metalslimer
Member
Just so I'm clear the problem people have is that Obama was a politician that is making a lot of money, and not just the fact that he can now make a lot of money
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
No it does not. Its paid by the Clinton Foundation. If you want to say all the money in the Clinton Foundation personally belongs to him, this is why the opposition was making the argument that donations to the foundation were "pay to play".
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I know it's a boring answer, but it's because of money in politics. The system makes it too difficult for people outside the donor class to ever make out out of city council. The far right can generally still get a ton of easy money that the far left will never get outside of nationalized cults of personality.
And born from that environment was the notion that the socially liberal/fiscally conservative was the key "median" voter to pander to for the left, which had varying levels of success until a number of centrist policies became such clearly huge failures and destroyed the center left coalition on a worldwide level, which they still have no idea how to recover from.
And unfortunately the far left hasn't come up with a successful strategy yet either. Their success with young people across the globe suggests they have a strong future ahead, but they don't have the coalition yet to pick up the center left's slack in the here and now.
lol are you kidding me right now? that's how you want to weasel out of being wrong? It comes from private funds. Whether its the Clinton Foundation (which is paid for with the money you're arguing Presidents shouldn't take) or his wallet makes no difference. He needs to come up with the cash. Starting the Obama Foundation to launder the money would solve what exactly?
Yeah, optics matter. The optics of Obama appearing to admit he did something wrong when he did nothing wrong would matter a lot.
People need to remember that these aren't good faith arguments. I mean, I don't even think that anybody in this thread is seriously arguing that Obama is actually corrupt for taking this money. We're arguing the appearance. And we're arguing the appearance, because a bunch of people who didn't give a shit about speaking fees until last year suddenly do because some dude from Vermont beat that drum like the energizer bunny.
But those people are going to complain anyway. Hell, the complaints would get louder if Obama conceded at this point (see: how GAF OT flies into a rage when Hillary Clinton so much as coughs these days).
What? I argued that Clinton's staff is not paid from his personal account. You said yes. Now you are saying the private funds in the Clinton Foundation are his personal account? Tax-deductible contributions to the Clinton Foundation are different from the taxable payments for speeches, by the way. They are different.
So you're seriously arguing that Obama taking a 400k speaking fee post Presidency is going to corrupt him?
Frankly, given that you started off the conversation by assuming that everybody who disagrees with you is an angry Bernie supporter deliberately trying to divide the party, I'm disinclined to repeat all my posts for you. Go back and read them if you want to know what I think.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
the Democratic party seemed to have a problem with it when Republicans did it
https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/6933144008
https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/159312802832592898
other presidents were criticized for it too
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-criticism-speaking-fees-492534
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/magazine/tm-2327_1_nancy-reagan-foundation
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Whoa whoa let's not throw the B word around.
Fuck purity tests. I hate those too.
Fuck purity tests. I hate those too.
Sorry if I mischaracterized you specifically, but from my reading of the last few pages the general consensus among most of the people participating in this discussion is that it is the appearance of corruption that makes this problematic, and not that Obama will actually be corrupted by this. If that's not your position, I apologize.
Also, I didn't call anybody in this thread an "angry Bernie supporter." I however did, and completely stand by, my position that Bernie spending a year implying that Hillary Clinton was selling out the American middle/lower class via private speeches is the only reason that so many on the left now suddenly care about private speeches. That doesn't mean you're a Bernie supporter, but he has definitely influenced this discussion.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
The opposing party always has a problem with what the the President does even when their President does it, too.
Bush's drone strikes and targeting of American citizens as enemy combatants were brilliant necessities for national security, Obama's were unconstitutional. Bush's pre-emptive strikes and regime change in Iraq were necessary because Hussein was a madman who might've had WMDs, Obama's actions in Libya were an egregious mistake even though no American died at all. Clinton's bombing campaign was a necessity for defending human life in the face of potential genocide, Kurds? What are those, no blood for oil! Yada yada, etc. etc. until the end of time.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Your first two examples are are not remotely comparable.
1.) Michael Steele was still chairman of the RNC (January 30, 2009 – January 14, 2011).
Article was from December 22, 2009.
2.) The focus of the tweet was about Romney saying he made "not very much" money doing speeches.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
this doesn't contradict my point though
royalan asserted that no one has ever cared about this before Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, I was providing contrary evidence
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Ah, gotcha, misread that exchange.
Did I? No, I did not do that.
Obviously people complain about politicians taking money from certain groups. But, seriously, are we really going to argue that Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with why this, paid speeches, now, is suddenly a front page topic and dominant discussion on the left?
shinra-bansho
Member
C'mon. Let's not pretend that this would be "a thing" if SPEECHES and TRANSCRIPTS wasn't in the media for 6 months last year.
Some people would still take issue.
Some people would still not care.
But it wouldn't be "a thing."
Although realistically no one will care in two weeks time. So whatever.
Some people would still take issue.
Some people would still not care.
But it wouldn't be "a thing."
Although realistically no one will care in two weeks time. So whatever.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Even the people that cared didn't care enough to read said transcripts when they were released.
Funkyhamster
Member
The fact that he is so clearly unhappy is the icing on the cake of this whole nihilistic tragedy... Sometimes I almost feel sorry for the guy, before I remember that he could easily just resign if his ego would let him.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
On the other hand you'd be able to read his transcripts without getting an aneurysm.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I remember people begging for Pence when they thought Bannon was a dark puppetmaster, now it seems clear that, in some ways, having someone as anarchic and incompetent as Trump is the best case scenario for a GOP this inept and corrupt with this much power across the country.
Electric Eye
Banned
He thought having a real job would be easier than a pretend job that he inherited and others have been doing for him since day one while he lived it up? At least he's finding out what real work is for once. His hands might even finally go into puberty from all that pen handling and grow to real man size.
VendettaRed07
Member
So we shouldn't include the far left or placate to them at all out of fear of what they will demand and what position they'll leave the party but shouldn't worry at all and be totally ok with democrats taking absurd amounts of money from the wealthy and corporations like they aren't going to ask for anything in return for continued support
JesseEwiak
Member
The truth is, at the end of the day, in a world where Instagram models can make tens of thousands of dollars for showing off some shady weight cutting drink, it's impossible for me to get upset for Obama to take below market rate to speak about health insurance to some rich people.
I mean, again, it'd be one thing if he was taking a position on the board of a Wall Street firm.
But, would the vast majority of people upset at this even care if he was taking the same amount of cash to speak to Kaiser Permanente in California about health care? Probably not.
I mean, again, it'd be one thing if he was taking a position on the board of a Wall Street firm.
But, would the vast majority of people upset at this even care if he was taking the same amount of cash to speak to Kaiser Permanente in California about health care? Probably not.
The assumption that every person and corporation will ask for something that Dem voters will find bad is astonishingly naive.
Go ask Tim Cook if you think the Dem stance on LGBTQ rights is bad.
Go ask Warren Buffet if you think Hillary's stance on taxes was bad.
Not every single request that comes from a position of privilege is going to be bad. Trust that politicians and donors will actually match-up in some way - you're not going to have a Sheldon Adelson pushing money to a Dem campaign. As we noted during the 2016 election, the donors who don't "match" with the party or candidate will sit-out rather than give money to the ideological opponent.
Also, how is it two days ago? Why are we back to talking about Obama and Speeches? Trump presidential enough already?
Late edit: Not to labour my point, but all the money Hillary took from moneyed interests, and you know who Wall Street was afraid of winning in 2016? Hillary.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What's happening with the investigation into Jane Sanders' college fiasco and Bernie's involvement now? Twitter is talking vaguely about something but I can't figure out what
https://vtdigger.org/2017/04/27/emails-reveal-fbi-justice-probe-burlington-college/
Evidence that the FBI has been investigating Burlington College.
Found this on Twitter - it looks like this gets worse - she was shunting money over to her daughter's woodworking school in the process. https://medium.com/@m.ferrer/nepotism-at-burlington-college-1a9af167ae9b
(I found the tax records here, they're legit: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/30229504 )
"Aides worry Hillary Clinton could overdose of schaudenfraude" got me on Twitter.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
Anyone who's convinced Sanders would have made it through the GE smelling like roses by the end is deluding themselves. When you look at the forces that were colluding against Clinton (Russia, FBI, etc) nothing about Sanders would have enticed them not to do the same thing they did to Clinton. A lot of the Clinton stuff (Benghazi, the emails) was basically nothing yet it still tore her down.
Like people think Republicans would just spontaneously combust the moment they laid eyes on someone as pure and untainted as Bernie Sanders. If only. This just reinforces it. They would have found something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB2gEJLd_p8
"So, the first black President must also be the first one not to take money afterwards? No, no, no, no, my friend. He can't be the first of everything. **** that. And **** you." - Trevor Noah.
"So, the first black President must also be the first one not to take money afterwards? No, no, no, no, my friend. He can't be the first of everything. **** that. And **** you." - Trevor Noah.
Would this be how Bernie and his followers are silenced? I seem to recall people in this thread basically saying "We've got to make peace with Bernie and his wing, because they'll be with us at least until 2020." But this doesn't seem like it's going to help him or his cause any.
(not trying to stir the pot, btw - genuinely curious if this, which pretty much is the only thing that could potentially silence him, will actually silence him).
(not trying to stir the pot, btw - genuinely curious if this, which pretty much is the only thing that could potentially silence him, will actually silence him).
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
vtdigger.org sounds very reliable.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I've largely stayed out of this debate and this thread because I just can't care enough to muster an opinion on this. Yes it didn't used to be normal for presidents to do this. Yes its not a great look. Also this almost certainly isn't a payment for Obama to influence the Dems to be lenient on Wall Street. Also if Obama wants to make some money he can make some fucking money. I just don't have the energy to really argue in either direction
It's a part of the Vermont Journalism Trust, which is fairly legit looking.
It looks like a regular ol' small state journalism outfit to me.
If the emails are fake, considering they're completely unredacted and include everyone's names and contact info, and even name the FBI agents who were looking at the documents, that'd be pretty damn easy to disprove.
Unless I was mistaken, wasn't there an article once stating that Republicans preferred Bernie as the Democratic nominee because he was viewed as an easier target compared to Hillary?
Again, unless I was mistaken.
It was pretty common knowledge. They deliberately didn't attack him for a reason.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hell, Kasich said it at one of the debates.
Maybe they would have been wrong, but if you turned back the clock to Jan 2016 they would have loooved it if Bernie was the nominee. Dude said outright he wanted to raise peoples' taxes.
Macho Madness
Member
Yeah the unelectable Bernie sanders would have lost the election unlike
It is really hard to know how things would have gone down with Sanders. He is easier to attack on paper, but his views may have resonated better with with the people who stayed home or who voted on Trump on the hopes of improving their situation. Plus he didn't have the same political baggage that Hillary had. But he has only come into the pubic light recently, the Republican Party may have been able to dig up a ton of stuff to use against him for ads.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked