Originally Posted by Owain
See, this is why I don't just take people's word for things, even in so august an organization as the KGB. If the evidence was so prevalent, why is it such a big deal to present some?

First, I don't know what evidence you might have in mind. I am not clairvoyant. If you think you have compelling evidence, it is not unreasonable to ask that you present what you have.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...omic-initiatives/?utm_term=.cf5b2366daeb

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/15/inv...ump-treasury-deputy-secretary/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/investing/trump-adviser-gary-cohn-goldman-sachs-payout/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/23/investing/jay-clayton-sec-confirmation-hearing/index.html (btw Jay Clayton was Goldman Sach's bailout lawyer. Now he's looking to head the SEC. Heh.)

I could keep going, I didn't even link Mnuchin specifically or Bannon - I'm pretty damn sure you know their background without me having to spell it out.


The New Yorker gives a pretty good account of the whole situation, which I just found while randomly googling for links.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/from-drain-the-swamp-to-government-sachs

Considering Goldman Sachs and their cronies are literally robbing every single one of us, and pulling off the biggest looting spree in literally the history of the world, I don't think more needs really be said. I suppose I could dig up one of Trumps many attacks against Goldman Sachs vis a vis Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton, but why bother. If you actually deny they exist then I will.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)