They are corrupt and if they want to help Trump get into office so their shady investments can continue then it wouldn’t cost them even pocket change to pump up trump stocks. It’s such a small amount of money to them they probably assigned an intern to the account.
Maybe so, but they’re also on the opposite side of the aisle. The company that owns Sweet Baby Inc. and deliberately pushes inappropriate levels of DEI via bribery-with-extra-steps probably isn’t about to aid or endorse a Republican, especially one who’s that brazen about the shitty things he does.
Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia about that situation, it’s sourced from articles written by people with victim complexes who want to control the narrative. My point is that BlackRock is too liberal to support Trump.
my boi you literally went out of your way to implicate Sweet Baby Inc. of all people in political nonsense. I think I know the other places you post in your downtime. at least own your bullshit with your whole dogmade chest.
You’re the one jumping on me for merely mentioning them and now indirectly accusing me of being a Nazi. At this point you’re just deliberately ignoring the actual point that I very clearly stated. Don’t pretend you’re taking the high road, it’s not convincing anyone. Own your own bullshit instead of telling other people it’s theirs.
Bud, I know it’s pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:
Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?
I’m not saying they aren’t causing a good bit of harm but you don’t become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid
I mean, the more solid plan is to back the president that cut taxes for the rich, as opposed to a president whose promised to increase taxes for the rich.
So I don’t think a straight value proposition analysis applies to entities whose assets under management exceed the GDP of most countries and who are already deeply involved in the politics in the form of lobbying.
Then let’s assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.
Plus it’s worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can’t just freely swing that around like most people think
They are corrupt and if they want to help Trump get into office so their shady investments can continue then it wouldn’t cost them even pocket change to pump up trump stocks. It’s such a small amount of money to them they probably assigned an intern to the account.
Maybe so, but they’re also on the opposite side of the aisle. The company that owns Sweet Baby Inc. and deliberately pushes inappropriate levels of DEI via bribery-with-extra-steps probably isn’t about to aid or endorse a Republican, especially one who’s that brazen about the shitty things he does.
what the fuck kind of gamergate 2 horseshit 😂
Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia about that situation, it’s sourced from articles written by people with victim complexes who want to control the narrative. My point is that BlackRock is too liberal to support Trump.
my boi you literally went out of your way to implicate Sweet Baby Inc. of all people in political nonsense. I think I know the other places you post in your downtime. at least own your bullshit with your whole dogmade chest.
You’re the one jumping on me for merely mentioning them and now indirectly accusing me of being a Nazi. At this point you’re just deliberately ignoring the actual point that I very clearly stated. Don’t pretend you’re taking the high road, it’s not convincing anyone. Own your own bullshit instead of telling other people it’s theirs.
Bud, I know it’s pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:
Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?
I’m not saying they aren’t causing a good bit of harm but you don’t become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid
I mean, the more solid plan is to back the president that cut taxes for the rich, as opposed to a president whose promised to increase taxes for the rich.
So I don’t think a straight value proposition analysis applies to entities whose assets under management exceed the GDP of most countries and who are already deeply involved in the politics in the form of lobbying.
Then let’s assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.
Plus it’s worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can’t just freely swing that around like most people think