Double speak literally allows Trump to say anything.

it's called having the backing of the party if not he would of just ran as an independent

it's ok to just admit you were fooled by a fraud

there is still time to not vote for him

Backing....bending over.....whatever.....

Never heard such rediculusness. Trust Hillary? Man thats some funny stuff right there

He was mostly self-funding, certainly noticeably more than any of his competitors. I'd give it a mostly true.

I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest. Wall Street is just as ambiguous as "the blacks" or "poor people." In terms of regulation and philosophy, Wall Street is pretty diverse. One potential regulation that I'd like to see is stricter regulation on commodity trading. I fully support futures contracts as a form of risk management, but I really don't support speculation on necessary commodities (oil, wheat, corn, etc.) in general. Back in 2008, speculators drove up the price of oil to about 140 per barrel which had a pretty drastic effect on the economy. If I had it my way, you'd be forced to take delivery of the commodity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/how-hillary-clinton-would-regulate-the-too-big-to-fail-banks.html?_r=0

Here's a decent start, I reckon. Much better than Bernie's "Well uh, we'll uh, we'll break em up but good, trust me!" plan.

Here's a bit more with less detail:

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

Etc etc.

"But her approach stops short of the wholesale breakup of too-big-to-fail banks favored by Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Warren."

You have to realize that no regulation is going to stop the wide spread corruption unless we breakup the banks. Anything else is a farce, it will be business as usual under Clinton.

You would be my Secretary of Commerce.