Support NeoGAF

[FyreWulff]

Studies find increased immigration areas have reduced crime

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...to-institute-sentencing-project-a7639421.html

The frosting on top: some of the studies were funded by the conservative libertarian Cato Institute aka Koch Brothers.

 

[Dominican Power]

Holy shit at this 1st episode of s4 of Veep. The fuck ups get even more epic.

 

[PBY]

After seeing Obama's upcoming HC Speech come up on Fox News and be used an excuse to bash him with pretty much the same talking points as the far left, that part of this article really resonated. (I'd post it in the dedicated thread if it were on the front page, but I'd rather not dredge that monstrosity up.)

The Far Left Is Still Out Of Touch With Black Voters

This is a bad article. Paints with a huge broad brush, doesn't attempt to define the "far left", etc. Trash.

 

[B-Dubs]

Holy shit at this 1st episode of s4 of Veep. The fuck ups get even more epic.

Veep is amazing, but they still got nothing on Trump.

This is a bad article.

If you're going to complain about optics then you have to take complaints about optics seriously.

 

[PBY]

If you're going to complain about optics then you have to take complaints about optics seriously.

I do take those complaints (which is bizarre because i'm a capital L Lib, not a leftist). The article is just really poorly sourced, doesn't make a cohesive argument about who the "Far Left" and overstates their argument.

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

After seeing Obama's upcoming HC Speech come up on Fox News and be used an excuse to bash him with pretty much the same talking points as the far left, that part of this article really resonated. (I'd post it in the dedicated thread if it were on the front page, but I'd rather not dredge that monstrosity up.)

The Far Left Is Still Out Of Touch With Black Voters

Oh good, glad too see that it grasped how I felt.

 

[kirblar]

Studies find increased immigration areas have reduced crime

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...to-institute-sentencing-project-a7639421.html

The frosting on top: some of the studies were funded by the conservative libertarian Cato Institute aka Koch Brothers.

Kochs are legit libertarian, they're just the "votes with their wallets above all else" libertarian I'm always railing on about.

 

[Coriolanus]

You're kinda missing the point. In 2012 these critiques weren't really mainstream. For better or worse they came into the mainstream in the last election and the optics don't look good. This last cycle is the first time a lot of people got exposed to that critique. If you're going to complain about optics, which is what complaining about paid speeches is, then you have to be willing to acknowledge complaints about optics about your complaints about optics. And the optics are that this wasn't really a thing until the woman and the black man started taking advantage of it.

Fair enough. There's also the other problem: the optics of one trying to label the people closer to you as both racist and misogynist. Unless you got damn good evidence that that's what a significant amount of them are (at which point one wonders why they aint voting republican)...i'm not sure that's a good idea. Sure will be seen as nothing more than a way to get them to shut the fuck up about their concerns, tho.

The point about TYT is quite valid, fwiw (and also served to teach me that louie never stayed out of the republican party, as he said he would all them years ago). About Bernie...eh, the Left was attacking him as soon as he said he'd run as a democrat.

 

[B-Dubs]

Fair enough. There's also the other problem: the optics of one trying to label the people closer to you as both racist and misogynist. Unless you got damn good evidence that that's what a significant amount of them are (at which point one wonders why they aint voting republican)...i'm not sure that's a good idea.

I mean, no one's saying they are racist and misogynist though. You can be a bit blind when it comes to critiques like that and not be a racist or misogynist. That's the whole idea of privilege.

Which is kind of an odd thing for me to be typing considering I can't always see past my own privilege but here we are.

First off, the race point is totally valid. Go back and read my posts during the primary, I definitely agree that certain elements in the DSA/leftist wing ignore POC/womens/non-binary issues wholesale.

Second, the Obama point re race/history of presidents is totally true. I think the counter to that is that I believe there was a sea-change following 2008, and we're still feeling the impact of the financial crisis, to the extent that old norms no longer apply. If the Dems want to be the party of the common worker in America and stand up to institutions like Wall Street, this kind of stuff does matter.

Third, its not a big deal.

In fairness to Obama, he's speaking at a conference on healthcare that's being thrown by a Wall Street firm. It's an important issue to him and this puts him in a position to make his case to a bunch of people with money and power. He changes five minds in that room and all of a sudden future healthcare reform has 5 new wealthy backers to help get people elected.

 

[PBY]

First off, the race point is totally valid. Go back and read my posts during the primary, I definitely agree that certain elements in the DSA/leftist wing ignore POC/womens/non-binary issues wholesale.

Second, the Obama point re race/history of presidents is totally true. I think the counter to that is that I believe there was a sea-change following 2008, and we're still feeling the impact of the financial crisis, to the extent that old norms no longer apply. If the Dems want to be the party of the common worker in America and stand up to institutions like Wall Street, this kind of stuff does matter.

Third, its not a big deal.

 

[akinkcl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX6X7SqnOAs

Someone should replace cowboys with GOP

 

[Dominican Power]

Veep is amazing, but they still got nothing on Trump.



If you're going to complain about optics then you have to take complaints about optics seriously.

I wonder if everyone in D.C. irl are dicks like the show depicts.

 

[PBY]

In fairness to Obama, he's speaking at a conference on healthcare that's being thrown by a Wall Street firm. It's an important issue to him and this puts him in a position to make his case to a bunch of people with money and power. He changes five minds in that room and all of a sudden future healthcare reform has 5 new wealthy backers to help get people elected.

I'm not a wall street hardliner (I work in finance lol). I'm just considered with the Dems getting better, learning, and winning in the future. It makes sense that he'd do this, and I get why he is - still don't think its a great look.

 

[Crocodile]

1) Racism, Sexism, etc. are spectrum not binary. You can be liberal in a lot of respects but still have serious blind spots with regards to those topics. "Diet Racism" is a term that exists for a reason.

2) The premise is less "far left is so racist/sexist!" but rather their inability to talk to women/PoC which they don't seem to be doing a good job correcting. If they want to get their policy agendas into law, you need Democratic votes. Most Democratic voters are women and PoC. If you can't talk to them, you aren't getting their votes. Screaming "WALL STREET" all the time is going to fall on deaf ears with those groups.

FWIW, I think both sides of the "Obama gets speaking fees - is that ok?" issue have good points. That being said, I know a lot of Black people who are seeing the same optics mentioned in that article and are "suspicious" of the timing.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not a wall street hardliner (I work in finance lol). I'm just considered with the Dems getting better, learning, and winning in the future. It makes sense that he'd do this, and I get why he is - still don't think its a great look.

I think part of the issue is how this is being put out there. Had he been the one to make the announcement he'd have led with "healthcare conference" instead of "wall street" and it probably wouldn't have turned into such a big thing. Probably something he's already figured out for the future though.

I wonder if everyone in D.C. irl are dicks like they show depicts.

Apparently, yes. To a certain degree.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I still vaguely resent people giving Bernie Bros the title of progressive or far left tbh.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Haven't watched in awhile but is Sean Spicer still doing that shit where he calls on Skype people? I remember it stopped when even those folks started turning on him.

 

[Slayven]

After seeing Obama's upcoming HC Speech come up on Fox News and be used an excuse to bash him with pretty much the same talking points as the far left, that part of this article really resonated. (I'd post it in the dedicated thread if it were on the front page, but I'd rather not dredge that monstrosity up.)

The Far Left Is Still Out Of Touch With Black Voters

Good article highlighting what I saw yesterday on twitter. Black voices getting hit with "actually it is about wallstreet".

 

[B-Dubs]

Haven't watched in awhile but is Sean Spicer still doing that shit where he calls on Skype people? I remember it stopped when even those folks started turning on him.

I watched a bit of it today and I think he did stop. Then again I turned it off as soon as he started blaming Obama for Flynn.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't think it is far left. More specifically, it is left-wing people whom are more concerned with economic issues( rather I think it is more about expanding welfare and introducing more regulations on Wall street.) .

Far left is a too board of a term for the discussion. I think people( like the guy from the article) aren't getting the terminologies right, since everyone use same terms with different meanings.

 

[pigeon]

I still vaguely resent people giving Bernie Bros the title of progressive or far left tbh.

I mean, it's weird to me that people are referring to this critique as coming from the far left at all when the articles I'm seeing are from Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro.

Once again, I feel like there's an effort to marginalize this critique by painting it as a Clinton/Bernie issue. Some things can actually just be a bad idea and not relate to the 2016 campaign. Relatedly, Sanders can just be kind of a hypocrite and The Young Turks can be absolute trash without that really being connected to whether it's a good idea for Obama to do this speech or whether he's absurdly rich or not.

 

[PBY]

Elizabeth Warren came out noting she was "troubled" by Obama doing this.

 

[excelsiorlef]

After seeing Obama's upcoming HC Speech come up on Fox News and be used an excuse to bash him with pretty much the same talking points as the far left, that part of this article really resonated. (I'd post it in the dedicated thread if it were on the front page, but I'd rather not dredge that monstrosity up.)

The Far Left Is Still Out Of Touch With Black Voters

This is fantastic!

 

[tedrotheredro]

Haven't watched in awhile but is Sean Spicer still doing that shit where he calls on Skype people? I remember it stopped when even those folks started turning on him.

He had some skype people on a week or two ago, but it's become rare. Not good for ratings, I guess.

 

[whyamihere]

I mean, it's weird to me that people are referring to this critique as coming from the far left at all when the articles I'm seeing are from Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro.

Once again, I feel like there's an effort to marginalize this critique by painting it as a Clinton/Bernie issue. Some things can actually just be a bad idea and not relate to the 2016 campaign. Relatedly, Sanders can just be kind of a hypocrite and The Young Turks can be absolute trash without that really being connected to whether it's a good idea for Obama to do this speech or whether he's absurdly rich or not.

This.

 

[pigeon]

Fair enough. There's also the other problem: the optics of one trying to label the people closer to you as both racist and misogynist. Unless you got damn good evidence that that's what a significant amount of them are (at which point one wonders why they aint voting republican)...i'm not sure that's a good idea. Sure will be seen as nothing more than a way to get them to shut the fuck up about their concerns, tho.

Eh.

To be honest, if people want to say that I'm being racist for thinking Obama shouldn't do this speech...I guess that's fine with me? I understand where the thought process is coming from. I don't think I'm being racist but obviously I would say that, right. I mostly just think I was wrong not to be mad about it in the past and I fucked up.

Getting offended and defensive about people calling you out is unproductive whether or not you think the specific people doing it are right in this instance. Ultimately you've just got to try to fight for social justice as best you can and let people judge you over the course of your lifetime rather than off of individual moments where you may or may not have agreed.

 

[B-Dubs]

I mean, it's weird to me that people are referring to this critique as coming from the far left at all when the articles I'm seeing are from Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro.

Once again, I feel like there's an effort to marginalize this critique by painting it as a Clinton/Bernie issue. Some things can actually just be a bad idea and not relate to the 2016 campaign. Relatedly, Sanders can just be kind of a hypocrite and The Young Turks can be absolute trash without that really being connected to whether it's a good idea for Obama to do this speech or whether he's absurdly rich or not.

The timing of the critique isn't that great is the point people are making. Like I said the other day, I generally didn't make this argument before because I knew it wasn't like that with you guys but it's very easy to see how the complaints can be taken this way.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

He had some skype people on a week or two ago, but it's become rare. Not good for ratings, I guess.

I was really just waiting for one of them to whip their dicks out or something. Would have put money on the Federalist doing it.

 

[pigeon]

The timing of the critique isn't that great is the point people are making. Like I said the other day, I generally didn't make this argument before because I knew it wasn't like that with you guys but it's very easy to see how the complaints can be taken this way.

Sure, I guess. I get what you mean about optics. I don't think my critique here is actually about optics so I am not concerned about the optics of my critique! But I acknowledge the logic of your position as well, especially for people who are primarily concerned about optics.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sure, I guess. I get what you mean about optics. I don't think my critique here is actually about optics so I am not concerned about the optics of my critique! But I acknowledge the logic of your position as well, especially for people who are primarily concerned about optics.

I mean, you've got a very different critique on this than pretty much everyone else.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I mean, you've got a very different critique on this than pretty much everyone else.

Huh? How is pigeon's substantially different from mine?

 

[pigeon]

I think people( like the guy from the article) aren't getting the terminologies right, since everyone use same terms with different meanings.

To be blunt, this is deliberate. People use "progressive," "centrist," "neoliberal," "far left," etc. not as meaningful categories but as rhetorical markers for abusing enemies and identifying personal priorities.

It's very annoying! And don't get me started on "leftist" vs "liberal." Motherfuckers forgot about Hobbes.

I am trying to say things like "class-focused" or "race-focused" or "very small group of angry class-only Bernie supporters" instead because they're actually meaningful descriptors that are less likely to rake people into categories they don't identify with at random. I think I mostly got this from reading sphagnum's posts.

 

[kirblar]

To be blunt, this is deliberate. People use "progressive," "centrist," "neoliberal," "far left," etc. not as meaningful categories but as rhetorical markers for abusing enemies and identifying personal priorities.

It's very annoying! And don't get me started on "leftist" vs "liberal." Motherfuckers forgot about Hobbes.

I am trying to say things like "class-focused" or "race-focused" or "very small group of angry class-only Bernie supporters" instead because they're actually meaningful descriptors that are less likely to rake people into categories they don't identify with at random. I think I mostly got this from reading sphagnum's posts.

I'd be down with populist left, it'd help make the overlap issues w/ the populist right easier to talk about.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Is the complaint about Obama being paid that

a) he's being influenced
b) he's getting money for little work
c) that the optics are bad

?

If it's b), then what's the cutoff? How much should one get paid for a speaking engagement?

If it's c), what's the moral outrage, and why aren't we even more upset that people thing it's a problem if it isn't?

 

[pigeon]

Is the complaint about Obama being paid that

a) he's being influenced
b) he's getting money for little work
c) that the optics are bad

?

If it's b), then what's the cutoff? How much should one get paid for a speaking engagement?

If it's c), what's the moral outrage, and why aren't we even more upset that people thing it's a problem if it isn't?

The complaint is that ethical behavior requires avoiding situations that could lead to undue influence, even if we don't actually believe there is undue influence in this case, because we should have a clear norm in favor of unquestionably ethical choices.

Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.

The amount of money and amount of work are related to the potential for undue influence here.

The Clintons are a good example of the problem here, in that, although in general I don't believe that MOST things the Clintons did were unethical, there are a few things where even I kind of think they're guilty, and it's unquestionable that in general they made no particular effort to make clear to people that their actions were ethical. This is bad for them politically. It's also bad for us politically, both because we become associated with them, and because our ethical positions become tainted by our efforts to defend the Clintons in what is essentially an indefensible position.

Straight up, on ethical issues specifically, nominating Clinton helped normalize Trump. Trump is obviously guilty of many ethical violations. Was it really correct for us to respond by nominating a candidate that could only be described as "probably not guilty of all but a few ethical violations?"*

I am one of the people who spent the last year arguing that it was correct. I thought "HILLARY CLINTON - A CRIMINAL FOR AMERICA" was a funny line!

In retrospect I don't just think I was wrong, I think it was bad for me. I think my moral sense was less effective because of the responsibility I felt to defend a candidate that I believed would be a good president but did not really believe was fundamentally that ethical or interested in being perceived as ethical. I should've had more doubts.

This is me having doubts! Obama should do better. He shouldn't just be ethical -- I trust him to be ethical. He should be extremely visibly and obviously ethical and to the extent that it is possible act to remove any conceivable doubt of his ethical behavior. Not because he's Obama, but because we should have expected the Clintons to do better. Once again, if your pitch is that you're focused on honest governance, you have to be focused on honest governance all the time, not just when you're in office.



* Specifically -- Juanita Broadderick (I believe there's at least probable cause to investigate), and the cattle futures (I straight up believe they're just 100% guilty here and it's actually hard for me to see how people can believe otherwise).

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hillary is just literally the best investor of all time.

(Okay, fine they are guilty with the cattle futures. Just Whitewater and the rest were bullshit).

 

[TheLaughingStock]

And the optics are that this wasn't really a thing until the woman and the black man started taking advantage of it.

I don't think anyone cares about a white woman or a biracial man giving speeches to folks doing the right thing. Moreover, I doubt anyone one cares about elites (who claim they're against the fat cats) talking to firms that inspire and are leaving the world better than they found it.

People get hot and bothered when you're speaking to crowds almost certainly filled with folks that prey on minorities, foreclose on families, and have found their calling peddling snake oil at your expense. Give me a break that the blowback is being driven by sexism and racism...

Critics are the racists and sexists yet the audience of Hillary's Goldman speech (as an example) are the main ones who couldn't care less about the lives of blacks or women in order to make a buck. Zero value. They certainly aren't losing sleep over the optics of anyone harmed by their schemes. The most dangerous racist isn't necessarily the man wearing a hood over his head. It's the man who discriminates against you as he signs you up for a loan with a smile on his face.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So, c)?

We don't think Obama is doing anything unethical, but it might appear that he is?

I can't get behind that. Not when the reaction is without a hint of investigation or even *asking* him if the money is going to a cause. (And I phrase that a particular way, because the argument that he should have proactively announced that assumes he had any inkling that this was going to go public when it did, when apparently the deal isn't even made yet.)

I feel that at the end of the day, this equates to trying to reason with a mob. Can't be done. Obama had 8 years of scandal-free presidency (it's been a while since that happened!) and one step like this and people pounce.

The message isn't the content of the complaint (being paid a lot) it's the nature of the pounce. That's what that article gets right.

The Democrats are never going to win much of anything again if we're so ready to pounce on some of our best over what is objectively nothing.

 

[pigeon]

So, c)?

We don't think Obama is doing anything unethical, but it might appear that he is?

No.

I'm pretty sure I'm extremely explicit in my post that this is not about optics.

Optics and appearances of ethical behavior are not the same thing. Frankly, that confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, is a great example of exactly what I'm concerned about here.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

No.

I'm pretty sure I'm extremely explicit in my post that this is not about optics.

Optics and appearances of ethical behavior are not the same thing. Frankly, that confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, is a great example of exactly what I'm concerned about here.

In what way could a post President appear to be doing something unethical? What you describe sounds exactly like optics. The Clinton examples have no bearing, Obama is not a future office seeker.

 

[BlastProcessing]

This is an amazing bit of reporting that everyone should read.

Buzzfeed: The Convicted Con Artist of Mar-a-lago

Ari Rinkus was convicted of two felonies, owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to his victims, and has a documented habit of lying. But he’s got one big thing going for him: a wife with an important job at Donald Trump’s favorite retreat. And Rinkus is playing that for all it’s worth.

An admitted fraudster who owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to his victims has had access to President Donald Trump through his wife, who is the guest reception manager of Mar-a-Lago, the Winter White House.

Heather Rinkus is such a familiar figure at Mar-a-Lago that senior administration officials fondly call her the club’s “house mother.” Her husband, Ari, is often on hand, too. There he was in February, waiting to greet President Trump in the special access area on the tarmac of Palm Beach International Airport, a few yards away from Air Force One.

But it wasn’t that long ago that Ari, whose real name is Anthony Donald Rinkus, pleaded guilty in federal court to felony wire fraud for a complex financial con job.

That guilty plea came on the heels of a previous one in state court for conducting a car-theft ring.

In fact, Rinkus was still on probation for his earlier crime when he stood to hear his sentence for the Ponzi scheme. "I can't imagine a worse combination of situations, to be knowing that you just contracted a state felony, that you're on probation for it, and then to step into a whole new fraud," federal Judge Robert Jonker said before he ordered Rinkus to serve three years behind bars.

The tale of the Rinkus couple — one a repeat felon and the other a Trump employee who interacts regularly with top government officials — raises the curtain on the way Trump’s sprawling business holdings can sweep minor figures into his political orbit. For a man with a serious criminal record, Ari Rinkus has been in remarkably close proximity to the president. He has parlayed that access — and the perception of access — to his own advantage, sources said, while pursuing potentially lucrative government contracts on behalf of a foreign company.

Earlier this month, Ari Rinkus arrived at Frigate’s — a bar that sits on a canal in North Palm Beach — in a black Chevrolet Suburban. It’s a step down from the Bentley he used to drive, but the new car is part of his “security” job, he told BuzzFeed News. On his collar he wore a pin emblazoned with the Secret Service logo, and Rinkus had a story to go with it.

He recently got pulled over by a young cop, he said. But after he handed over his driver’s license and dared the cop to look him up, the cop returned, apologized, and let him off with just a warning. Rinkus laughed as he finished up the story, and when asked if the cop let him off because he’s affiliated with the Secret Service, he answered, “Yes.”

Pressed for more details on his role in the Secret Service, he said, “I can’t talk about that,” but added that he didn’t just find the pin lying around in the trash.

Of the people conned through the Atlas Fund, Rinkus owed John Burbine, 51, of Key West, Florida, and his wife Stephanie Bartley the most money: $200,420 in restitution.

Burbine told BuzzFeed News he fell for the scheme because Rinkus “seemed like a normal person.”

"He was good at what he did. He played the part — walked the walk, talked the talk,” Burbine said. “And then he took my money."

Burbine was shocked to learn of Rinkus’s connection to Trump: “What? The president of the United States?”

Originally from Michigan, where the Rinkuses met and fell in love, and where Ari first went to prison, Heather worked there for the DeVoses’ Amway Hotel Corporation as a front desk supervisor for six years years and later as a nanny, according to her LinkedIn page. When the Rinkuses first moved to the Palm Beach area, two sources said, they brought up the DeVos family name. A spokesman for the family said the DeVoses had no personal relationship with Heather or Ari Rinkus. Betsy DeVos, daughter-in-law of Amway cofounder Richard DeVos, now serves as secretary of education.

In a brief telephone interview, Heather Rinkus kept repeating “I have no information on that” in response to a series of questions, including how long she worked at Mar-a-Lago and whether the Amway Hotel Corporation had helped her land the job. She ended the interview by hanging up.

In interviews, four people said Ari Rinkus, who was going by “Ari Rink” at the time, pitched them on proposals that would benefit from his wife getting the Mar-a-Lago job and having access to wealthy members — and to Trump. “He kept saying, ‘Once my wife gets that job, I’ll have all the connections for you,’” said one of the sources, a person who has worked closely with Rinkus. All four of the sources requested anonymity because they said they fear Rinkus could hurt their businesses or careers. They all said they had known him for, at minimum, nearly a year.

And the cherry to top it all off

Then, he offered a deal: If BuzzFeed News would drop this story, he would offer up an exclusive interview with Securablinds executives.

Ari Rinkus now takes his place beside Carter Page as the two most Coen Brothers-esque motherfuckers in Trumpland.

 

[PBY]

So, c)?

We don't think Obama is doing anything unethical, but it might appear that he is?

I can't get behind that. Not when the reaction is without a hint of investigation or even *asking* him if the money is going to a cause. (And I phrase that a particular way, because the argument that he should have proactively announced that assumes he had any inkling that this was going to go public when it did, when apparently the deal isn't even made yet.)

I feel that at the end of the day, this equates to trying to reason with a mob. Can't be done. Obama had 8 years of scandal-free presidency (it's been a while since that happened!) and one step like this and people pounce.

The message isn't the content of the complaint (being paid a lot) it's the nature of the pounce. That's what that article gets right.

The Democrats are never going to win much of anything again if we're so ready to pounce on some of our best over what is objectively nothing.

What you're missing is that we don't point this out to "pounce" on him; we point this out to fucking make the party better so that we can maybe win?

 

[RustyNails]

That statement from Obama's press guy is the same thing Hillary repeated for million times during the election. It doesn't work. I'm all for Obama making money but my dude stay the fuck away from Wall Street.

 

[aspiegamer]

So THIS is why he randomly offered the AP person a coke in the middle of their interview. He was trying to set up his own joke, but instead he just looked like a moron saying that with no context.

 

[kirblar]

What you're missing is that we don't point this out to "pounce" on him; we point this out to fucking make the party better so that we can maybe win?

And some of us vehemently disagree that bowing to populists actually makes the party better.

You might not mean to be doing it, but when you and Fox News are both attacking him on this, it's a terrible look.

 

[pigeon]

In what way could a post President appear to be doing something unethical?

Lots of ways. Most obviously, Obama could have deliberately advanced policies favorable to certain companies while in office, building a positive relationship with them that they are paying off now.

As I noted, I don't believe that Obama did do this. I believe that taking buckraking gigs like this, and suggesting that such gigs are acceptable and should be normalized, opens the door to unethical behavior. The reason we don't believe Obama did this is that we trust him, not because he's choosing to behave in such a way as to make it implausible to level this critique at him. Obama should take responsibility for changing this norm in the Democratic party.

What you describe sounds exactly like optics.

What does optics mean to you?

Do you believe that all questions of appearances are always and forever fundamentally meaningless?

If next year the Democrats want to run a candidate who was found not guilty of murder on a technicality, is that fine with you because he's not guilty so ultimately it's just optics?

When George Washington chose to step down after two terms and take no part in partisan politics going forward, was that a meaningless choice as a founding father because it was just optics?

Do you believe that it is important to have, not just ethical behavior, but ethical rules that ensure that unethical behavior does not become normalized or accepted?

The Clinton examples have no bearing, Obama is not a future office seeker.

As long as Obama is a powerbroker in the Democratic Party, he is a politician. His likelihood of running for office in future is not relevant to his ability to exert influence, change perceptions and advance policy goals.

And some of us vehemently disagree that bowing to populists actually makes the party better.

Ethics should not be a populist issue.

You might not mean to be doing it, but when you and Fox News are both attacking him on this, it's a terrible look.

I mean, I don't control what Fox News does. If they're attacking him for it because he's uppity, obviously that's bad and I disavow it. But this really is just a guilt by association argument.

 

[PBY]

And some of us vehemently disagree that bowing to populists actually makes the party better.

You might not mean to be doing it, but when you and Fox News are both attacking him on this, it's a terrible look.

Simple question, yes or no - do you think Obama doing this helps the Democratic party win future elections?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So THIS is why he randomly offered the AP person a coke in the middle of their interview. He was trying to set up his own joke, but instead he just looked like a moron saying that with no context.

If he wasn't Trump, you'd almost feel bad for him in his effort to make a dad joke

 

[kirblar]

Simple question, yes or no - do you think Obama doing this helps the Democratic party win future elections?

I don't think it helps or hurts.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Simple question, yes or no - do you think Obama doing this helps the Democratic party win future elections?

I don't think it matters. I bet in six months Obama's approval ratings will be the same or better than they are now.

Plus, I also don't think it's unethical to take a below market rate as a speaking fees. I mean, I could understand the outrage if Obama was getting a position on the board of Goldman Sachs or something.

Also, by this measure, we can never nominate anybody from the north east ever again, since I guarantee you for instance that Senator Gillibrand has taken more than 400k from employees of the most evil place on the planet.