Hedge funds gave Clinton $48500000. They gave Trump $19000.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary Clinton continues to be the consensus for anyone with a brain. News at 11.

[Human]

There's a good explanation as to why Wall Street is so anti-Donald Trump:

Most people who work on Wall Street are some of the smartest people in the world. Most Wall Street firms recruit from top schools like Harvard and Yale. A large plurality of Ivy League grads end up working on Wall Street. Most people on Wall Street went to Ivy League schools and were at the top of their class at these schools. These people are the best of the best academically speaking.

Smart people don't like Donald Trump. Donald Trump does terribly with highly educated voters according to most polls. Most people who work on Wall Street are very intelligent and Ivy League educated.

[Intell]

Most people who work on Wall Street are some of the smartest people in the world. Most Wall Street firms recruit from top schools like Harvard and Yale. A large plurality of Ivy League grads end up working on Wall Street. Most people on Wall Street went to Ivy League schools and were at the top of their class at these schools. These people are the best of the best academically speaking.

Smart people don't like Donald Trump. Donald Trump does terribly with highly educated voters according to most polls. Most people who work on Wall Street are very intelligent and Ivy League educated.

So the rest of the country is un-appreciated, people who aren't highly educated, their opinions don't matter. Most Ivy-leauge educated voters, were born into a life of richness and fortune, and don't understand the concerns of daily Americans. Clinton supporters continues to only care about the rich and upper-class snobbery, not understanding the concerns of working families.

[Human]

Most people who work on Wall Street are some of the smartest people in the world. Most Wall Street firms recruit from top schools like Harvard and Yale. A large plurality of Ivy League grads end up working on Wall Street. Most people on Wall Street went to Ivy League schools and were at the top of their class at these schools. These people are the best of the best academically speaking.

Smart people don't like Donald Trump. Donald Trump does terribly with highly educated voters according to most polls. Most people who work on Wall Street are very intelligent and Ivy League educated.

So the rest of the country is un-appreciated, people who aren't highly educated, their opinions don't matter. Most Ivy-leauge educated voters, were born into a life of richness and fortune, and don't understand the concerns of daily Americans. Clinton supporters continues to only care about the rich and upper-class snobbery, not understanding the concerns of working families.

Hillary Clinton cares about the working-class. She wants to increase the minimum wage, invest in infrastructure and education, implement anti-poverty programs, pro-Union, pro-Obamacare, and she wants to make debt-free college available to everyone.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Academia, of course, makes you smarter.  Not more intelligent.

[Intell]

Clinton Supporters now support rich people, and banksters ruining the american people, and the economy, taking advantage of working families, gleeing in the support of rich, corrupt hedge funds, which ruin the lives of many people. If you dare criticize against this, you're a racist or a xenophobe, or even anti-Semitic. .

Loool

This is proof that most people who criticize Wall Street are uninformed and have no idea what they're talking about.

How do hedge funds 'ruin the lives of many people'?

Hedge funds are investment funds that harmlessly invest in the stock market to drive returns for them and their investors. Almost all hedge funds don't ruin the lives of many people. I understand the hatred towards investment banks, but not hedge funds. Most hedge funds are harmless. Shkreli is a rare exception.

Hedgefunds, are a private company, which under under a profit-scheme above all else. Their speculation using borrowed capital, added risk to the baking system, which couldn't be kept intact. Their risky investments, created more losses within the market, and as a result there was a downturn, which further expanded into other areas, causing and magnifying a global economic crisis.

[Human]

Donald Trump doesn't care about the working-class. He wants to cut regulations and was anti-minimum wage increase a couple of months ago.

[Intell]

Most people who work on Wall Street are some of the smartest people in the world. Most Wall Street firms recruit from top schools like Harvard and Yale. A large plurality of Ivy League grads end up working on Wall Street. Most people on Wall Street went to Ivy League schools and were at the top of their class at these schools. These people are the best of the best academically speaking.

Smart people don't like Donald Trump. Donald Trump does terribly with highly educated voters according to most polls. Most people who work on Wall Street are very intelligent and Ivy League educated.

So the rest of the country is un-appreciated, people who aren't highly educated, their opinions don't matter. Most Ivy-leauge educated voters, were born into a life of richness and fortune, and don't understand the concerns of daily Americans. Clinton supporters continues to only care about the rich and upper-class snobbery, not understanding the concerns of working families.

Hillary Clinton cares about the working-class. She wants to increase the minimum wage, invest in infrastructure and education, implement anti-poverty programs, pro-Union, pro-Obamacare, and she wants to make debt-free college available to everyone.

Yet her policies, and the political cultural ideology, is completely against what working people care for. Her support for mass-immigration, outsourcing and free trade are evident, and caused the ruining of american jobs, and resulted in the destruction of the working class. Her policies, are one based upon upper-class liberalism than the working class, which her supporters have many a times demonized.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Clinton Supporters now support rich people, and banksters ruining the american people, and the economy, taking advantage of working families, gleeing in the support of rich, corrupt hedge funds, which ruin the lives of many people. If you dare criticize against this, you're a racist or a xenophobe, or even anti-Semitic. .

Loool

This is proof that most people who criticize Wall Street are uninformed and have no idea what they're talking about.

How do hedge funds 'ruin the lives of many people'?

Hedge funds are investment funds that harmlessly invest in the stock market to drive returns for them and their investors. Almost all hedge funds don't ruin the lives of many people. I understand the hatred towards investment banks, but not hedge funds. Most hedge funds are harmless. Shkreli is a rare exception.

And usually those returns don't exceed those of the S&P 500.

[136or142]

She has said that she would only appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Citizen's United and, if necessary, would support a Constitutional Amendment.

I would also like to see her support a Constitutional Amendment that would limit campaign spending and limit lobbying in some way, but her proposal is a start and could be easily done with the replacement of Antonin Scalia (RIH.)

I trust her to do this not just because she has said so, but because the vast majority of federal Democratic politicians have taken a position to seek the overturning of Citizen's United.  If the financial industry is willing to back her knowing that she seeks to overturn Citizen's United and that she seeks to bring in additional regulations on the financial sector, I have no problem with them supporting her on her terms.

Deranged Donald either has taken no position on this issue, or more likely, has taken multiple positions at different times, or possibly even at the same time.

I don't know about Deranged Donald himself, but his idiot supporter on CNN, Jeffrey Lord, got around the issue of lobbying, financial donations and the potential still inadequate regulations of banks by blaming the financial crisis of 2007/2008 on Bill Clinton's banning of redlining, which, as anybody who has studied the crash of 2008 knows is nonsense.

So, I wouldn't trust Deranged Donald to address this or anything else.

[Mr. Reactionary]

She has said that she would only appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Citizen's United and, if necessary, would support a Constitutional Amendment.

I trust her to do this not just because she has said so, but because the vast majority of federal Democratic politicians have taken a position to seek the overturning of Citizen's United. 

I trust her to do so as well. She has a long history of opposing the 1st Amendment. She has been vocally pro censorship of music lyrics, pro censorship of video games, pro censorship of talk radio, anti-political speech (if its against her), anti RFRA, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No one cares about video games and music moral panic anymore. The reason is the age group that freaked out about such things back in the day today are actually the main fans of the things that were targeted by moral guardians. No one in Current Year seriously believes that video games are only or even primarily just for children. And Katy Perry even performed at the DNC, and she is hardly some "clean" pop star and would've freaked out the PMRC back in the day.

[Devout Centrist]

She has said that she would only appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Citizen's United and, if necessary, would support a Constitutional Amendment.

I trust her to do this not just because she has said so, but because the vast majority of federal Democratic politicians have taken a position to seek the overturning of Citizen's United. 

I trust her to do so as well. She has a long history of opposing the 1st Amendment. She has been vocally pro censorship of music lyrics, pro censorship of video games, pro censorship of talk radio, anti-political speech (if its against her), anti RFRA, etc.

Are we talking about Hillary Clinton or Tipper Gore?

[Mr. Reactionary]

She has said that she would only appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Citizen's United and, if necessary, would support a Constitutional Amendment.

I trust her to do this not just because she has said so, but because the vast majority of federal Democratic politicians have taken a position to seek the overturning of Citizen's United. 

I trust her to do so as well. She has a long history of opposing the 1st Amendment. She has been vocally pro censorship of music lyrics, pro censorship of video games, pro censorship of talk radio, anti-political speech (if its against her), anti RFRA, etc.

Are we talking about Hillary Clinton or Tipper Gore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1udjd2Aq3E

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/02/05/can-we-forgive-hillary-clinton-for-her-past-war-on-video-games/#1ec0c85c98d6

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=517

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s54

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-ruling-hillary-clinton-108460

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/10/hillary_clinton_on_citizens_united_was_terrible_and_terrifying.html

[136or142]

She has said that she would only appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Citizen's United and, if necessary, would support a Constitutional Amendment.

I trust her to do this not just because she has said so, but because the vast majority of federal Democratic politicians have taken a position to seek the overturning of Citizen's United.

I trust her to do so as well. She has a long history of opposing the 1st Amendment. She has been vocally pro censorship of music lyrics, pro censorship of video games, pro censorship of talk radio, anti-political speech (if its against her), anti RFRA, etc.

1.The idea that money = speech is laughable to me and to many people, probably the clear majority of people.

2.It doesn't surprise me that Hillary Clinton would have wanted to censor some of those things anyway (I don't know what you are referring to with 'talk radio' or 'political speech', maybe Hillary Clinton has called for reinstating the fairness doctrine.)  I don't think RFRA has got much to do with freedom of speech issues.

Regarding lyrics, video games and pornography as well though, that was the reason that I posted here that, contrary to the allegedly universal reaction that everybody loved Michelle Obama's speech, that I personally didn't care for it.  I especially didn't care for the first half of her speech which essentially boiled down to 'but think of the children.'  That is essentially the argument used to censor lyrics, video games and pornography (and before them, comic books and movies.)

A 'nanny state' politician is somebody who wants to protect adults from making what most protect believe are harmful decisions for themselves, I'm not even sure if there is even a term for the 'think of the children' politicians who are on both the left (generally the same politicians that are the 'nanny state' politicians) and the right (generally the religious conservatives.) Maybe they could be termed 'parental state' politicians.

Fortunately though, thanks to the internet, banning those things has been made much more difficult. As China and several other nations have shown, it actually isn't very difficult to 'shut down' the internet, but it is nearly impossible to censor some websites without in the end needing to shut down the entire internet.

So, depending on the degree of parental oversite, children have had pretty much unfettered access to video games, music, movies, comic books and even pornography for around 15 years now, and as far as I can tell, the world hasn't fallen apart yet.

[RINO Tom]

In a close, contested election, Wall Street shows who they really want (Romney got way, way more than Obama in 2012), but they're going to back whomever they think the winner is going to be, if they perceive it to be obvious.

[Bismarck]

As a fiscal centrist (but socially liberal), the fact that our candidate has support amongst Wall Street donors doesn't bother me in the least.

^^

Yeah, I agree with you.

Almost all of the animosity towards (((Wall Street))) is due to anti-semitism.
 

Yeah those dang anti Semites like Bernie Sanders.

[Mr. Reactionary]

1.The idea that money = speech is laughable to me and to many people, probably the clear majority of people.

The idea that the government does not have the power to tell you whether or not you can walk around with a sign during a protest, but does have the power to prevent you from spending more than 10 cents on said sign is equally laughable. Its not OK to ban flag burning, but it is OK to ban monetary expenditures on flag burning protests to 1 penny? Future Justice Kagan admitted during oral arguments that the FEC could ban books using that argument; you have the right to write books but not the write to have them printed if doing so costs money. If speech = expression, and expression entails action, it really is not a stretch to accept that expending money in some circumstances is expression. I mean, you have a right to have the assistance of a lawyer during a criminal trial. By your logic that would not be infringed by the government banning people from hiring a lawyer because it involves icky dirty money. Or that people have the right to own a weapon but not the right to buy a weapon in the first place unless it costs less than a dollar. The idea that the 1st Amendment applies to Kim Kardashian selfies but not political speech is absurd.

[IceSpear]

Trump has terrible economic policies. Its not surprising wall street would back the candidate that won't throw the world markets into chaos.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

In a close, contested election, Wall Street shows who they really want (Romney got way, way more than Obama in 2012), but they're going to back whomever they think the winner is going to be, if they perceive it to be obvious.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  Trump is pretty unacceptable to the Wall Street crowd on three basic fronts - trade, immigration, and general volatility - that makes them nervous.  I doubt they actually believe Hillary will landslide this election, as it would belie most of the polling data we see.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Hedge funds gave Clinton $48500000. They gave Trump $19000.

Hillary is winning college educated whites.  College educated whites run hedge funds.  What am I missing?

[Sorenroy]

1.The idea that money = speech is laughable to me and to many people, probably the clear majority of people.

The idea that the government does not have the power to tell you whether or not you can walk around with a sign during a protest, but does have the power to prevent you from spending more than 10 cents on said sign is equally laughable. Its not OK to ban flag burning, but it is OK to ban monetary expenditures on flag burning protests to 1 penny? Future Justice Kagan admitted during oral arguments that the FEC could ban books using that argument; you have the right to write books but not the write to have them printed if doing so costs money. If speech = expression, and expression entails action, it really is not a stretch to accept that expending money in some circumstances is expression. I mean, you have a right to have the assistance of a lawyer during a criminal trial. By your logic that would not be infringed by the government banning people from hiring a lawyer because it involves icky dirty money. Or that people have the right to own a weapon but not the right to buy a weapon in the first place unless it costs less than a dollar. The idea that the 1st Amendment applies to Kim Kardashian selfies but not political speech is absurd.

This statement is cancer. Of course there should be limitations on what this covers. What's going on here isn't spending $0.01 and calling that freedom of speech, it's the difference between someone being able to spend $2,700 (or more to other party organizations) or $10,000,000+.

[jaichind]

There's a good explanation as to why Wall Street is so anti-Donald Trump:

Most people who work on Wall Street are some of the smartest people in the world. Most Wall Street firms recruit from top schools like Harvard and Yale. A large plurality of Ivy League grads end up working on Wall Street. Most people on Wall Street went to Ivy League schools and were at the top of their class at these schools. These people are the best of the best academically speaking.

Smart people don't like Donald Trump. Donald Trump does terribly with highly educated voters according to most polls. Most people who work on Wall Street are very intelligent and Ivy League educated.

This is mostly not true.  Some Ivy League grads does go to Wall Street but that peak has passed after 2008.  Overall Ivy League graduates does not make that much more than graduates from other Universities.   





This is because a large chunk of them actually go into academics which does not pay that much.  Of course if you look at the 90 percentile comp of Ivy League graduates then it will be fairly high. 

Now, given most of my circle of friends are from this bloc of people that work in the finance sector, I would say that most of them publically denounce Trump although many do have private concerns about Clinton.  Most back Clinton more out of the fact that she will protect the status quo and not rock the boat. 

[RINO Tom]

In a close, contested election, Wall Street shows who they really want (Romney got way, way more than Obama in 2012), but they're going to back whomever they think the winner is going to be, if they perceive it to be obvious.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  Trump is pretty unacceptable to the Wall Street crowd on three basic fronts - trade, immigration, and general volatility - that makes them nervous.  I doubt they actually believe Hillary will landslide this election, as it would belie most of the polling data we see.

Considering Hillary Clinton is more protectionist than Trump and is calling for very progressive reforms of how Wall Street does business, I'd say either they VERY much care about volatility, or they're quite confident Hillary is going to reach 270.

[Human]

In a close, contested election, Wall Street shows who they really want (Romney got way, way more than Obama in 2012), but they're going to back whomever they think the winner is going to be, if they perceive it to be obvious.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  Trump is pretty unacceptable to the Wall Street crowd on three basic fronts - trade, immigration, and general volatility - that makes them nervous.  I doubt they actually believe Hillary will landslide this election, as it would belie most of the polling data we see.

Considering Hillary Clinton is more protectionist than Trump and is calling for very progressive reforms of how Wall Street does business, I'd say either they VERY much care about volatility, or they're quite confident Hillary is going to reach 270.

Hillary is not more protectionist than Donald Trump lol. Donald Trump has spent his whole entire life fighting against his free trade. His whole campaign his based around immigration and trade (and nothing else). Don't get me wrong, Hillary is still a protectionist overall, but she isn't as anti-free trade as Donald Trump. Donald Trump has literally called for a f'ing 45% tarrif on all Chinese exports (unlike Hillary). How is Hillary more protectionist than he is?