Support NeoGAF

[Christopher]

Bernie also doesn't to release his taxes this year but hiliary has hers for full display - what's the big issue?

 

[marrec]

Umm... that's pretty damning. If his entire campaign has been built around baseless Trump-level rhetoric, that's a pretty big problem.

It's been my main problem with him from the beginning. He is playing off some fairly tin-foil hatted nonsense and pie-in-the-sky claims without any real substance to back up these wild fantasies.

I'd still be happy to take him over any of the Republican candidates, though. No question.

Absolutely. Though, the more the campaign goes on, the more Sanders' proves that he is definitely the weaker potential President between him and Hillary.

 

[The Technomancer]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

what the crap?

 

[Dorpheus]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

So from what I can tell, Bernie's plans might just be "I'll tell the Secretary of that department to get it done and it will happen"?

 

[Tabris]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

 

[Dangansona]

Yeah, now that I've reread it, this whole premise of this thread is a joke. Seems like a lot of people didn't read or understand what the question was. Me included.

Besides the fact that he did talk about possible solutions for how to break up banks elsewhere in the interview, people are extrapolating this answer to mean that he doesn't even have any ideas for how to do it.

It's incredibly frustrating. A title change would help. But both sides can be guilty of coming in with a hatred of the other candidate and spinning whatever the quote is.

 

[marrec]

It's incredibly frustrating. A title change would help. But both sides can be guilty of coming in with a hatred of the other candidate and spinning whatever the quote is.

The thread title, while misattributing, is reflective of the interview. Bernie is evasive and has no concrete answers.

Worse, when he does try to get into specifics about financial regulation and the history of it, he proves himself ignorant of the actual facts.

 

[hawk2025]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

That's not an answer, it's your seventh platitude.

 

[Suikoguy]

It's incredibly frustrating. A title change would help. But both sides can be guilty of coming in with a hatred of the other candidate and spinning whatever the quote is.

Yeah, the title should say:

"Sanders does not provide any specifics when questioned about how he would break up the banks"

or something to that effect. The title is misleading, since the line singled out is about something else, it's the whole interview that is at issue.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

That's embarrassing.

 

[Cipherr]

What I'm looking for in a presidential candidate is someone who doesn't flip flop his or her opinions for what is politically convenient,

Opinions like not running an offensive campaign which flip flops once he starts losing? Politically convenient moves like becoming a Democrat for the sole purpose of helping his campaign chances and NOT because he really wants to be a member of the party?

Those sort of things?

You ignore that stuff, then you get called out on it, then it's "Oh this thread is so nasty I'm leaving now". It's painfully transparent.

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing

That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

Jesus.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

This is adorable.

 

[Mael]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

It's probably your biggest lie this thread, considering your spiel about corruption earlier it's quite a feat.

 

[Pastry]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

Oh my lord

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'd still be happy to take him over any of the Republican candidates, though. No question.

Oh, absolutely. Sanders would get nothing done, but all of the Republican candidates (including the supposedly "moderate" Kasich) would actively take us backwards.

 

[AndyD]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

That's a joke right? I mean it's essentially the same thing he said in the interview.

 

[Armaros]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

...what is this? Babies first Bill?

And at this point Bernie has been in poltics for decades, this is a bunch of platitudes on paper passed as a bill.

 

[marrec]

Going even beyond the idea that we could pre-identify with any certainty financial institutions that are "too big to fail", what on earth makes these institutions "too big to exist"?

Further, if we come to an agreement that "too big to fail = bad" why not impose regulations that would naturally keep the size of these companies under a specific ceiling, rather than have some nebulous interpretation of "too big to fail".

The last time the FED tried to guess if a company was "too big to fail" it guess wrong on Lehman and sent the Crisis into overdrive.

 

[Drek]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

Shitpost now, shitpost later, doesn't matter when you do it, your "understanding" and false representation of the U.S. political system will still be the same brand of uninformed shitposting.

Yeah, now that I've reread it, this whole premise of this thread is a joke. Seems like a lot of people didn't read or understand what the question was. Me included.

Besides the fact that he did talk about possible solutions for how to break up banks elsewhere in the interview, people are extrapolating this answer to mean that he doesn't even have any ideas for how to do it.

Sanders entire platform is built around the idea of "too big to fail". The fact that he wasn't closely tuned in during a landmark court case directly pertaining to "too big to fail" designations is itself an incredibly damning statement. I have an opinion and I'm not a sitting U.S. Senator, let alone one running for POTUS.

Also, the entire rest of the interview is vague, nebulous, and literally references his "belief". There are no good answers and he proves himself incredibly uninformed on the very first plank he put down for his political platform.

It proves him to be the vacuous ideologue I've been calling him all along. Viewing that interview as something other than a scathing exposure of his massive flaws requires a level of cognitive dissonance that would make Ron Paul fans proud.

 

[Dangansona]

Opinions like not running an offensive campaign? Political convenient moves like becoming a Democrat for the sole purpose of helping his campaign chances and NOT because he really wants to be a member of the party?

Those sort of things?

You ignore that stuff, then you get called out on it, then it's "Oh this thread is so nasty I'm leaving now". It's painfully transparent.

I mean I'm not ignoring that stuff considering I don't believe he is running a negative campaign, certainly not until Hillary claimed a commercial he made about how politicians shouldn't take money from wall street targeted her. Since then his campaign has been directly asking her to stop lying and to hold the debate she agreed on months ago. And even if it did, is that truly so negative to use facts? If so good luck in the general.

The second thing you said is fair. But I said that was my last post because I actually have homework to do that's due I'm a few hours. Not because of any responses I got...

 

[Tabris]

That's not an answer, it's your seventh platitude.

I disagree. I think my statement is extremely meaningful. You guys really need to recognize that you are in a Corporatocracy before you can expect real change. Every large change happening is around social policies not tied to economic policies, and they have you focusing on the social policies people like Obama passed and ignoring all the economic policies he's passed or more importantly hasn't passed.

Sanders recognizes it and his message is against it. He may not have all the answers on how to fix yet, but he's the only one recognizing the actual issue in your country and has been an issue in your country since the 80s, and you have to start with actually recognizing the issue. This issue is also why your country has declined significantly against most modern nations in economic policies for the average citizen.

 

[marrec]

I disagree. I think my statement is extremely meaningful. You guys really need to recognize that you are in a Corporatocracy before you can expect real change. Every large change happening is around social policies not tied to economic policies, and they have you focusing on the social policies people like Obama passed and ignoring all the economic policies he's passed or more importantly hasn't passed.

Sanders recognizes it and his message is against it. He may not have all the answers on how to fix yet, but he's the only one recognizing the actual issue in your country and has been an issue in your country since the 80s, and you have to start with actually recognizing the issue. This issue is also why your country has declined significantly against most modern nations in economic policies for the average citizen.

What does any of this have to do with his ignorance and dangerous lack of substance in regards to financial policy?

Or are you literally just stumping for Bernie Sanders right now?

 

[Brakke]

That's not an answer, it's your seventh platitude.

Tabris is the Bernie-Sanders-talking-about-Wall-Street of talking about Bernie Sanders.

 

[BobTheFork]

I really wish I could get behind Bernie but this sums up how I view him and many of his supporters.

I had a big problem with Obama's first campaign and I think this is the kind of thing it leads to. I didn't want him to use HOPE and CHANGE as his campaign. I think it creates unreasonable expectation and creates a need to candidates to try and campaign with Big slogans and a lack of details and content. Obama turned out to be a great POTUS, but here we are with big ideas and no details taking front stage.

Obama didn't change the world or politics at all; what he did was help make small steps in the right direction and that's the best any POTUS can do. The system of Government we have isn't even designed to be tossed on it's head or changed that quickly. That's the best Bernie can do and I'm not sure if he understands that.

'If we all gave $5 to Bernie, he could change this country' is something I expect to hear from first time voters, not the people in their 30's that I know.

I don't get the impression he is ready to be President. He's not practical enough and this like this article really stick out to me. BIG IDEAS!!!! are fine, but there needs to be BIG PLANNING too.

I don't care for Hillary, but I think she can be an effective President. Yes, she is serving big money and interest groups. That's not a shock to me, but I don't think Bernie is going to help anyone if he isn't grounded. I don't want to hear about changing the world, just try to make it better.

If you aim for the stars and miss, you DO NOT hit the moon. You hit nothing and you are now drifting in a void. I still constantly feel like Bernie and his supporters are so focus on the goal, they really just aren't looking at the journey.

 

[Damaniel]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

To me, this doesn't sound any more substantive than 'Make America Great Again' - all promise, no policy.

 

[Maximus.]

He may not have the answers, but at least he is talking about serious issues within America.

 

[Box of Kittens]

The problem isn't Sanders not having all the answers. Sanders doesn't have any of the answers.

I would also dispute the notion that Obama didn't bring about any large changes on economic issues, though they were mostly confined to his first two years. The devastation the Democrats endured at the state level in 2010 has effects that continue to this day, which is why it's high time the left starts putting as much energy into gubernatorial and state legislative races as it does into presidential races. There's no such thing as a political revolution in the US that consists of electing a president.

 

[marrec]

To me, this doesn't sound any better than 'Make America Great Again' - all promise, no policy.

Corporatocracy is one of those great fear mongering words that people can use to describe some vague and insubstantial threat without having the need to provide any kind of proof of imminent danger.

Nice big scary word with zero actual substance or meaning.

He may not have the answers, but at least he is talking about serious issues within America.

Hillary is as well. She has spoken extensively on expanding regulation and working to repeal Citizens United.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

One impression I'm getting from this thread is that for some people, all that matters is that a candidate be aware of problems in this country, not whether or not they have any solutions for them. In that case, you should elect me for President. I'm aware of all the issues Bernie Sanders is, plus I'm aware that Ice Climbers should be in Smash Bros. I can't do anything about these problems, but hey, at least I'm talking about them!

 

[AlphaDump]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

and it gets so much worse when you read Dodd-Frank, which came way before it in 2010.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

an Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Some folks would rather have someone who has identified the issues that's smart enough to know that he doesn't have all of the answers than someone who ignores the issues altogether, pretends they don't exist, or offers a weak response to those issues and whose only knowledge/substance in regards to financial policy is pushing the status-quo.

 

[Drek]

He may not have the answers, but at least he is talking about serious issues within America.

Trump supporters think he's talking about serious issues within America.

So do Cruz supporters.

Thinking your guy is the only one with his finger on the pulse of what the "serious issues" are is the first sign that you've fallen under the sway of an ideologue.

Some folks would rather have someone who has identified the issues that's smart enough to know that he doesn't have all of the answers than someone who ignores the issues altogether, pretends they don't exist, or offers a weak response to those issues and whose only knowledge/substance in regards to financial policy is pushing the status-quo.

Q.E.D.

 

[Mael]

Some folks would rather have someone who has identified the issues that's smart enough to know that he doesn't have all of the answers than someone who ignores the issues altogether, pretends they don't exist, or offers a weak response to those issues and whose only knowledge/substance in regards to financial policy is pushing the status-quo.

The issue is that he's not actually identified the issues, he's just rambling about Wall Street this and that without any real understanding of the problems or the solutions.
You want proof of that?
Look at his "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act" bill

 

[BobTheFork]

He may not have the answers, but at least he is talking about serious issues within America.

You can talk about serious issues any day of the week. It would be far better if he knew how to address these issues.

 

[norm9]

Whatever, he's got a great hashtag campaign and Killer Mike likes him and that's all that matters.

 

[Matt]

I was responding to his first post, not what came later including that analogy about the media that is off. But you know what? The media is a huge problem. They are actually the people I am angriest at this election. I've never had anything against Hillary besides the fact I think she's untrustworthy. Some of her artful smears lately have been posting me off, but even still to rank who deserves my ire it's: The Media>>>>>>DNC>>>Hillary.

Once again, can someone please tell me WHAT the DNC has done?

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

Goodnight Tab.......wait

I disagree. I think my statement is extremely meaningful. You guys really need to recognize that you are in a Corporatocracy before you can expect real change. Every large change happening is around social policies not tied to economic policies, and they have you focusing on the social policies people like Obama passed and ignoring all the economic policies he's passed or more importantly hasn't passed.

Sanders recognizes it and his message is against it. He may not have all the answers on how to fix yet, but he's the only one recognizing the actual issue in your country and has been an issue in your country since the 80s, and you have to start with actually recognizing the issue. This issue is also why your country has declined significantly against most modern nations in economic policies for the average citizen.

Hmmmm

 

[Hindl]

Once again, can someone please tell me WHAT the DNC has done?

They moved NY and California primaries out of Super Tuesday this cycle, thus dragging this thing out far longer than they should have

 

[TyrantII]

I was writing a large post, but it's 1:30am and I'm getting a bit tired, so I'll come back tomorrow, but here's the easiest answer for me.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate you have that has a chance of changing the US from the Corporatocracy it is currently into a more legitimate Democracy (or I guess specifically back to the Republic it's supposed to be).

The one true Scottsman!

Sorry, but in the entire History of the United States something like "The One" has happened once. And Habeus Corpus was suspended, the nation at war, and martial law was enacted. Even then, it's debatable.

Bernie ain't no Lincoln.

The change you demand will not come from one Savior. It will require hard work, years of constituent building, and compromise along the way.

This sort of unicorn thinking is detrimental to enacting the policies progressive actually want to see. Rolling back 40 years of GOP malfease isn't going to be a one man, one job effort.

And the vilification of an ally like Hillary is pretty repulsive. Taking someone that's 90% the way with you on every core issue and excluding them as just as bad is some Teaparty wacko shit.

Fuck these purity tests and appeals to irrational thinking. It's increasingly becoming clear the far left is no better than that far right, only without a realistic plan to actually elect anyone.

 

[marrec]

Who do you think will actually make more change? Someone that goes "ALL THINGS ARE VERY WRONG" and runs around like a headless chicken, or someone that goes "I think this little point A and B should function differently, and here's a detailed plan of how we're going to implement those goals."

I think the disconnect some people are having is that there are a large minority of Bernie Supporters out there who are literally the former. They think everything is wrong and have no idea why or what to do in order to go about fixing it.

I have some sympathy for them, but my patience with Bernie is quickly running out.

 

[Damerman]

So bernie is just another demagogue like trump?


Bernie the snake oil salesman with the pie-eyed single issue platitude.
/hillary stan

 

[Aaronrules380]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

Holy shit that's pretty damning

 

[blackw0lf]

Some folks would rather have someone who has identified the issues that's smart enough to know that he doesn't have all of the answers than someone who ignores the issues altogether, pretends they don't exist, or offers a weak response to those issues and whose only knowledge/substance in regards to financial policy is pushing the status-quo.

This is the status quo?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

Impose a risk fee on the largest financial institutions. Banks and financial companies would be required to pay a fee based on their size and their risk of contributing to another financial crisis.

Close the Volcker Rule’s hedge fund loophole. The Volcker Rule prohibits banks from making risky trading bets with taxpayer-backed money—one of the core protections of the post-financial crisis Wall Street reforms. However, under current law these banks can still invest billions through hedge funds, which are exempt from this rule. Hillary would close that loophole and strengthen the law.

Discourage excessive risk-taking by making senior bankers accountable. Senior managers should lose some or all of their bonus compensation when a large bank suffers losses that threaten its overall financial health.

Make sure no firm is ever too big and too risky to be managed effectively. Hillary’s plan would give regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms to reorganize, downsize, or break apart.

Tackle financial dangers of the “shadow banking” system. Hillary’s plan will enhance transparency and reduce volatility in the “shadow banking system,” which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies.

Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. The growth of high-frequency trading has unnecessarily placed stress on our markets, created instability, and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies. Hillary would impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading and reform rules to make our stock markets fairer, more open, and transparent.

Hillary would also hold both corporations and individuals on Wall Street accountable by:

Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission more resources to prosecute wrongdoing.

Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates’ misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive’s watch, that executive should lose his or her job.

Holding corporations accountable when they break the law. As she enhances individual accountability, Hillary will make sure that corporations don’t treat penalties for breaking the law as merely a cost of doing business, so that we can put an end to the patterns of corporate wrongdoing that we see too often today.

 

[Dangansona]

Once again, can someone please tell me WHAT the DNC has done?

OK this is absolutely my last response because I have a SCRUM meeting in 2 hours I have to prepare for.

The DNC has done an awful job of scheduling debates, has not made a push at all for voter registration compared to the past, has blocked Bernie from accessing Voter Data files (and later Debbie's opponent in Florida as well), has not made a stink about the myriad of voter suppression incidents and party memberships disappearing (which we are seeing happen in New York already, and data doesn't just disappear from databases), pulling back the ban on PAC donations that Obama put into place after being elected, and members have been caught raising money for Hillary.

Like I said, I really don't despise Hillary the way some people in here despise Bernie. But I do share that hatred for mainstream media and Debbie Schultz.

 

[backflip10019]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

Wow. I mean, just, holy shit. Bernie Sanders is more dangerous for this country than Donald Trump.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I wonder if the US was more of a corporatocracy in the 1800s when business leaders held office and pocketed government funds meant to pay for railroad construction and the rail workers' wages.

Or is it more of a corporatocracy today, where corporations influence the government to turn the other cheek while farmers continue to overuse antibiotics in their feed to maintain profits even though we've known since the '50s that it will soon return humanity back to the pre-antibiotic era.

There's a lot to be angry about, but we have problems far beyond the fucking banks.

 

[my6765490]

In 2013 Bernie proposed legislation to break up the banks. It's called the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act".

It's two pages long. So you can easily read it for yourself

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

Actually here I'll just post the entire thing



That's not a summary. That's the actual bill.

What exactly did he intend to accomplish with this so-called "bill"? He supposedly spent all these years being anti-Wall street and this is all he could come up with?

 

[Aaronrules380]

Wow. I mean, just, holy shit. Bernie Sanders is more dangerous for this country than Donald Trump.

I think this is a huge exaggeration and a dangerous thing to say. Trump has literally no real policy at all, and what he does have is a platform of hate. Sanders is Naive and doesn't have a clear vision or goals, but he has some vague ideas of what he wants to get done, and at the very least he won't destroy the lives of many minorities

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So bernie is just another demagogue like trump?


Bernie the snake oil salesman with the pie-eyed single issue platitude.
/hillary stan

This is your take away from this thread? The last few pages have had some good discussion on Bernie and his issues as a candidate that don't really boil down to the drive by junk strawman you posted.

 

[Tabris]

The Clinton have collected a total of $153 million from speaking fees. Clintons have done very well for their donors, especially Wall Street. Show me something they've done to harm their donors. Not what they've said, but what they've done.

I'm going to post this again because no Hillary Clinton supporter has actually answered this. Show me something that Hillary or Bill passed that harmed one of their major donors (to Super PAC, their Foundation, or direct to them). You are currently only supporting what they've talked about, and not what they've actually done.

If you can't answer this with a piece of legislation. Because everything they have passed for their donors flies in the face of all her campaign promises right now - so why do you trust her?

She will flip back to Centrist on economic policies and ensure she keeps her donors happy. It's not actually 90% as mentioned above with Bernie Sanders because me, and a lot of people, believe most of what Hillary is pushing is lip service. TPP will get passed. Net Neutrality will be defeated. Insurance companies will increase their costs. Etc. Etc.