to come out and turn this election on its head.

I wouldn't say it's a done deal yet, by any means. I think there are a lot of people who feel like their lives depend on decisions that are going to be made in this election [2016].

Why should the Democratic and Republican parties be in charge of the debates, especially at a time when the largest block of voters has repudiated the Democratic and Republican parties? Why are they still in charge?