Support NeoGAF

[PBY]

I don't think it helps or hurts.

Fair. But I worry about these numbers, and I worry that the Democratic party has failed to understand the sea-change that our country underwent post-08 (and continues to undergo). I don't think its beneficial to have the most prominent figure of your party doing this, and that's all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ouch-with-the-country/?utm_term=.3d6bbbdd180b

 

[pigeon]

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.

Not the right metric, since as I keep getting reminded, Obama is not running for anything.

The problem is an ongoing normalization of potentially unethical behavior in the Democratic Party, not any particular election.

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.

This is a misunderstanding of the argument on multiple levels. It's not about Wall Street, and it's not about throwing people who do this out of the party. It's about Obama's unique position giving him the capability to lead his party by setting ethical standards and demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for something on the issue of ethics in government.

 

[kirblar]

Fair. But I worry about these numbers, and I worry that the Democratic party has failed to understand the sea-change that our country underwent post-08 (and continues to undergo). I don't think its beneficial to have the most prominent figure of your party doing this, and that's all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ouch-with-the-country/?utm_term=.3d6bbbdd180b

That sea-change has been seen following every financial crisis in history, it turns out. Right-wing populism rising up in angry hordes always happens, and it turns out, it always peaks 8-12 years afterwards. This isn't permanent, it's temporary, and you have to ride out the know-nothing wave.

Thankfully, in other countries AND the US, BrexitxTrump has rightfully scared the shit out of people and we're already seeing that the wave may have crested here.

 

[Macho Madness]

just shocking that those who think capitalism isn't the problem think this isn't an issue

lol at using a smoothkobra article to smear dissenters of this shit

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

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?

The OP thread is definitely pouncing, and not to make the party better.

If you told be that a) populist voters don't like "elites" with money and we can't have our top guy appear to have money, it would be more honest. Because that's what this boils down to. There is no ethical concern (he's a private citizen!) and either you don't like that he can make easy money for no work, or you are acknowledging that we have to cater to people that don't like that he can make easy money for no work. The meta-message is that you can be really clean, solidly liberal and still get huge grief if the optics are wrong.

Nobody on the right gives a shit about any of this (look at who they elected in direct opposition to their stated values), while Democrats eat their own over it. It's why we lose, plain and simple.

 

[PBY]

That sea-change has been seen following every financial crisis in history, it turns out. Right-wing populism rising up in angry hordes always happens, and it turns out, it always peaks 8-12 years afterwards. This isn't permanent, it's temporary, and you have to ride out the know-nothing wave.

Thankfully, in other countries AND the US, BrexitxTrump has rightfully scared the shit out of people and we're already seeing that the wave may have crested here.

Welp, you're right, don't change anything.

 

[PBY]

The OP thread is definitely pouncing, and not to make the party better.

If you told be that a) populist voters don't like "elites" with money and we can't have our top guy appear to have money, it would be more honest. Because that's what this boils down to. There is no ethical concern (he's a private citizen!) and either you don't like that he can make easy money for no work, or you are acknowledging that we have to cater to people that don't like that he can make easy money for no work. The meta-message is that you can be really clean, solidly liberal and still get huge grief if the optics are wrong.

Nobody on the right gives a shit about any of this (look at who they elected in direct opposition to their stated values), while Democrats eat their own over it. It's why we lose, plain and simple.

The right "ate their own" for nearly a year in their primary, didn't matter there either.

 

[kirblar]

Welp, you're right, don't change anything.

To paraphrase Nemo, the answer isn't to change anything, it's to keep going where we know the change is going! Don't go back! Don't go rural (they're dying off!), don't go populist, don't go to the WWC! (Nationally, state/local races will always need to be adaptable.)

Stop trying to go to dried up wells that are now filled with poison and zombies that want to kill you!

 

[Macho Madness]

To paraphrase Nemo, the answer isn't to change anything, it's to keep going where we know the change is going! Don't go back! Don't go rural (they're dying off!), don't go populist, don't go to the WWC!

Stop trying to go to dried up wells that are now filled with poison and zombies that want to kill you!

are you a parody account?

 

[kirblar]

are you a parody account?

No. I am fucking sick of people trying to get us to reach out to these people who fucking hate people like me. Corporations are doing more for Trans people in NC than the electorate can be bothered to.

Capitalism isn't the problem. Those who think capitalism is the problem fundamentally misunderstand the reason that Capitalism variants are the only system that works- people are selfish and self-interested, and trying to go against that innate truth will lead to bad outcomes.

Greed isn't good, but you sure can pay for a lot of people's healthcare if you harness it correctly!

 

[chadskin]

News: Sec State Rex Tillerson tells @NPR US favors direct talks with North Korea on ending its nuclear program. More @MorningEdition Friday.

https://twitter.com/nprinskeep/status/857711932228423681

No war? SAD!

 

[Macho Madness]

No. I am fucking sick of people trying to get us to reach out to these people who fucking hate people like me. Corporations are doing more for Trans people in NC than the electorate can be bothered to.

Capitalism isn't the problem. Those who think capitalism is the problem fundamentally misunderstand the reason that Capitalism variants are the only system that works- people are selfish and self-interested, and trying to go against that innate truth will lead to bad outcomes.

Greed isn't good, but you sure can pay for a lot of people's healthcare if you harness it correctly!

Okay, so you are a parody. Cool. Just asking.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Reasonable disagreement on positions is one thing, but I honestly don't understand people's incredulity about opposition to post-presidential profiteering having a non-populist basis. The tradition was the complete opposite for the vast majority of the country's history; it's only in the modern era that our culture has shifted to widespread acceptance of the monetization of presidential status. The founding fathers (not that they're flawless barometers by any means) would have strongly disapproved of the practice for the same reasons they instituted a presidential salary in the first place.

Judges and lawyers must refrain from not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety as well; I assume people agree that this is an uncontroversial standard. Why should extending the same standards of ethical behavior to the office of the President require a populist basis?

 

[Slayven]

Sean hannity is losing it on Twitter

 

[The Technomancer]

No. I am fucking sick of people trying to get us to reach out to these people who fucking hate people like me. Corporations are doing more for Trans people in NC than the electorate can be bothered to.

Capitalism isn't the problem. Those who think capitalism is the problem fundamentally misunderstand the reason that Capitalism variants are the only system that works- people are selfish and self-interested, and trying to go against that innate truth will lead to bad outcomes.

Greed isn't good, but you sure can pay for a lot of people's healthcare if you harness it correctly!

I don't agree fully with this defense of capitalism as stated, but I do agree with kirblar that I am getting really sick of how many problems I'm seeing ascribed to capitalism that we could just fix if we got rid of it. Capitalism is responsible for a lot of ill in the world, but there's also a ton of human shittiness that a lot of people seemingly don't want to confront right now, and you see it springing up in all of these narratives around Trump voters and the WWC and all these ideas that they've been tricked and duped from the path of friendly solidarity by the cabal of capitalists

No actually America was founded on very profound and shitty racism and a lot of the country still inhabits that space

 

[Slayven]

I wonder how long before going to a ivy league school will become a sin to some on the left?

Reasonable disagreement on positions is one thing, but I honestly don't understand people's incredulity about opposition to post-presidential profiteering having a non-populist basis. The tradition was the complete opposite for the vast majority of the country's history; it's only in the modern era that our culture has shifted to widespread acceptance of the monetization of presidential status. The founding fathers (not that they're flawless barometers by any means) would have strongly disapproved of the practice for the same reasons they instituted a presidential salary in the first place.

Judges and lawyers must refrain from not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety as well. Is it really that difficult for people to understand why people believe the same standard of ethical behavior should apply to the office of the President?

Same founding fathers that kept slavery? They did love free labor

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Sean hannity is losing it on Twitter

when isn't he lol

Tho Fuckabee's terrible comedy is best shitty conservative Twitter imo

 

[Slayven]

when isn't he lol

He is talking about a high ranking conspiracy from in Fox News to take it down. He says it goes alway to the top. Good Tinfoil hat stuff

 

[Macho Madness]

I wonder how long before going to a ivy league school will become a sin to some on the left?

The elites have no interest in my well being.

 

[Dan]

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

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

This is a wacky read. If only this country more seriously cracked down on fraud, con artists and white collar crime. He's blatantly right back to doing what he's been doing for years and years. Con artists are going to be swarming around Trump's businesses and trying to profit via access over these next couple years. Mar-a-Lago is going to be their headquarters.

 

[kirblar]

I wonder how long before going to a ivy league school will become a sin to some on the left?

8/9 of the current justices went to Harvard (5) or Yale (3) law school, I've seen it brought up that having that level of dominance from those institutions is probably not a good idea.

He is talking about a high ranking conspiracy from in Fox News to take it down. He says it goes alway to the top. Good Tinfoil hat stuff

Suddenly you aren't allowed to harass women anymore and it's like an apocalypse to them!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Nope, what's in it for him?

Yeah, there's no way Page would get a pardon. There would have to be a clear advisor whispering that to Trump, and I don't see anyone who would do that.

I really don't know what you're trying to imply here. "The far left" isn't a codeword for people who are well-off, white, super liberal in economics, and don't care about minorities.

So this is where I see the mix-up. "The far-left" isn't being used as a codeword, it's being using as pigeon said to mark certain groups. What you have typed here is putting the cart before the horse; the term got applied to those demographics because statistically those are the more common demographics of the group making these arguments that we're both opposed to. You may still match those demographics though (I'm a cisgendered white man in a heterosexual relationship, for example). That's just something to filter out when reading things like "Man fucking white men ruining everything." In aggregate, it's not wrong.

To use the other side, I'm sure that you talk about Republicans as racist, sexist, etc... but I'm positive (large samples and all) that there are black gay trans Muslims (okay maybe not plural, might be reaching there) who support Trump. It's just that we know it's not super likely. Don't take an article like that as talking about you; you know it isn't, and that's all that matters.

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?

Yes, if taken at your word, I believe that this is your intent (and everyone here). But that requires me to know you at least somewhat and to trust you. Black people have a lot of reasons to not take that leap though; the history of our country, including most of its progressives, is painted with a racist filter.

Essentially this is "I didn't hire you because I had a better candidate, not because you're black." In some cases, this is an honest statement. In other cases, it's not. There's quite literally no way to tell though, so you really shouldn't fault people for playing it safe and not trusting your word.

 

[Slayven]

8/9 of the current justices went to Harvard (5) or Yale (3) law school, I've seen it brought up that having that level of dominance from those institutions is probably not a good idea.

Suddenly you aren't allowed to harass women anymore and it's like an apocalypse to them!

Too some people equality is worse than death

The elites have no interest in my well being.

So some one has to be a pauper idiot until elected?

 

[excelsiorlef]

I wonder how long before going to a ivy league school will become a sin to some on the left?

The elites have no interest in my well being.

With a response like that Macho, you probably shouldn't be calling other people parody accounts... just saying.

 

[Ogodei]

He is talking about a high ranking conspiracy from in Fox News to take it down. He says it goes alway to the top. Good Tinfoil hat stuff

There probably is change coming from the top soon, as the reports of Murdoch's sons indicate, although they'll clean house conventionally rather than having to invent fake scandals for people like him, or O'Reilly.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I don't think it should be controversial that having a homogenous highly privileged group (Ivy League-ers) compose the vast majority of powerholders and that diversifying that group and including people from public universities would be a good thing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't think it should be controversial that having a homogenous highly privileged group (Ivy League-ers) compose the vast majority of powerholders and that diversifying that group and including people from public universities would be a good thing.

That was not the statement that was made though.

 

[kirblar]

I don't think it should be controversial that having a homogenous highly privileged group (Ivy League-ers) compose the vast majority of powerholders and that diversifying that group and including people from public universities would be a good thing.

I actually don't disagree with that critique, I don't think the "GO HERE IF YOU WANT TO BE ON THE SC" thing is good at all. I was just pointing out that the critique was already a thing.

 

[Macho Madness]

Too some people equality is worse than death


So some one has to be a pauper idiot until elected?

Those that have massive privilege may not have the best life experience to guide the country. I see where you stand however.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Same founding fathers that kept slavery? They did love free labor

It is there provided that "The President of the United States shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them." It is impossible to imagine any provision which would have been more eligible than this. The legislature, on the appointment of a President, is once for all to declare what shall be the compensation for his services during the time for which he shall have been elected. This done, they will have no power to alter it, either by increase or diminution, till a new period of service by a new election commences. They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice. Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.

Written by some dumb slaver named Hamilton or something.

 

[kirblar]

The elites have no interest in my well being.

Those that have massive privilege may not have the best life experience to guide the country. I see where you stand however.

Neither the Clintons nor Obama grew up w/ massive privilege. Who are these "Elites" you refer to? People with a college education? Urban people? Fortune 500 CEOs?

 

[Y2Kev]

I think I'm going to become a republican if we just reduce stuff to "capitalism is the problem"

I mean ok

Bye poors

 

[Y2Kev]

The elites have no interest in my well being.

They don't. But I don't either. 95% of people don't. That we have any safety net and collective society at all is quite amazing given these fundamental realities. FUIGM is pervasive.

Capitalism isn't the reason I don't care about you though.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Those that have massive privilege may not have the best life experience to guide the country. I see where you stand however.

I mean if you want to make anyone with an Ivy league education out to be a boogeyman that's your call but I'd say don't call other people parody accounts then.

 

[pigeon]

Same founding fathers that kept slavery? They did love free labor

I mean, nobody* denies that America was built on a foundation of white supremacy, but that doesn't seem like a super apropos response to people saying that there used to be traditional democratic norms that reduced corruption and it's bad to get rid of them.

Those that have massive privilege may not have the best life experience to guide the country. I see where you stand however.

Cmon, man, this is really dumb. It's Slayven.

People need to work on the idea that you could disagree on a particular progressive discussion point** and not necessarily be a traitor to the movement. What about, like, trying to convince people?



* Some people totally deny it but those people are bad
** Except about Nazis being bad, that one actually is required

 

[Slayven]

Those that have massive privilege may not have the best life experience to guide the country. I see where you stand however.

Yeah Mr. Privilege Aka Obama., he rode into office on the back of Hippogriffs and sat upon a throne of Vibrnium.

I mean, nobody* denies that America was built on a foundation of white supremacy, but that doesn't seem like a super apropos response to people saying that there used to be traditional democratic norms that reduced corruption and it's bad to get rid of them.

I just don't see how Obama getting paid for a speech is corruption.

 

[kirblar]

Cmon, man, this is really dumb. It's Slayven.

People need to work on the idea that you could disagree on a particular progressive discussion point** and not necessarily be a traitor to the movement. What about, like, trying to convince people?

One of the serious issues w/ discourse on the left is that there's a big part of the left that is convinced all mainstream economic theory (that even liberal economists subscribe to) is completely wrong.

And thus having the audacity to have an economics degree gets you labeled a "parody poster" because you dared to say blasphemous things that contradict their holy dogma.

 

[PBY]

One of the serious issues w/ discourse on the left is that there's a big part of the left that is convinced all mainstream economic theory (that even liberal economists subscribe to) is completely wrong.

And thus having the audacity to have an economics degree gets you labeled a "parody poster" because you dared to say blasphemous things that contradict their holy dogma.

Its actually super frustrating. Totally agree. And I hate that my points get lumped in with that viewpoint.

 

[kirblar]

(Pigeon is NOT one of these people on the left.)

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The "oh so now you think all people from Ivy League schools are bad" is basically just returning to "oh you just think all people in Wall Street are evil". Unless you think the elite schools are predominantly meritocratic, the problem is the system not the individuals, and the system is one where people who are predominantly white and predominantly wealthy spend years with other people from the same background and are going to have predominantly elite worldviews and interests. The fact that not all people from these schools are identically privileged (Obama, of course, knows racial discrimination to a level I can never imagine) doesn't mean we think they should all be guillotined but rather that the elite institution itself should have its power torn down and democratized.

 

[pigeon]

I just don't see how Obama getting paid for a speech is corruption.

I wrote a thing about it last page, the tl;dr is, I don't think Obama is corrupt. I think it's bad for the Democratic Party to normalize behavior that could lead to corruption because we trust individual politicians like Obama, and I think Obama has the power to choose not to do that and to set a better example.

Specifically, this would be an example that Bill Clinton failed to set after Reagan started the heavy buckraking in the first place. The Clintons are responsible for a big shift of Democratic norms on this just as they were on several other topics. I'd like to shift the norms back, just like we generally want to on all those other topics.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Like I'm fine with people taking the position that being able to profit off the presidency is ok or that it shouldn't be prohibited. I'm more than happy to have a reasonable, but very strong, disagreement over that. What I don't understand is the complete refusal to acknowledge the opposing position as having any real substance when that position used to be the status quo in the first place.

The only reason presidents even get a pension in the first place is because of President "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office" Truman. And even he eventually succumbed to the temptation and signed a contract with Life magazine for his memoirs.

Hell you don't even need to go that far back to see when opposition used to be more commonplace; ya'll forget Bush's "time to replenish the coffers" quip?

Bush's great ambition: wealthy boredom
The Guardian's Ed Pilkington in New York
Monday 3 September 2007 04.09 EDT

Reagan's Fall From Grace : The $2-Million Japan Tour, Nancy's Vengeful Memoirs and Legal Battles Over the Iran-Contra Affair Have Made His Retirement Anything but Restful
March 04, 1990 Martin Kasindorf

For Clinton, New Wealth In Speeches
By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 23, 2007

 

[Y2Kev]

Can he give a speech at all?

Should his relationship with the business community be strictly or mostly adversarial? I think it's not illegitimate to ask.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Oh em gee. This again.

 

[studyguy]

Can you guys take it to the thread, for real.


In other news.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/857717650067247104

Latest count from @AlexNBCNews has 16 House Republicans opposed to the revised health care bill. GOP can only afford to lose 22 members.

Hmm

The health of millions of Americans seems pretty fucking important to me.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

People need to work on the idea that you could disagree on a particular progressive discussion point** and not necessarily be a traitor to the movement. What about, like, trying to convince people?

It's going to be harder on our side when the left has legitimate fears that naturally cause anger. I certainly did the other night.

(If I upset anyone but didn't get to send you a PM apologizing, hit me up).

edit: And yeah, I really don't think this health care bill ever gets the privilege of getting killed in the Senate. The GOP is dissolving (note: I don't mean they won't win elections, but that when they do win them, I fail to see how this current coalition could ever govern effectively).

 

[sphagnum]

I think I'm going to become a republican if we just reduce stuff to "capitalism is the problem"

I mean ok

Bye poors

Showing your true colors eh

 

[PBY]

Can he give a speech at all?

Should his relationship with the business community be strictly or mostly adversarial? I think it's not illegitimate to ask.

I think there is a wide gap between paid speeches and adversarial. And Wall Street is a different animal than the business community writ large, given (i) its outsized political influence, and (ii) DC's particular influence on markets and the financial sector.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Yet no one would give a shit if it was Silicon Valley. Who have no influence clearly.

Can he give a speech at all?

Should his relationship with the business community be strictly or mostly adversarial? I think it's not illegitimate to ask.

He should never have anything to do with the business community again. And all public officials should be banned from work post-office.

 

[Slayven]

I wrote a thing about it last page, the tl;dr is, I don't think Obama is corrupt. I think it's bad for the Democratic Party to normalize behavior that could lead to corruption because we trust individual politicians like Obama, and I think Obama has the power to choose not to do that and to set a better example.

Specifically, this would be an example that Bill Clinton failed to set after Reagan started the heavy buckraking in the first place. The Clintons are responsible for a big shift of Democratic norms on this just as they were on several other topics. I'd like to shift the norms back, just like we generally want to on all those other topics.

Thats fine if the DNC whats to enact a rule, but I am not a fan of asking Obama to fall on the sword cause of "optics". Like when people was asking Lebron James to stop playing until Tamir Rice got justice. People want to stay commanding someone's pocket. I could see if Obama had a history of being 2 faced and shifty, but dude was the prefect negro.