Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hear people saying that if I think about it, I shouldn't have a problem with it (OK), that Democrats should work harder to explain to other people why they shouldn't have a problem with it (noble but foolish), and that Democrats shouldn't abandon core principles to satisfy idiot voters (true, but if it's a core Democratic principle that someone with a lot of money should have the opportunity to get more on Wall Street, that's not the hill I want to die on). I don't see anyone actually disputing that it is unhelpful.
|
Come on. No one has said it's a core Democratic principle. What we've said is that ignorant and stupid voters lump everyone into the same boat because Republicans (and now Bernie and other lefties) conflate
actual issues of corruption with the
perception of corruption. I do not think it's foolish to draw a distinction between the two and to try to inform the electorate of the difference. In fact, I think it's the Bernies who intentionally try to blur the lines between the two things that are doing considerable damage to the Democratic Party. If the President stops taking speaking engagements, do you think Republicans and Bernie stop trying to blur the line?
Hell, you just said a few posts ago that Democrats have done a poor job helping struggling people when you know that they've been killing themselves repairing damage done by Republicans and trying to help those who are being wiped out by market forces. When the people they're trying to help turn to their left and right and see firemen and teachers as the enemies who are making way too much money, it's an uphill battle. And one that is made harder because it's way easier to point and say, "See? Bad! Let's destroy government," than it is to say, "Here's why we should invest in this, that, and the other. Let's build." Pointing at Obama is the former and it perpetuates the ignorance that Republicans thrive on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are quite right that Hillary hurt herself doing this, and you are quite right that there is a distinction between what she did and what he is doing, but since I wasn't talking about her in the first place it doesn't change my view about what he is doing.
|
Ah. I see. Although you brought up this idea of soft corruption purposefully within the realm of political corruption and politicians being beholden to banks and other special interests, we can't talk about why Obama taking speaking fees isn't really the same as other types of fees that really are problematic because you didn't bring up those particular examples. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not ignoring them, but they don't address my point.
|
I am struggling to understand why you cannot discuss your point in context. If 999 people think that Obama is being paid because his story and experience have value and 1 person thinks it's because he was making decisions during his Presidency that have value to Cantor and is collecting on that payoff, your point has very little value. If the numbers are more like 60-40, then the discussion becomes more interesting. But to avoid any type of contextual discussion makes it seem like you have a very weak argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. I respect your view on that one, and we can agree to have different views. FWIW, I don't think it's a lot of people.
|
Whew. Common ground. I would love if you would concede that Bernie and the authors you're quoting shouldn't fan a spark that is basically nothing until it becomes an actual issue, but I'll take what I can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think Democrats need to be better than Republicans on this stuff, and that it's not just the actual decisions that matter -- it's the narrative and the story around it as well. YMMV. It's a big tent, and we can agree to disagree on this one, too. Thank you for taking seriously what I had to say.
|
Democrats are far and away better than Republicans on this stuff--the narrative and the actual decisions. You can't possibly disagree with that.
TM
