Goldman Sachs CEO backs Hillary, paid her $675,000.00 for 3 speeches totaling just under 1 hour combined in length (liberal, Obama)
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.
How does Goldman Sachs justify this expenditure to their shareholders if the company is not getting anything in return? When you look at it from this angle, it becomes obvious that they expect Clinton to be very favorable to their business. They own her.
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;
What post? The passage that you quoted of me, I was not even responding to you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
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.
No one is disputing with you that what Hillary did can look bad. But you were trying to say she dished out favors and that was absolutely not factual at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
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 ?
How does Goldman Sachs justify this expenditure to their shareholders if the company is not getting anything in return? When you look at it from this angle, it becomes obvious that they expect Clinton to be very favorable to their business. They own her.
That's a very silly idea. Hillary's speaking fees is a bargain considering it cost $3.5M to have a lunch date with Warren Buffett.
What GS got out of the session was a better understanding of their investment risk and reward in Asia; that's worth 100X what they paid for.
Blankfein’s first five questions were about Asia — the rise of China, whether other countries in the region would gravitate to the U.S., the situation in the South China Sea, the nuclear disposition of Japan and how to handle North Korea. Both of the other speeches cover China and the Pacific Rim extensively. Goldman Sachs executives had a good reason to ask about Asia: They were in the process of rapidly expanding their footprint there.
What they weren’t used to was insight into the geopolitical situation in Asia. That’s part of what they were buying from Clinton. As Goldman expanded, executives wanted to know about regional trouble spots, what countries could be in conflict, where might be a safer place to operate.
The typical term for this is political intelligence. Companies probe current or former politicians for information to help dictate where to invest. The higher-level the politician, the more valuable the information. And it doesn’t get any more valuable than the recently departed secretary of state.
How does Goldman Sachs justify this expenditure to their shareholders if the company is not getting anything in return?
How do law school students justify the cost of tuition for which they get to hear lectures and engage in Q&A with professors, some of whom may someday be judges presiding over their cases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
When you look at it from this angle, it becomes obvious that they expect Clinton to be very favorable to their business.
Only if you're intent on finding the nefarious in the innocuous.
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.
That's the average - meaning they took in those who worked 60-70 hours and those who are part-time and they came up with that number. Using the average does not disprove what the article said about many people having to work 60-70 hours a week is not true.
The thing is, there is no guarantee that copying a plan that worked for a 320,000 people nation is going to work on a 300,000,000 nation. Failing several Icelandic banks do not have the same devastating effect as failing several global big banks.
How do law school students justify the cost of tuition for which they get to hear lectures and engage in Q&A with professors, some of whom may someday be judges presiding over their cases?
Only if you're intent on finding the nefarious in the innocuous.
I didn't realize professors were paid 200k plus per lecture, lol. I am interested to know what Goldman's employees actually gained, and were able to apply on the job? Besides, if it was just an innocent lecture, why didn't Clinton's campaign release the transcripts?
I didn't realize professors were paid 200k plus per lecture, lol.
Everything is a matter of context. I cannot believe stock brokers get paid on average so much more than I get paid, and I am sure that nurses (for example) cannot believe that I'm paid so much more than they're paid on average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
I am interested to know what Goldman's employees actually gained, and were able to apply on the job?
I didn't make something up: I provided you a direct answer... precisely what students get from a teacher.
You honestly think that Clinton qualifies as an expert on China?
She was the Secretary of State. She may not understand the history/culture of China like a scholar but she knows China from a geopolitical/economic/foreign angle better than anyone at that point in time.
If you have to approach China from a geopolitical/investment angle and make a list of experts based on that, she'd be at the very top.
.
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.
