Goldman Sachs CEO backs Hillary, paid her $675,000.00 for 3 speeches totaling just under 1 hour combined in length (Putin, ethics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Goldman Sachs CEO has endorsed Hillary Clinton -- as has 52 of the nation's 100 largest newspapers. Of these 100, only four endorsed Trump. Clinton receiving endorsements isn't a red letter.
More than what? More than Hillary giving a speech? More than a cat burying it's ****?
No, I've already told you that the average worker in Iceland has to put in a 60-70 work week and work 2-3 jobs in order to pay for their "recovery". You cannot sell that plan to the American people.
Of course, though, everything isn’t all rosy. Many Icelanders have two or three jobs to sustain themselves and their families post-2008, and a sudden spike in taxes – an inevitable result of letting the banks fail – made the burden even harder to bear.
Though unemployment is down (it’s less than 5% of the population), you could say that “Iceland is a victim of its own success.” Very high standards of living and 60-70 hour work weeks create a bit of a pinch in the pockets.
No, I've already told you that the average worker in Iceland has to put in a 60-70 work week and work 2-3 jobs in order to pay for their "recovery". You cannot sell that plan to the American people..
The average male worker in Iceland puts in 47 hours. The average female 37.
The average is 47. The same as males in Iceland. We are 20 trillion in debt. We are going to have to kick that up to 70 hours to even make a dent in that.
All candidates take positions to work for things they themselves can not actually do alone.
Not like this. What you are referring to includes things like funding certain initiatives. Of course the POTUS cannot do that unilaterally, but it is the POTUS's responsibility and right to propose the federal budget to Congress. The POTUS has an official role.
By contrast, with regard to what we were talking about, a constitutional amendment or changes to House/Senate rules, the POTUS has no official role whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
JFC, the entire stench ridden Occupy Wall St was about being against this very thing. How the liberals have changed in just a few short years.
I'm a liberal. I vocally opposed Occupy Wall Street. I won't rehash all my criticisms of it here, because that's not what's salient. What is salient is that Occupy Wall Street were not "the liberals". They were a left-wing fringe (just like the Bernie Bros were a left-wing fringe, and), just like the Tea Party was a right-wing fringe. They never reflected the core values that make me a liberal. Occupy Wall Street (and the Bernie Bros) are better off with liberals (like me) in charge than they would be with reactionaries (like Paul Ryan) or fascists (like Donald Trump) in charge, so we have common ground on which to build a coalition. They cannot, and the reasonable ones do not, expect to get everything they want from the coalition, but they can expect to see far more progress along the lines they want to see as part of our coalition than apart from it.
What you are referring to includes things like funding certain initiatives. Of course the POTUS cannot do that unilaterally, but it is the POTUS's responsibility and right to propose the federal budget to Congress. The POTUS has an official role.
It's no difference than Obama promising health care for all. He didn't accomplish that either.
Quote:
By contrast, with regard to what we were talking about, a constitutional amendment or changes to House/Senate rules, the POTUS has no official role whatsoever.
A president has no official role in any law or program he promotes outside of signing it. A president can most certainly push and promote an agenda like a Constitutional Amendment.
Quote:
I'm a liberal. I vocally opposed Occupy Wall Street. I won't rehash all my criticisms of it here, because that's not what's salient. What is salient is that Occupy Wall Street were not "the liberals". They were a left-wing fringe (just like the Bernie Bros were a left-wing fringe, and), just like the Tea Party was a right-wing fringe. They never reflected the core values that make me a liberal. Occupy Wall Street (and the Bernie Bros) are better off with liberals (like me) in charge than they would be with reactionaries (like Paul Ryan) or fascists (like Donald Trump) in charge, so we have common ground on which to build a coalition. They cannot, and the reasonable ones do not, expect to get everything they want from the coalition, but they can expect to see far more progress along the lines they want to see as part of our coalition than apart from it.
No, I've already told you that the average worker in Iceland has to put in a 60-70 work week and work 2-3 jobs in order to pay for their "recovery". You cannot sell that plan to the American people.
.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
We are discussing (or trying to) Hillary being in the pocket and owing Wall Street financial institutions, and others who are paying millions to her. You are trying to deflect in absurd ways.
Since you tried to pivot away and not respond to my last post, here is the FBI policy that clearly states the mandate;
In the section prohibiting employees from participating in criminal investigations in certain cases where there’s a personal or political relationship, the manual says an exception would be if: "The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution."
So you can claim all you want this antiquated notion means nothing. However in many professions, especially those revolving around the legal profession and government, it is considered part of the Canons of Ethics.
I am still waiting to hear why you think GS and the ME Shieks are paying the Clinton's 100's of millions od dollars ?
No, that's not like this. And I explained the difference, so now you're just at the point where you're denying reality and there's no point left to discussing it with you.
Liberals are such hypocrites.
The rule was not made up by me, rather it has been in place before we were born, so as to not appear as if something is inappropriate. Many professions like the legal system use the principle, and for good reason.
Regardless, you just ignore (willfully) the reality of the situation. But lets see why you think critics are all wet.
What do you think is the reason GS or others have paid Hillary massive amounts of money for one speech?
Please don't insult our intelligence by playing semantics saying the ubiquitous "access" word. Or if you are going to use the term instead of payola, bribes, favors, explain EXACTLY what access means to you?
For example there are reports that Gulf State sheiks have paid Hillary & Bill 100 million dollars. What are they getting for their money in your estimation
You must not be familiar with the investing world. To hear someone who could be the future POTUS talks about her thoughts on trade and economy is priceless. To me, the Q&A session after the presentation is really the meat of the session, where one can basically ask her point blank questions and hear her thoughts and reaction. If I were in that room, I'd have so many questions for her regarding her view on economic issues and the answers (and also her reaction) I get can potentially help me make a lot of money. What one wants to get from the session is not so much what she said, but her view and approach. Because if one can get a good feel for what a POTUS is up to, that can really help interpreting the market condition. In other words, that money is for the chance to pick Hillary's brains and to translate that information into investment strategy.
Notice I'm not saying you ask point blank questions to Hillary on which stocks to buy. No, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to understand how Hillary sees the world, because markets are shaped by policy makers. To be able to learn information directly from the source that others cannot, that's why it's worth the price of admission.
I can trace my investment success to two conversations I had with two different people. That's it. Having a sit down with a very smart person and pick that person's brain can be life changing. That's something you don't understand.
The price GS paid is a bargain considering it cost $3.5M to have a lunch date with Warren Buffett. And I think the $3.5M sit down with Buffett is so worth it.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
