• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Romney trust invested in fund that exited sex-site firm

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A blind trust in the name of Ann Romney, wife of Republican U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, was an investor in a fund run by Goldman Sachs Group Inc that had invested in a media company which critics say facilitates sex trafficking. While there is no suggestion the Romneys knew about the investment, the disclosure highlights the difficulty for politicians and their families when they invest in blind trusts that are supposed to protect them from conflicts of interest and ethical questions.
Click to expand...

And here is the quandry - On one hand, candidates are expected to to put all their investments in a blind trust. Of course, they don't have to do that by law, but if they don't, then people raise questions as to whether they have a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the blind trust contains investments in pornography, then people bring up the distasteful nature of the candidate's investments. Let me make this perfectly clear - There is absolutely no indication that the Romneys knew that any of their money was invested in a site that promoted sex trafficking. So why the hell is this news? See what I mean?

I believe that a candidate running for office should put his money into a trust, but I also believe that a candidate should be able to put his money into a trust that is not blind, so that he or she is able to have some control over what is invested in his or her name.

To me, this makes sense. What about you?

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
And here is the quandry - On one hand, candidates are expected to to put all their investments in a blind trust. Of course, they don't have to do that by law, but if they don't, then people raise questions as to whether they have a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the blind trust contains investments in pornography, then people bring up the distasteful nature of the candidate's investments. Let me make this perfectly clear - There is absolutely no indication that the Romneys knew that any of their money was invested in a site that promoted sex trafficking. So why the hell is this news? See what I mean?

I believe that a candidate running for office should put his money into a trust, but I also believe that a candidate should be able to put his money into a trust that is not blind, so that he or she is able to have some control over what is invested in his or her name.

To me, this makes sense. What about you?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Because of the potential for conflicts of interest, I am in favor of blind trusts for politicians.

This story simply reflects the tabloid era of journalism we have today. Sensational versus newsworthy is what wins.
 
danarhea said:
And here is the quandry - On one hand, candidates are expected to to put all their investments in a blind trust. Of course, they don't have to do that by law, but if they don't, then people raise questions as to whether they have a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the blind trust contains investments in pornography, then people bring up the distasteful nature of the candidate's investments. Let me make this perfectly clear - There is absolutely no indication that the Romneys knew that any of their money was invested in a site that promoted sex trafficking. So why the hell is this news? See what I mean?

I believe that a candidate running for office should put his money into a trust, but I also believe that a candidate should be able to put his money into a trust that is not blind, so that he or she is able to have some control over what is invested in his or her name.

To me, this makes sense. What about you?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I think the 545 people who run the country should only have blind trusts. I also believe those comparable leaders on the state level should have to do the same.

Don't want to give up your autonomy to invest? Don't run for public office.

Edit: One has to wonder how a reporter dug this up. If I were the Romneys, I'd move my entire portfolio from Goldman Sachs.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
And here is the quandry - On one hand, candidates are expected to to put all their investments in a blind trust. Of course, they don't have to do that by law, but if they don't, then people raise questions as to whether they have a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the blind trust contains investments in pornography, then people bring up the distasteful nature of the candidate's investments. Let me make this perfectly clear - There is absolutely no indication that the Romneys knew that any of their money was invested in a site that promoted sex trafficking. So why the hell is this news? See what I mean?

I believe that a candidate running for office should put his money into a trust, but I also believe that a candidate should be able to put his money into a trust that is not blind, so that he or she is able to have some control over what is invested in his or her name.

To me, this makes sense. What about you?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

First off, Ann Romney did nothing wrong here.

Second off, I prefer blind trusts for the very reason they are used, it eliminates the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Third off, who cares if the blind trust invested in porn? It is legal.
 
Redress said:
First off, Ann Romney did nothing wrong here.

Second off, I prefer blind trusts for the very reason they are used, it eliminates the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Third off, who cares if the blind trust invested in porn? It is legal.
Click to expand...

Just a question, was it porn or sex trafficing?

Otherwise, I totally agree.
 
MaggieD said:
I think the 545 people who run the country should only have blind trusts. I also believe those comparable leaders on the state level should have to do the same.

Don't want to give up your autonomy to invest? Don't run for public office.

Edit: One has to wonder how a reporter dug this up. If I were the Romneys, I'd move my entire portfolio from Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. While the investments are blind, one certainly has to questions GS' judgement on this.
 
Redress said:
First off, Ann Romney did nothing wrong here.

Second off, I prefer blind trusts for the very reason they are used, it eliminates the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Third off, who cares if the blind trust invested in porn? It is legal.
Click to expand...

Blind trusts are like the Super Pacs, there is no such thing as rich people having no say in where there money is invested any more than Romney has no say in what his Super Pac does. It's a JOKE.
 
So the story here is that the candidate's wife's blind-trust's investor's investment's company's website might have some involvement with sex trafficking?

I don't know why she swallowed the fly. :)
 
Redress said:
First off, Ann Romney did nothing wrong here.

Second off, I prefer blind trusts for the very reason they are used, it eliminates the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Third off, who cares if the blind trust invested in porn? It is legal.
Click to expand...

Of course, the Romneys did nothing wrong, but a newspaper was still able to put up a headline that compromises them. If the Romneys were allowed to review their investments once in a while, they could put their money somewhere else, and fire Goldman Sachs.
 
danarhea said:
Of course, the Romneys did nothing wrong, but a newspaper was still able to put up a headline that compromises them. If the Romneys were allowed to review their investments once in a while, they could put their money somewhere else, and fire Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

I was not blaming you for the headline.

I prefer blind trusts because if they can review, they open up the appearance(not the actuality) of conflict of interest.
 
danarhea said:
Of course, the Romneys did nothing wrong, but a newspaper was still able to put up a headline that compromises them. If the Romneys were allowed to review their investments once in a while, they could put their money somewhere else, and fire Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure than when one puts one's assets into a blind trust, there are certain guidelines that must be followed -- instructions that the client gives the administrator that must be followed. An example would be: "Don't invest in companies that profit from harmful products." That would preclude something like Phillip Morris. As an example. Another might be, "Don't, for God's SAKE!! invest in something that will embarrass me if it ever gets out." :rofl That's amusing, but I think you get my drift.

Frankly, I even wonder if this is true. How did particular investments in a blind trust get out to the general public?
 
MaggieD said:
Frankly, I even wonder if this is true. How did particular investments in a blind trust get out to the general public?
Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. I am kinda wondering it myself now.
 
danarhea said:
Of course, the Romneys did nothing wrong, but a newspaper was still able to put up a headline that compromises them. If the Romneys were allowed to review their investments once in a while, they could put their money somewhere else, and fire Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...
You assume Goldman Sachs did something wrong?

There appear to be current allegations against the company they invested in and they're withdrawing the investment (though there isn't even a stated connection there - the article also suggests the investment was loosing money). There is no information at all about what checks GS make on the companies they invest in, whether better checks would have uncovered anything or even if the allegations regarding sex trafficking are actually true.

At the moment, there is no proof that anybody did anything wrong (apart from the media spinning a negative story against the Romneys out of nothing).
 
What's the opposite of news? Because that's what this is.
 
Oh My God! :shock:

Thank you Reuters News Agency for exposing this disgusting woman who might of been our next First Lady had I voted for her husband.

Now that I know Mit Romney's wife is a greedy sex crazed capitalist pervert, I'm going to vote for the racist, marxist, America hater instead!

Thank God for the left wing news agencies who keep us so well informed of the shenanigans those evil corrupt conservatives are forever up to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom