Rand Paul Gets Private Audience at Goldman Sachs

Ron Paul talked to nearly everyone too. Has everyone forgotten?

It's Rand's votes that matter. We should all be watching them closely.
 
This was not some clandestine meeting in some smoke filled room. Rand addressed 200 people and the Q & A session was broadcast to the entire company. Rand is one of several to have appeared in a speaker series program at Goldman Sachs. This sounds similar in format to Ron Paul's visit to Google in 2007.
 
Ron Paul had a track record of 40 ####ing years.

That is a huge umbrella Rand is standing under. A year and a half with some curious votes and a deep lack of solitary no votes is not equivalent.

We are all just assuming this is what his Dad would look like if his dad was playing to win. It is a big gamble.

Rand's year and a half probably puts him the 1%. Not everyone should be held to a 40 year standard. twomp isn't wrong though. Rand is sort of like other politicians in that his words don't always match his actions. Normally that would be a bad thing but his actions fall more in line with a principled stance whereas his words are much more moderate. It's sort of the opposite of what moderates do (pretend to be conservative during the primary then go back to being a moderate). Rand is trying to paint himself as more moderate when really he is one of the most principled/conservative candidates in the Senate (maybe not as good as his dad but pretty close).
 
Perhaps Rand is aiming for the Evangelical Vote

Obama Responds to Goldman CEO's Comment that he does "God's Work"

JOHN HARWOOD: Let me ask you a broader question about Wall Street. Should average Americans think about big Wall Street institutions the way that some have come to think about tobacco companies. That is, companies whose core activities are harmful to the country?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. I-- I think that-- and I've said this repeatedly, we have to have a thriving financial sector. Because essentially-- part of what's made America so successful is our ability to-- if we've got a dream and we want to go get some financing-- for the next Apple computer. The next iPod, the next-- you know, invention out there, that we are able to go and get investors to finance our dream-- and make it happen. So, we've got to have a thriving-- and effective-- financial sector.

JOHN HARWOOD: So, it is God's work.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think it's very important work. But we also have basic rules of the road in place to make sure that investors, consumers, shareholders, the economy as a whole are protected against excess. Are protected against wild gambles that are taken-- purely-- because it's-- it's good for somebody's-- year-end bonus. As opposed to because there's some economic function that actually-- contributes to society as a whole.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-quot-God-s-Work-quot&highlight=blankfein+god

#1 - Investment bankers are just doing "God's work."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/lloyd-blankfeins-most-mem_n_552074.html
 
Ron Paul talked to nearly everyone too. Has everyone forgotten?

It's Rand's votes that matter. We should all be watching them closely.

I agree, but

For Paul, the appearance is another example of how a candidate who first ran as an antiestablishment tea partier (his 2011 book was titled The Tea Party Goes to Washington) has wrapped his arms around the moneyed class.

Paul has been canvassing the New York donor set heavily as part of a widely expected presidential run in 2016. The financial sector is one of the biggest sources of campaign cash in the country, especially for Republicans, and Goldman is one of the biggest players on Wall Street. Goldman employees doled out more than $8.3 million to federal candidates and parties during the 2012 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
 
This was not some clandestine meeting in some smoke filled room. Rand addressed 200 people and the Q & A session was broadcast to the entire company. Rand is one of several to have appeared in a speaker series program at Goldman Sachs. This sounds similar in format to Ron Paul's visit to Google in 2007.

That. An employee wide session.

Obama met with representatives from the big Wall Street firms in a back room at Johnny's Half Shell before he was given the thumbs up.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?271280-The-Creature-from-Johnny-s-Half-Shell
 
Last edited:
I hope he told them exactly what he told CPAC last year: "it's not conservative to bail out Wall Street"
 
This was not some clandestine meeting in some smoke filled room. Rand addressed 200 people and the Q & A session was broadcast to the entire company. Rand is one of several to have appeared in a speaker series program at Goldman Sachs. This sounds similar in format to Ron Paul's visit to Google in 2007.

Why do people keep comparing Google to Goldman Sachs? Could you show me the time where Google gambled with it's customers money, lost and needed a bailout from the tax payers to avoid bankruptcy? How many former Google executives have gone on to key positions in SEVERAL presidential cabinets? Please tell me how Google and Goldman Sachs are the same thing.
 
Why do people keep comparing Google to Goldman Sachs? Could you show me the time where Google gambled with it's customers money, lost and needed a bailout from the tax payers to avoid bankruptcy? How many former Google executives have gone on to key positions in SEVERAL presidential cabinets? Please tell me how Google and Goldman Sachs are the same thing.

This is a great read:
http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-seems-279447

tiny excerpt:
Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community.

In 2003, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had already started systematically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under its director General Michael Hayden. These were the days of the “Total Information Awareness” program. Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.”

During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge.

In 2004, after taking over Keyhole, a mapping tech startup co-funded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the CIA, Google developed the technology into Google Maps, an enterprise version of which it has since shopped to the Pentagon and associated federal and state agencies on multimillion-dollar contracts.

In 2008, Google helped launch an NGA spy satellite, the GeoEye-1, into space. Google shares the photographs from the satellite with the U.S. military and intelligence communities. In 2010, NGA awarded Google a $27 million contract for “geospatial visualization services.”

In 2010, after the Chinese government was accused of hacking Google, the company entered into a “formal information-sharing” relationship with the NSA, which was said to allow NSA analysts to “evaluate vulnerabilities” in Google’s hardware and software. Although the exact contours of the deal have never been disclosed, the NSA brought in other government agencies to help, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the “Enduring Security Framework” (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies “at network speed.” Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF.
 
Last edited:
Why do people keep comparing Google to Goldman Sachs? Could you show me the time where Google gambled with it's customers money, lost and needed a bailout from the tax payers to avoid bankruptcy? How many former Google executives have gone on to key positions in SEVERAL presidential cabinets? Please tell me how Google and Goldman Sachs are the same thing.

I was comparing the format between the two visits (Ron @ Google and Rand at Goldman's). Sounds like they were both guests in a "speaker series" with a company-wide audience.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top