That is because Hillary would not be able to get a security clearance after her home server situation. Since Chelsea is just like mommy, she can't be trusted.
Or my favorite is to go over to democratic underground and read how Chelsea is derserving because she has a phd from Oxford in international relations. I read one post where some idiot said if a CEO can make that much, why not board members. They have no clue.
Chelsea was off-limits when she was a minor (same with Bush's and Obama's daughters). Trump's youngest is off-limits but the other 3 are fair game
Yet they go after the Trump children still today no other reason than being Trump. I've read so many things about how they are so rich and part of the nasty 1%. All the while they work for a living and as we saw, actually fly commercial. Meanwhile Chelsea is making over $600,000 a year while never really working and the left celebrates her. It just shows you how two faced most liberals are.
You don't add so good.
I think he was referring to the total of two board seats.
Only issue is the company had nothing to do with it. The guy that owns 54% of the stock decided to add an additional board seat, expanding from 13 to 14 and added her. Oh by the way he was also one of hillary's biggest donors. First, its unusual to have an even number of board seats and also, same guy put Chelsea on another board.
If he owns 54% of the stock, he's essentially the company. Not much any other shareholders can say about it, except to dump the stock.
Yes I understand that but if I were a shareholder I would not be pleased that the guy that owns 54% of the Company just cost the company $300,000 direct off of profits. How much in sales do they have to do to make $300,000? He did it as a favor, not because it was good business.
Well, the guy owns 54% so $162,000 out of his pocket. The real number is probably $0 because they'll just use the accounting department to make it disappear (or cut somebody's bonus)
+1
Do you think the accounting department is a black hole? You sure don't know much about business.
I know enough to know it won't come out "direct off of profits"
The problem with this logic is that you assume there is fat that can be trimmed to offset the salary. Any well functioning organization is already operating lean because otherwise that is 300k per year lost due to inefficiencies.
Here is a deal, you keep me right on the english language and I will keep explaining to you what these subjects are about.
How many FFE's do they have to cut to GIVE $300,000 away and not get anything in return?
