• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jill Stein (the Green Party nominee) invested in Chevron, Wells Fargo, Big Pharma

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Jill Stein Accused of Investing in Dirty Coal, Big Pharma | News | teleSUR English

According to an analysis of her financial disclosure form, the Green Party presidential candidate invests in Chevron and Wells Fargo Bank.
Green Party leader Jill Stein was accused of double standards Wednesday after a Daily Beast financial analysis found she has invested in the very industries her party opposes—coal, big pharma and Wall Street.

According to the financial disclosure form she filed with the United States Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, and the first two pages of her 2015 federal tax return, Stein and her husband, Richard Roher have profited from investments in mutual funds that support big multinationals including Exxon, Chevron, JP Morgan Chase and Pfizer.

The presidential candidate, who has built an entire political platform on her opposition to corporate greed, environmental abuses and inequality, also owns direct stock investments in Merc, the pharmaceutical giant fined for over-billing Medicaid.

While Stein may profess to be against the Dakota Access pipeline, she has invested up to US $2.2 million in energy companies like Chevron, responsible for the disastrous oil spill in the Ecuadorean Amazon rainforest, via the Vanguard 500 FUND.

The Green Party leader is also a vocal opponent of Wall Street yet her investment portfolio shows she has up to US$2.65 million invested in funds such as the TIAA-CREF Equity Index, which has significant holdings in Wells Fargo Bank, an international banking firm accused of abusing U.S. whistleblowing laws and funding the Dakota Access pipeline.

Stein, however, is not the only U.S. politician to come under attack for investing in questionable stocks. President Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz have also been forced to divest from fund investments for conflict of interests.


LMFAO
 

foadi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
917
Reaction score
384
Location
Bangkok/Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Vanguard funds invest in a bunch of different blue chip stocks. They are a great tool for ppl who don't want to spend thousands of hours doing research on individual stocks. How is this news or even an issue?
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
An ideologue ought to take the time to look at what they're doing. Moreover, it's an indictment of the simplistic, neo-Luddite way that the Green bourgeois Left approaches environmental issues, which are inextricably bound to economic ones.

Let me add that I loathe the Green Party, and I'm way to the Left of their official platform. They're a breeding ground for the worst tendencies of the bourgeois Left - anti-vaccination, Luddism, crystal gazing, "alternative medicine" and the like.

If any of you guys are absolutely insistent on voting for a Leftist third party this year, please make it one of the socialist sects and not this absolute fraud of an outfit.

(The best green energy is nuclear energy!)
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
30,426
Reaction score
28,248
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Vanguard funds invest in a bunch of different blue chip stocks. They are a great tool for ppl who don't want to spend thousands of hours doing research on individual stocks. How is this news or even an issue?

It boils down to a money where their mouths are issue.

If they have funds to invest then someone like Jill Stein (and/or her husband) could have ensured it was guided to funds, investment vehicles, and indexes that do not directly invest in the industries (or market segments) where she has political adversarial views towards.

In this case it is news worthy as Jill Stein will take a stand against an oil line because of a cause, then make money off the same industry (perhaps even some of the same groups that benefit from increased oil movement infrastructure.)

I'll stipulate it is all a bit argumentative, but you would think a "green party" candidate would control more wisely where their investments are making money.
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The people that say government subsidies for Planed Parenthood is Constitutional would say that her behavior is ethical.

Stop posting from the toilet; you're splashing.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Stop posting from the toilet; you're splashing.

You mean by that that you do not even see the logic? Or is it only that you do not know the circumstances of the reference?
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent

Oh, that's such a pitiful criticism. Anyone who invests in just about any mutual fund has a partial investment in an energy company or pharmaceutical.

Trump has been critical of Ford and other companies moving their factories to a foreign country. Yet, if Trump has investments in a mutual fund, that mutual fund may well own shares of Ford and those other companies.

That's the investment world. If something is part of the stock market, a person likely invests in those companies if they invest in diversified mutual funds. DUH. This is true of EVERYONE...Clinton, Trump, Bush, Scott Walker, Rubio, Christie, etc.

We, the people, don't decide what companies make up the S&P or the Nasdaq or the Dow. This is a ridiculous argument. Besides, has she ever said she thinks those companies should go out of business? Probably not. She probably objects to PART of their business.

Silly, childish argument. Sounds like you're desperate.
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
An ideologue ought to take the time to look at what they're doing. Moreover, it's an indictment of the simplistic, neo-Luddite way that the Green bourgeois Left approaches environmental issues, which are inextricably bound to economic ones.

Let me add that I loathe the Green Party, and I'm way to the Left of their official platform. They're a breeding ground for the worst tendencies of the bourgeois Left - anti-vaccination, Luddism, crystal gazing, "alternative medicine" and the like.

If any of you guys are absolutely insistent on voting for a Leftist third party this year, please make it one of the socialist sects and not this absolute fraud of an outfit.

(The best green energy is nuclear energy!)

I fully support the Green Party's platform. Unfortunately, we have a two party system.

But the OP is a silly, juvenile post. Every sector of business in the world is part of the stock market. When anyone invests in teh stock market, they by default invest in the companies making up the stock market. This has nothing to do with whether one approves of every business practice of every company.

You no doubt have issues with some companies. Yet, if you invest in mutual funds, you probably are invested in those companies.

Also, being critical of lines of business of a company does not mean one wants the company to go out of business. Silly and juvenile argument.
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The people that say government subsidies for Planed Parenthood is Constitutional would say that her behavior is ethical.

Assistance for health care for poor people is constitutional. To say otherwise is a false statement. Objectively speaking.
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It boils down to a money where their mouths are issue.

If they have funds to invest then someone like Jill Stein (and/or her husband) could have ensured it was guided to funds, investment vehicles, and indexes that do not directly invest in the industries (or market segments) where she has political adversarial views towards.

In this case it is news worthy as Jill Stein will take a stand against an oil line because of a cause, then make money off the same industry (perhaps even some of the same groups that benefit from increased oil movement infrastructure.)

I'll stipulate it is all a bit argumentative, but you would think a "green party" candidate would control more wisely where their investments are making money.

That's silly. Any large mutual fund invests in some company a person might have some issue with. It's virtually impossible to invest in the stock market without investing in companies one might disapprove of in some respect. It's virtually impossible to make a good return for one's future without investing in the stock market.

She didn't decide which companies go in the mutual funds. And she didn't say she wanted any company to go out of business. She has issues with some business practices.

One of the biggest funds for investing in is the Vanguard S&P fund. It contains all of the stocks in the S&P (about 500 of them), and all of the big companies in every sector in the country.

The OP argument is something a child would say, since a child wouldn't understand the stock market.

To invest in a fund that invests in the energy sector does not mean the investor approves of the current energy policy in the country.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
30,426
Reaction score
28,248
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's silly. Any large mutual fund invests in some company a person might have some issue with. It's virtually impossible to invest in the stock market without investing in companies one might disapprove of in some respect. It's virtually impossible to make a good return for one's future without investing in the stock market.

She didn't decide which companies go in the mutual funds. And she didn't say she wanted any company to go out of business. She has issues with some business practices.

One of the biggest funds for investing in is the Vanguard S&P fund. It contains all of the stocks in the S&P (about 500 of them), and all of the big companies in every sector in the country.

The OP argument is something a child would say, since a child wouldn't understand the stock market.

To invest in a fund that invests in the energy sector does not mean the investor approves of the current energy policy in the country.

Which is why I added in the "I'll stipulate it is all a bit argumentative" bit. You are taking issue with the wrong person here.

That said, there are other investment options that can exclude a market segment such as Energy (in the traditional sense, such as oil and natural gas.) It may not be easy, and it may not give the best returns against the S&P but they do exist. I know, I worked in the oil and natural gas speculation and commodities markets for years before getting back into business software solutions.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
72,540
Reaction score
41,177
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
An ideologue ought to take the time to look at what they're doing. Moreover, it's an indictment of the simplistic, neo-Luddite way that the Green bourgeois Left approaches environmental issues, which are inextricably bound to economic ones.

Let me add that I loathe the Green Party, and I'm way to the Left of their official platform. They're a breeding ground for the worst tendencies of the bourgeois Left - anti-vaccination, Luddism, crystal gazing, "alternative medicine" and the like.

If any of you guys are absolutely insistent on voting for a Leftist third party this year, please make it one of the socialist sects and not this absolute fraud of an outfit.

(The best green energy is nuclear energy!)

No, no it is not. Something that produces waste that mankind cannot be near for the rest of humankind... not green.
 

late

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Southern Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Vanguard funds invest in a bunch of different blue chip stocks. They are a great tool for ppl who don't want to spend thousands of hours doing research on individual stocks. How is this news or even an issue?

It's not.

But I would like to know who created the story.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It is a fair criticism but I also don't see it as being a major concern. It is ok to profit from the system while at the same time trying to change it.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Assistance for health care for poor people is constitutional. To say otherwise is a false statement. Objectively speaking.

Nobody said it wasn't. But that wasn't the question, as you full well knew. Objectively speaking.
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Nobody said it wasn't. But that wasn't the question, as you full well knew. Objectively speaking.

I was responding to your post that said:
Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
The people that say government subsidies for Planed Parenthood is Constitutional would say that her behavior is ethical.

Your statement implies that govt subsidies (funding) for assistance for poor people, particularly women, is unconstitutional. So I was setting the record straight: It is constitutional.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I was responding to your post that said:


Your statement implies that govt subsidies (funding) for assistance for poor people, particularly women, is unconstitutional. So I was setting the record straight: It is constitutional.

That is a widely used euphemism you are employing, but a false argument. Do you see, wherein the falsehood lies?
 
Top Bottom