Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

(((Soros))) clearly has an ideological bent to his donations so not sure how they're the same.

Is criticizing money in politics now antisemitic?

No. Just boring.
Because it's the same old song.

Gary Cohn hedged his bets to stay in the good graces of both parties. Yet both his backed candidates lost. He backed a winner in Obama.

An somehow he's still one of the most influential voices, and really one of the few halfway sane ones in the Admin of a President he did not back.

He has large amounts of disposable income.

What about the nefarious plot of *this person*. What nefarious plot. What would he have gotten from Hillary? What did he tangibly get from Obama.

Would it be nice to have less money in politics. Yes. Is it THE OMG KEY TO EVERYTHING EVER WALL ST DRONE STRIKE. No.

 

[numble]

Whilst this is an entirely justifiable line of reasoning, it's also one that is created entirely by people outside the transaction. And, as I noted above, it's not a one-way street - Obama has the chance to lobby rich, powerful people, just as they have the chance to lobby him. Both infer a seediness to the situation that may or may not be present.

I think any of those executives would welcome a meeting with Obama if he wanted to have one with them. Silicon Valley executives flocked to Trump Tower when Trump asked for a meeting, for example.

I completely agree that the transaction is likely benign. But I am explaining why others may think there are reasons that it is not benign, and why others may think there is something more than a celebrity appearance fee.

We do believe that the FBI will make the case that Flynn's paid speech was more than just a celebrity appearance fee, right?

 

[Fenderputty]

This argument makes no sense.

"Charity is insufficient to provide a social safety net" is not equivalent to "nobody should donate money to charity."

Thankfully I never said, "never donate!" I simply said that requiring one do so is misguided because it's ineffectual.

Taxes and redistribution isn't. The message should be, "make all the insane money you can, but pay your fair share while doing so"

 

[numble]

Michael Flynn giving a speech in Russia is one thing. He can do that so long as he goes through the proper channels which exist to facilitate this. What you cant do is go and make this speech and not disclose that you were paid for it which required approval by the state department given his position. Those circumstances are what lead to the idea that he's being bought by a foreign/borderline hostile nation to the US. Obama is being invited to speak at an event by a company based on wall street with what I believe is a theme about Healthcare. This was announced as was what they agreed to pay Obama forhis appearance and speech. What in this scenario lends itself to believe this is a front to back door dealings from what I believe is an investment Bank with a history of philathropy.

If it was properly disclosed, I believe many people would still take issue with the fact that Michael Flynn was paid for such a speech. If it was properly disclosed, I think it would still be right for the FBI to investigate if this was more than simply a celebrity appearance fee.

 

[pigeon]

Thankfully I never said, "never donate!" I simply said that requiring one do so is misguided because it's ineffectual.

Taxes and redistribution isn't. The message should be, "make all the insane money you can, but pay your fair share while doing so"

There's no system for Obama to donate money to the Obamacare exchanges. Sure, I guess if he wants to do that, that would be better.

 

[Pixieking]

I think any of those executives would welcome a meeting with Obama if he wanted to have one with them. Silicon Valley executives flocked to Trump Tower when Trump asked for a meeting, for example.

And this would be one of the reasons why it's apples and oranges - Obama is a Former President, Trump (at the time of those tech meetings) was a Future President. One position inherently has less power (and less ability to alter future policy) than the other.

 

[tbm24]

If it was properly disclosed, I believe many people would still take issue with the fact that Michael Flynn was paid for such a speech. If it was properly disclosed, I think it would still be right for the FBI to investigate if this was more than simply a celebrity appearance fee.

If Flynn actually did what he was supposed to do then the FBI would only investigate it as part of a greater investigation into his dealings with Russia through other actions like registering as a foreign agent of Turkey who is then acting as a foreign agent of Russia. They wouldn't look at it alone just because of all the paperwork was properly submitted and approved. At this point you're reaching Hillary sold Uranium to Russia in a back alley territory.

 

[Fenderputty]

The exact same critique applies to this version of the argument!

No it doesn't. Unless you think donation is a requirement

This argument makes no sense.

"Charity is insufficient to provide a social safety net" is equivalent to "nobody should be required to donate money to charity."

Because if you said the above I would agree

There's no system for Obama to donate money to the Obamacare exchanges. Sure, I guess if he wants to do that, that would be better.

There is a taxation system though. One that could use some good messaging!

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

If it was properly disclosed, I believe many people would still take issue with the fact that Michael Flynn was paid for such a speech. If it was properly disclosed, I think it would still be right for the FBI to investigate if this was more than simply a celebrity appearance fee.

If it were properly disclosed the FBI wouldn't need to investigate because it would have been a matter of public record.

You get that Flynn broke actual, written law and it's not just a moral issue?

I mean, sure people would probably still object to him giving it, but there's no comparison to what Barry is doing.

 

[pigeon]

No it doesn't. Unless you think donation is a requirement



Because if you said the above I would agree

The point of asking Obama to donate to charity is not because charity is an extremely effective way of helping people, so your argument that charity is not that effective is not relevant.

The point of asking him to donate the money is to remove any potential personal benefit he would be receiving for getting the money. Technically he could do anything with the money as long as he got rid of it. Giving it to charity is a conventionalized way of showing you want the money to go to good causes. As I noted, if Obama could donate the money to government social programs that would certainly be better, but as far as I know you can't do that.

 

[Fenderputty]

The point of asking Obama to donate to charity is not because charity is an extremely effective way of helping people, so your argument that charity is not that effective is not relevant.

The point of asking him to donate the money is to remove any potential personal benefit he would be receiving for getting the money. Technically he could do anything with the money as long as he got rid of it. Giving it to charity is a conventionalized way of showing you want the money to go to good causes. As I noted, if Obama could donate the money to government social programs that would certainly be better, but as far as I know you can't do that.

Ehh only if you ignore that my argument is essentially that messaging "making too much money for doing little isn't good" is a bad one. The only reason to require he donate the money is because you believe it's bad optics. It's only bad optics if you've messaged that making too much money is bad itself. I don't think that should be our message.

If Obama rather said, "it's crazy I make this off of speeches, I should be taxed way more", that would IMO be a better message

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

The point of asking Obama to donate to charity is not because charity is an extremely effective way of helping people, so your argument that charity is not that effective is not relevant.

The point of asking him to donate the money is to remove any potential personal benefit he would be receiving for getting the money. Technically he could do anything with the money as long as he got rid of it. Giving it to charity is a conventionalized way of showing you want the money to go to good causes. As I noted, if Obama could donate the money to government social programs that would certainly be better, but as far as I know you can't do that.

You'd better believe you can!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._wants_you_or_at_least_your_spare_change.html

 

[pigeon]

Ehh only if you ignore that my argument is essentially that messaging "making too much money for doing little isn't good" is a bad one. The only reason to require he donate the money is because you believe it's bad optics. It's only bad optics if you've messaged that making too much money is bad itself. I don't think that should be our message.

If Obama rather said, "it's crazy I make this off of speeches, I should be taxed way more", that would IMO be a better message

Yeah but that message is totally fucked up when you go on to SHRUG AND POCKET THE MONEY.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yeah but that message is totally fucked up when you go on to SHRUG AND POCKET THE MONEY.

It's not for Warren buffet. I brought him up earlier for a reason. I think we need more rich ass mother fuckers asking to be taxed more and calling out the rich mother fuckers who selfishly don't

Edit: rich mother fuckers donate on the reg too. It's good PR for an ineffectual tax right off basically.

 

[numble]

And this would be one of the reasons why it's apples and oranges - Obama is a Former President, Trump (at the time of those tech meetings) was a Future President. One position inherently has less power (and less ability to alter future policy) than the other.

I disagree with your implication that executives are unwilling to meet with Obama unless they paid him.

If Flynn actually did what he was supposed to do then the FBI would only investigate it as part of a greater investigation into his dealings with Russia through other actions like registering as a foreign agent of Turkey who is then acting as a foreign agent of Russia. They wouldn't look at it alone just because of all the paperwork was properly submitted and approved. At this point you're reaching Hillary sold Uranium to Russia in a back alley territory.

If it were properly disclosed the FBI wouldn't need to investigate because it would have been a matter of public record.

You get that Flynn broke actual, written law and it's not just a moral issue?

I mean, sure people would probably still object to him giving it, but there's no comparison to what Barry is doing.

I think its incorrect to say they would not investigate if he disclosed them. The disclosure is for the purpose of obtaining security clearances. If you disclose it on a security clearance application, it still makes sense to investigate those payments.

If you agree that, disclosure or no disclosure, that people can possibly ascribe ulterior motives to the arrangements that are completely different from the potential motives of a celebrity endorsing a club, then that is my point.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I disagree with your implication that executives are unwilling to meet with Obama unless they paid him.



I think its incorrect to say they would not investigate if he disclosed them. The disclosure is for the purpose of obtaining security clearances. If you disclose it on a security clearance application, it still makes sense to investigate those payments.

If you agree that, disclosure or no disclosure, that people can possibly ascribe ulterior motives to the arrangements that are completely different from the potential motives of a celebrity endorsing a club, then that is my point.

I mean they would "investigate" meaning verify, but it wouldn't be part of a criminal probe on its own the way it is now.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

omg I'm researching stuff for a paper and I found this

as long as capitalism lasts, speculation is absolutely necessary and unavoidable in order to protect the system from stagnation." So this is another evil that is inherent in this system. It cannot be avoided any more than malaria in a swampy country. And the speculators are the mosquitos. We should have to drain the swamp-change the capitalist system-if we want to get rid of those mosquitos.

Hillary should've pulled some red-baiting clearly

 

[Pixieking]

I disagree with your implication that executives are unwilling to meet with Obama unless they paid him.

Which is fair enough, but I would argue that Obama being paid for his time and energy is "right". Celebrities can and do take speaking engagements which are unpaid, or where the fee is prearranged to go to a charity. But in situations where capitalist Company X can afford to throw money at someone like Obama, why should the company not offer money, or indeed, why should Obama not request money?

The implication that a "free" speaking engagement is one without any possibility of nefarious subtext or dirty dealings is also without nuance. The taking of money is one indicator of a transaction or bargain taking place, but the absence of such does not offer any proof otherwise. Were this Trump speaking, and he waived his fee, do any of us here really think that there would be absolutely no possibility of some form of corruption?

 

[B-Dubs]

Which is fair enough, but I would argue that Obama being paid for his time and energy is "right". Celebrities can and do take speaking engagements which are unpaid, or where the fee is prearranged to go to a charity. But in situations where capitalist Company X can afford to throw money at someone like Obama, why should the company not offer money, or indeed, why should Obama not request money?

The implication that a "free" speaking engagement is one without any possibility of nefarious subtext or dirty dealings is also without nuance. The taking of money is one indicator of a transaction or bargain taking place, but the absence of such does not offer any proof otherwise. Were this Trump speaking, and he waived his fee, do any of us here really think that there would be absolutely no possibility of some form of corruption?

If anything it'd probably be a sign of some kind of corruption.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

omg I'm researching stuff for a paper and I found this



Hillary should've pulled some red-baiting clearly

Yeah I mean all 200 registered American Socialist Party members would definitely have helped...

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yeah I mean all 200 registered American Socialist Party members would definitely have helped...

Huh? I was just finding it funny that a socialist congressman from a hundred years ago used the same phrase as Trump, so I joked that Hillary should've tried to red-bait with Trump and compare him to socialists.

It was just funny because Victor Berger is the opposite of Trump politically.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Huh? I was just finding it funny that a socialist congressman from a hundred years ago used the same phrase as Trump, so I joked that Hillary should've tried to red-bait with Trump and compare him to socialists.

It was just funny because Victor Berger is the opposite of Trump politically.

Oh, gotcha. My bad.

Sorry, I'm all hopped up from the OT Obama speech thread. I mean I knew that phrase was around before Trump, was Berger the progenitor?

I didn't mean it to be overly hostile anyway, just a joke.

These people in OT though....

Spoiler

Fucking splitters.

 

[whyamihere]

On another note, I was looking over this map 50 states divided evenly by population (which is pretty neat):

Just from a cursory look, it seems like Hillary would've (barely) prevailed in this map?

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

On another note, I was looking over this map 50 states divided evenly by population (which is pretty neat):



Just from a cursory look, it seems like Hillary would've (barely) prevailed in this map?

I mean, I want to live in NC one day anyway, but I'd make it a higher priority if it was just called "Blue Ridge" or "Tidewater"

Those area awesome state names.

 

[adamsappel]

I realize that. That's why I said, and I quote, "I like money and I like Obama". But I also realize that trying to win back some voters we lost for our natural coalition might require our party leaders to take obscene amounts of money from financial industries. You can have a relationship with the wealthy and financial industries without our party leaders making obscene amounts of money for one speech.

Please give a dollar amount to "obscene" amounts of money.

I mean, that's why explicitly I said there must be a happy medium?

There's a difference between the money Bill and Hillary made and the money Biden and Carter made.

Who decides this happy medium? $400K is apparently too much for a speech. Would $100K be alright? How many speeches can Obama give before he's making too much?

 

[Chumley]

Please give a dollar amount to "obscene" amounts of money.

Who decides this happy medium? $400K is apparently too much for a speech. Would $100K be alright? How many speeches can Obama give before he's making too much?

Most people live off $100k for an entire year.

If Obama, who's already rich, is giving this money to charities and the party - it's all good.

On the other hand, if he has no interest in playing a part in the party, that's also all good, but I have a hard time imagining that. Questions will come up about the Wall Street stuff, it all depends on what his answer is. If it's "fuck you, I got mine", it won't really go over well. You can try and justify it all you want, but after what the party shifted to in 2016, simply from an optics point of view this isn't super awesome.

 

[Finalizer]

I want to live in NC one day anyway

don't do it

save yourself

before its too laaaaate

 

[teiresias]

Obama should obviously just get a job as a Walmart greeter like every other retired person.

Spoiler

Obama is 55, expecting him to do no money generating work the rest of his life is absurd.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

don't do it

save yourself

before its too laaaaate

Nah man, western NC, those mountain views. The very fucking air that fills your lungs with the essence of pine and fern.

I needs it.

Besides why not get an extra vote in the (D) column?

 

[Randolph Freelander]

don't do it

save yourself

before its too laaaaate

Screw that, we need people to come to this state. We're purple. We've got Republicans on their last legs, quaking in their boots, trying to do every bit of damage they can before they get shown the door permanently. But if the tide reverses and progressives starting avoiding and even leaving this state, the lasting damage to not only this state but this country will be catastrophic.

Please, everyone. Come to North Carolina, tip it over to blue. We're almost there.

 

[Pixieking]

If anything it'd probably be a sign of some kind of corruption.

Exactly. Which is, actually, I think the part that a lot of the "But what about the optics!" people ignore (or don't see?).

If you think all money should be given to charity because of possibility of corruption, or the perception of possibility of corruption, then you're essentially saying that either all these people are morally corrupt, or that they will possibly become morally corrupt through paid speeches. This was the subtext regarding Hillary's speeches, and this is the subtext with Obama's payment.

In reality, being paid for a speech means fuck-all relative to your moral character, and someone of poor ethics or morals could easily say "give the money to charity so I look good, and tell me what you want."

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

don't do it

save yourself

before its too laaaaate

Screw that, we need people to come to this state. We're purple. We've got Republicans on their last legs, quaking in their boots, trying to do every bit of damage they can before they get shown the door permanently. But if the tide reverses and progressives starting avoiding and even leaving this state, the lasting damage to not only this state but this country will be catastrophic.

Please, everyone. Come to North Carolina, tip it over to blue. We're almost there.

When I open my restaurant in Asheville you're both invited and it's on the house.

No worries, fam.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Most people live off $100k for an entire year.

If Obama, who's already rich, is giving this money to charities and the party - it's all good.

Most people aren't former Presidents.

He is rich and therefore should not be allowed to make any more money. Wut.

 

[Pixieking]

Most people live off $100k for an entire year.

If Obama, who's already rich, is giving this money to charities and the party - it's all good.

On the other hand, if he has no interest in playing a part in the party, that's also all good, but I have a hard time imagining that. Questions will come up about the Wall Street stuff, it all depends on what his answer is. If it's "fuck you, I got mine", it won't really go over well. You can try and justify it all you want, but after what the party shifted to in 2016, simply from an optics point of view this isn't super awesome.

Hillary won the Primaries over an anti-Wall Street candidate.

The 2016 election was won by someone who "reportedly has made as much as $1.5 million for one speech", and has Wall Street and ex-Wall Street guys (including neo-Nazi Bannon) crawling around the White House.

Seriously, all you're doing by arguing this point is giving-in to ignorant voters and the fear-mongering GOP, who're making money hand-over-fist in insider-trading deals.

 

[Chumley]

Most people aren't former Presidents.

He is rich and therefore should not be allowed to make any more money. Wut.

There's lots of ways to make money as a former President without taking it from Wall Street. Such as book deals, which him and Michelle already have.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

There's lots of ways to make money as a former President without taking it from Wall Street. Such as book deals, which him and Michelle already have.

So he should just not take more money because of ideological purity bullshit that doesn't affect him as an eternal non-candidate anyway?

 

[JP_]

Nothing wrong with him taking speaking deals like this but it probably doesn't help his efforts to help rebuild the party with enthusiastic young voices.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

It diminishes his post presidency, plain and simple. He can have a very long and consequential one and this doesn't help that.

He already got an amazing book deal, he isn't exactly hurting for money. Unlike I believe the Clintons who didn't leave WH in a very good position.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

It diminishes his post presidency, plain and simple. He can have a very long and consequential one and this doesn't help that.

He already got an amazing book deal, he isn't exactly hurting for money. Unlike I believe the Clintons who didn't leave WH in a very good position.

So doing the same thing every post-President has done diminishes his post-Presidency?

I think not, unless you're some useless blind Bernie splitter.

 

[Loudninja]

It diminishes his post presidency, plain and simple. He can have a very long and consequential one and this doesn't help that.

He already got an amazing book deal, he isn't exactly hurting for money. Unlike I believe the Clintons who didn't leave WH in a very good position.

Complete nonsense my god.

 

[Pixieking]

You know the high school drama cliche of the girl dumping the guy for career/grades/family, and the guy having a problem with it?

I think people are acting like That Guy, to be honest.

What if he pushes investors and health-care executives to stand four-squre behind the ACA?

What if, 3 months after this, he sets-up a foundation?

What if he just really likes talking, and getting paid for it is the best thing ever, for him?

Man alive, let's not make our issues with Wall Street his problem. He's earning some big-bucks, he's talking about pushing activism and grassroots democracy, and he's angling to help with redistricting. He's doing enough to help "the community" that he can do whatever he wants, and us not bring him down.

 

[Chumley]

So he should just not take more money because of ideological purity bullshit that doesn't affect him as an eternal non-candidate anyway?

Part of what he ran on was taking it to "Wall Street fat cats". Sure, he's not President anymore, but this looks like total hypocrisy regardless. Like I said before, if he wants no part of the Democratic party going forward and is just looking out for himself, whatever. But if he's going to try and play a leadership role to a party that is now against Wall Street even more than it was in 2009, it makes no sense unless he's putting all of the money to charities.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Part of what he ran on was taking it to "Wall Street fat cats". Sure, he's not President anymore, but this looks like total hypocrisy regardless. Like I said before, if he wants no part of the Democratic party going forward and is just looking out for himself, whatever. But if he's going to try and play a leadership role to a party that is now against Wall Street even more than it was in 2009, it makes no sense unless he's putting all of the money to charities.

Why should we be against Wall Street further than the "harsh" regulation he advocated? Unless you're a full-blown socialist, in which case I can't help you,.

 

[Chumley]

Why should we be against Wall Street further than the "harsh" regulation he advocated? Unless you're a full-blown socialist, in which case I can't help you,.

I'm not discussing the platform. It is what it is, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party is real. I'm just pointing out how terrible this looks from an optics point of view, for the guy who in 2009 went hard against Wall Street to now take money from them - Especially after the shitstorm Wall Street speeches caused in 2016. Unless this money is going to charities or the party, I just don't get why he'd open himself up to this line of attack when he's already extremely rich and will get richer off other avenues. Though also, like I said before, a line of attack is useless only so long as he's not going to be a leader of the party.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I'm not discussing the platform. It is what it is, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party is real. I'm just pointing out how terrible this looks from an optics point of view, for the guy who in 2009 went hard against Wall Street to now take money from them - Especially after the shitstorm Wall Street speeches caused in 2016. Unless this money is going to charities or the party, I just don't get why he'd open himself up to this line of attack when he's already extremely rich and will get richer off other avenues.

Are they real or are they just Republicans who liked the antiestablishment sentiment? The dude was already courting racist sand now he's totally fine with pro-life misogyny? I just can't believe they're real Democrats.

 

[Chumley]

Are they real or are they just Republicans who liked the antiestablishment sentiment? The dude was already courting racist sand now he's totally fine with pro-life misogyny? I just can't believe they're real Democrats.

Oh, right, you're the one who said you hope Bernie Sanders dies in his sleep before an edit.

Listen, they're democrats. You might disagree but this kind of rhetoric doesn't serve anyone.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Oh, right, you're the one who said you hope Bernie Sanders dies in his sleep before an edit.

Listen, they're democrats. You might disagree but this kind of rhetoric doesn't serve anyone.

Yeah, yeah, I'm expecting a ban and maybe I deserve it for posting while intoxicated, but I'm interested in wining elections for progressive values. ALL progressive values, We can't just always hit one note on Wall Street. Nobody will be a dedicated (D) unless they see results. Minority blocs vote (D) because we've delivered results. You can't just gut the US financial system and expect everyone to come out unscathed except the 1%. You can't throw away there rest of the tent just to get the Trump-Bernie crowd on board.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So doing the same thing every post-President has done diminishes his post-Presidency?

I think not, unless you're some useless blind Bernie splitter.

Yes. The terms for Obama are very different. The Dems of 2016 are not same as Dems of 2000.

 

[Siegcram]

Oh, right, you're the one who said you hope Bernie Sanders dies in his sleep before an edit.

Listen, they're democrats. You might disagree but this kind of rhetoric doesn't serve anyone.

If there's a kind of rhetoric that doesn't help anyone, it's this optics bullshit.

This money isn't tainted, it isn't corrupting, it is completely and utterly irrelevant to anyone but those who aren't able to comprehend a sentence that begins with the words "Wall Street".

 

[Chumley]

Yeah, yeah, I'm expecting a ban and maybe I deserve it for posting while intoxicated, but I'm interested in wining elections for progressive values. ALL progressive values, We can't just always hit one note on Wall Street. Nobody will be a dedicated (D) unless they see results. Minority blocs vote (D) because we've delivered results. You can't just gut the US financial system and expect everyone to come out unscathed except the 1%. You can't throw away there rest of the tent just to get the Trump-Bernie crowd on board.

A minority of them probably do want to destroy Wall Street, but they're a minority and I think if you bring most of the Bernie supporters to the table you'd be able to hash out a more reasoned and thought out future. The fact is that a lot of them are infuriated and angry about the inequality gap but they don't know how to actually fix it. Reaching out to them with empathy instead of shutting them out with anger seems to me like a better path, and let bygones be bygones.