It's really tedious to constantly have the primary argument against Hillary be "OBVIOUSLY she'd be bad for finreg." If it was so obvious, probably you guys wouldn't have to repeatedly post it in every discussion. The fact that you do kind of suggests that it's not obvious and maybe you should consider some substantive arguments about her policy approaches.
What, and you guys don't take every opportunity to say "I completely disagree with his position on guns", when, unlike on Wall Street and the banks, where there a major differences, such as Bernie would re-instate Glass-Steagall, and Hillary would not, their positions are very close.
Serious question: how on earth did we end up allowing the banks to use depositor money to speculate, in the first place, and what is the difference between this and a local branch manager, with a serious gambling problem, who uses depositor money at the casino (on his way to jail, "But I promised to pay it all back, every last penny!")? I'll tell you one difference: the former practice is entirely legal...
But, what I want to know is, what does she say at these $225k a pop speeches, such as the Goldman Sachs ones in SC, NY and AZ, in 2013. Some poor guy took a photo at her American Society of Travel Agents convention speech in Florida, and was immediately pounced on by her security team, who promptly wiped his smartphone (actually, they showed some mercy, and just deleted the photo). Despite searching hi and low, I could not find a single video of one of her payed speeches, but it's academic, the speeches are largely a way for these groups to show their support for her political positions, and she could probably talk about anything.