FOR CHANGES!!11ONE1!

Yeah, let's see what he actually does, first.  I think he's a terrible human being but that might not translate to a terrible President.  

Though, granted, anyone who doesn't think he's a "politician" is fooling themselves.  He's played the game for decades and has shown zero regard for anyone not himself.  I have no illusions that he suddenly gives a rat's ass about the poor or middle-class.  If he does end up helping the people who actually need help, it will either be through a desire to improve the economy so he has the potential to make more money or because he wants to feed his ego as the savior of the United States--both of which are totally fine with me, as long as he delivers.

In Italy two Goldman-Sachs advisors, Mario Monti and Romano Prodi, are eminent left wing figures, the former was chief of a large coalition government when the left wing managed to make Berlusconi resign, and previously he served as European Union Commissioner, the latter was chief of the whole left wing coalition for a long time, and he became chief of a left wing government twice and president of the European Union Commission once. Both managed to damage both Italy and the whole Europe during their terms of office. So, while it's not a good thing if the right wing goes to bed with Goldman-Sachs, the left wing isn't a defence against that, either.

Why wouildn't stock prices be high when all policies under Trump will only benefit the rich? If I was a trader or banker in the US I would be thrilled.

Two things.

Firstly, campaigning on a platform that would make support for a policy believable is not equivalent to showing that a candidate supports said policy. For instance, Hillary Clinton supports increased US intervention in Syria, but does not support putting American troops in Syria. I'm not saying that him supporting the policy would be surprising, just that I want more evidence of it before I believe that this is, in fact, the case.

Secondly, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for multiple sources, especially in an election season when we have had so many reports turn out to be false (such as when ABC incorrectly reported that members of the Obama staff had edited out key portions of Benghazi related emails in order to make them look better for Clinton). I find it somewhat striking that a United Kingdom based publication would have picked up on this story while, from what I can tell, literally no American source has.

Traders actively stand to lose money if policies begin to immensely favor the rich; as the first place people will look to pull money out of if necessary is their investments. This becomes doubly problematic when the middle class stops investing in the stock market entirely, leaving traders without people to trade for. The stock market is largely based around how large investors and traders believe the middle class will react to various events.

I don't agree with the rule. It's just another example of a regulation that literally backfires on the very people it is supposed to help. It just makes it even harder for the middle class to get funds with low fees or even find brokers that will accept people that have smaller amounts of money. It's a feel good rule that doesn't actually help anybody.

Maybe this will stop China from "raping America " whatever that meant, was there something in this rule about country's having to give consent?

it doesnt change the facts.

lol China won't even look at the US after Trump is done with it. Even Russia will be ashamed to admit they wanted this.