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.
Hillary got her money from making speeches to big corporations .
Much different than running and growing large businesses .
That was my point - how you make your money matters as much as how much you have. Heck some youtube product reviewers make more money than the CEOs of my previous companies! Doesn't make that person more qualified or talented at anything other than reviewing products on youtube. That's the shade that's kinda missing from Trump's statement, and I'm sure he's thinking it (because it's reasonable) but he could've avoided all this flack by just saying that.
I don't see where Trump actually said anything like that.
Candidates with industrial-strength managerial experience (CEOs, COOs, CFOs, etc.) command exceptionally high compensation, because the skillsets they possess are relatively rare.
If somebody is making $100K, that's great for them, but the chances are that they would not have the requisite experience to manage a federal Cabinest-level department with tens of thousands of employees.
Candidates for Cabinet-level positions with that level of experience are very likely to be quite well compensated already just by dint of circumstance. They will already be financial high achievers by having virtue of having demonstrated the proven ability to manage extremely large organizations, something that your average $100K person usually lacks.
So, what Trump is saying (and you clearly missed it completely) is that he would not expect to find the management skills necessary for these positions in a candidate who has not already demonstrated them, and hence who is not being compensated as if he/she had.
He could have put this more diplomatically, perhaps, but then again...his trademark is plain talk with a minimum of politically correct blather.
This is wayyyyy too rational an explanation for CD. I agree, I "got" what the prez was saying but like usual he prob could've helped his own case more by just putting it in a different way.
He's being attacked by the left because we are all supposed to pretend everybody is the same .
The homeless guy on the street or the recent illegal alien that ended the country should be viewed just the same as an experienced and educated executive of a top country .
Because "people are people we are all equal "
The thing is they are hypocrites and don't even believe this stuff themselves but they want other people to think they believe that .
No, no, no, no, and no.
We all want smart, educated, experienced people in leadership roles. Most of those people are also going to be wealthy and more power to them.
But there's no need to be a Goldman Sachs bootlicker. They played a major role in wrecking the U.S. economy in 2008. Hillary shouldn't have been accepting their donations and Trump shouldn't be singing the praises of their executives and appointing them to high-level positions. They're crooks. Not because they'r wealthy, but because their immoral greedy bastards. And you were saying the same thing 8 months ago.
Hillary got her money from making speeches to big corporations .
Much different than running and growing large businesses .
Have you always felt that way jm?
On 10/25/16 jm1982 said:
Quote:
Surprise surprise!
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein on supporting Hillary Clinton - Business Insider
For those that don't know Goldman Sachs was one of the big companies that lied about investments and played a big big role in the creating the Great Recession .
They paid a $5billion fine but likely caused much more damage .
Of course no jail time for the criminals at Goldman .
Seems pretty dumb and arrogant for this scumbag to come out like this especially when people already view Hillary's coziness with Goldman as a negative .
That whole thread is a freaking gold mine of hypocrisy. Most of the regular Trump supporters are there bashing Goldman Sachs. Now they can't get enough of rich bankers.
I get it now. They are only the smartest, most successful people when Trump talks to them or about them. When Hillary talks to them or about them, they're greedy bastards who wrecked the economy. And if Hillary took money from them, they're bad. But if they benefit financially from "serving" in the Government and help craft policies that put more money in their pockets, they're good.
Whew! Thanks for helping out with that.
No one debates that companies like Goldman Sachs & Exxon Mobil hire top people. To work your way to the top spots in those corporations, you have to be exceptional at what you do. None of that is dependent on who is speaking to them.
When a politician is getting paid by them, then brings them onto their cabinet, it beholdens the politician to them, it creates a conflict of interests, it opens the door to the politician working to push THEIR corporate agenda.
If a politician hasn't been taking massive sums of money from the corporations, like Trump, then hires the extremely talented people who used to work for top corporations to help push HIS agenda, I have much less of an issue with that.
Do you trust your daily driven vehicle of choice to a billion dollar industry like GM Toyota Ford or to an obscure Brand of YUGO?
Do you trust your health in the hands of an experienced doctor/surgeon or a fly by night operation down in Mexico? Or in a garage at a formerly licensed surgeons house?
Do you trust a law firm to represent you? Or a criminal justice graduate who just passed the BAR exam?
Do you trust a licensed contractor or the guy in a beat up old pickup truck who's ad in the penny saver to fix your electrical problems, to leaky roof?
Do you trust a 50 dollar prime rib and lobster to a 5 star chef or kid that flipped burgers at McDonalds?
Guess this snowflake mentality of "I'm offended resist Trump" defeats logic and common sense...
Your similarities aren't relevant or similar. I am saying why appoint someone poor or rich, just appoint someone in the middle. That is all.
The greatest president we had was among the poorest: Lincoln
The worst President we had is the richest: The one who shall not be named.
Think about it.
hmm... so what you are saying the guy that is now president is the worst president.... not one for historical reality are you?
he may end up being bad... really bad... good... great.... time will tell but what we know is he has been president for a few months.
and this guy is worse than the string of guys that were miserable failures leading up to the civil war? I assume from your post, you don't have any desire for intellectual honesty.
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.
I agree, I "got" what the prez was saying but like usual he prob could've helped his own case more by just putting it in a different way.
