Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
Obama spoke to some bankers. This was a non-issue, aside from that it looked bad to some people who don't like banks, and you. I don't think you're someone who doesn't like banks, which is part of why I do not understand why it looked bad to you, unless you were concerned about how it looked to people who don't like banks. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that we need to care about what those people think for political reasons. Heck, maybe it's even right.
Personally, I didn't think it helped to legitimize those anti-bank sentiments, even if I sort of agreed that we need support from those anti-bank people.
|
If you didn't understand what I said here before, there really isn't any point in my repeating it now. Note that my most recent post, the one you're responding to, referred to Clinton, not Obama. That was because I thought I'd say something about Clinton, not Obama. I'm not quite sure yet what Obama is doing with his post-Presidency, but he doesn't seem to be following Clinton's roadmap.
Quote:
|
Isn't that the very definition of a charitable foundation?
|
No, but it's not uncommon either.
Quote:
|
I'm not so sure about that. It's possible for money to be money, and to not be dependent on the next large one-off gift. But I'll grant you that the Clintons are not exactly who you'd want in charge to prevent it.
|
I'm not sure in what sense that's possible, but the conversation quickly becomes interesting only for semantic and philosophical reasons, not for any practical application.
