Donald Trump is becoming Wall Street’s best friend

[BainsBane]

The smart money on Wall Street bet on Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio to be the Republican nominee in the 2016 presidential election -- and came up empty. A month ago, it looked like the best bet for Wall Streeters hoping to back a candidate might be Democrat Hillary Clinton.

But now, Donald Trump seems to be evolving his way into Wall Street’s favor. He recently hired a former Goldman Sachs banker to head his fundraising effort, including outreach to billionaire hedge-fund managers. Trump formalized a plan with the Republican National Committee to raise large sums from donors able to write six-figure checks, and he appears ready to reverse an earlier pledge and accept support from super PACs able to corral millions in funding from rich donors.

His views toward Wall Street seem to be changing at the same time he’s hearing out wealthy Wall Street donors. Trump recently said that dismantling the Dodd-Frank banking reforms put in place after the 2008 financial crash would be one of his top priorities as president. That’s manna for bankers: Those rules were supposed to reduce risk in the banking system and prevent the need for future bailouts, but bank honchos complain they’ve slashed lending and profitability. And after saying he’d likely get rid of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, whose dovish bent is generally good for stocks, Trump has now softened his attitude, saying, “I am not the enemy of Janet Yellen.” Those are bullish words for markets.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-is-becoming-wall-street-s-best-friend-152323629.html

[underthematrix]

1. CONSUMERS own Wall Street

act accordingly

[pampango]

2. One more thing for his right wing populist base to ignore. n/t

[spanone]

3. he needs money.

[BainsBane]

4. Yes, and ultimately the only thing he truly believes in is himself

so policy and issues are entirely flexible.

[GummyBearz]

5. Wall street will play both sides of the fence

Hillary is already bought and paid for. Now they need to buy the other candidate. Yay us

[BainsBane]

7. I'm bored with these empty slogans

Either you are a Democrat or not. Your choice. Enough with the bumper sticker inanity. That kind of attack is devoid of content, and entirely hypocritical when put in the light of the other Dem candidate's unyielding support for the MIC and the gun industry, as well as his own fundraising from Wall Street.

To pretend Trump and Clinton are in any way comparable is an obscenely dishonest. You want to campaign for Trump, do it in someone else's thread. I have no tolerance for this crap. Sanders lost. As much as you wish the majority of Democratic voters had no say in electing the nominee and you and your friends were the only ones allowed to participate in the electoral process, that's not how it works. Clinton is the nominee and on June 7 will surpass the number of delegates required for nomination. Either you accept the fact that democracy means you don't always get your way or protest the electoral will of the majority of Democrats. This notion that Sanders is above it all has been proven false and rejected by voters. You can either deal with that or not, support Clinton--the Democrat--or the hateful, racist, misogynist POS that is Trump. For decent human beings there is no contest. For those fundamentally opposed to the rights of the majority, they will carry on their vitriol against Clinton, but not in my threads and not to me. And after June 14 they won't be able to get away with it anywhere on DU either.

[GummyBearz]

10. Wow

I hope you have that rant saved to a word file so you can quickly copy/paste it to save yourself some time in the future.

In response: Wall Street owns your candidate far more than they own any other. You can either deal with that or not.

[Katashi_itto]

6. So with Hillary bought and paid for too, it's now simply Hobson's choice.

[BainsBane]

8. No, she isn't

and unlike Bernie she didn't vote to deregulate derivatives and help bring about the financial crisis that nearly brought the country into ruins. Nor has she rolled over for the gun industry and placed their unfettered profits above the rights of citizens to seek redress in courts, or the corporate gun lobby and profits for Lockheed Martin over human lives. White it may prove politically convenient to scapegoat a single industry and a couple of corporations, it is not intellectually consistent but rather willfully misleading.

The choice is between a Democrat who value the rights of the majority, equal rights, and basic liberal principles over a candidate--Trump--who promises to implement racism and misogyny and strip the majority of equal rights. Either cut or enhance social security, build green energy and wean America off fossil fuels or deny climate change. The contrasts go on and on. For anyone who upholds any semblance of liberal, leftist or progressive values, or even just cares about competence in government, the choice is a clear as day. The choice couldn't be clearer: voting for policies to improve Americans lives or opting for hatred of the non-white majority. For decent human beings, the choice is clear. For racists and misogynists, their choice is also clear. This is the quintessential no-brainer.

Perhaps now some who opposed Clinton in the primary will decide to take a few minute to look at her policy positions. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
If they do, they will find that the candidate bears little relation to the strawwoman created by her detractors.

[Katashi_itto]

9. Yeah... policy positions that change dependent on which way the wind is blowing.