Really? I can think of dozens of examples of the party going against the wishes of the base because of industry ties. Hell, Vilsack (for example) made his career riding on the backs of Monsanto lobbyists and now he's in the front of the line for VP pick and has already been serving as head of corporate agricultural interests in the Obama administration. And this is just one example out of hundreds.




What are you talking about? Clinton has spent her candidacy defending Dodd-Frank and opposing the stricter standard Bernie Sanders wanted to return to. Sanders was very specific in saying we should reimplement Glass-Steagall. I haven't heard any specifics from Clinton that would go as far as that

It's sad how so many young liberals think Hillary will undo everything her husband put into place. Too much media narrative about how pure the Left is, they've now unrealistic expectations that will always be disappointed.

All of the different employees from all of the different companies spread across all of the different industries in this country are all competing against one another with their donations in order to either help their preferred candidate, improve conditions for their industry, or to accomplish both simultaneously. That's fair. People want to overturn Citizens United because it eliminates any semblance of fairness in campaign finance; it allows the affluent to essentially buy elections so long as they aren't completely incompetent in how and where they put their money. If you overturn that decision then the people working in different industries, including the financial services industry, can't just magically override longstanding goals of a party with the size/scope of their donations.



While she's defended Dodd-Frank from the dumb suggestions from Republicans that we need to get rid of it, she didn't oppose the "stricter standard" that Sanders wanted, whatever that means. Instead, and in contrast to what he just said he wanted to accomplish, she actually laid out a more detailed, more aggressive set of proposals to actually accomplish the desired result. If you didn't hear those specific proposals then it's probable, likely even, that you just bought into lazy/dumb narratives that don't reflect what actually, in reality, occurred during the campaign. Reforming the financial services industry isn't just "Glass-Stegall." Here's some of the highlights (especially the risk fee) and how what Clinton proposed was built on most of the pillars Elizabeth Warren et al. have been advocating for for so many years:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/hillary-clinton-wants-cut-mega-banks-down-size
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-rolls-out-wall-street-plan

This is why liberals are all over candidates like Obama and Hilary.

Exactly.

And yet political donations from the financial services industry do not affect Hillary Clinton's political behavior at all?

Hot off the metaphorical presses:

100% agree with all pro trump; vote for him and make murrica super great again (because yeah it sucks now, with obama, all his fault etc..)



This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jul 20 2016 05:13pm

This is so true.

So do you guys think the Republicans will be able to get it together in time for 2020 or are we guaranteed eight years of president Hilldawg?

they will sell the same shit they always do but after the world doesn't end in 4 years it's a harder sell

They also don't seem to be learning much from the Trump rise so it's unlikely they get it together in 4 short years