I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Here I go again.

You are completely dodging the question. Below you said he shouldn't take a vow of poverty, but you are unwilling to even explore the types of jobs, payments, income he should have after leaving office. Since every. single. job. in which he would make a lot of money (and the fact that former Presidents may be in high demand is a fact of life) carries with it the implication that taking it may mean your decisions while in office may be tainted (according to you), I can see why you don't want to answer.

You're right that I have a reaction to the specific situation and don't want to try to turn that into a general rule. Whether that somehow proves me wrong in this specific case probably turns on whether you favor inductive or deductive reasoning.

I think that the people in the primary are different than the people in the general. I think Bernie scored huge points with the issue and I am not sure Trump would have seized on it at all if it wasn't a proven point-scorer. But the fact is, Bernie turned huge numbers of people who would have voted for her on the left away from her no matter what Trump did. (Fuck, just take a good look at Susan Dumbass Sarandon.) Given the small margin of his electoral win, do you think this wasn't significant in painting her as corrupt? If you do, I disagree.

I guess I don't think that Bernie turned that many people. This split in the Democratic Party is not new. Tsongas/Clinton. Bradley/Gore. Dean/Kerry. Clinton/Obama. And if Bernie hadn't raised the issue, I nonetheless think Trump would have made hay with it, because he was running as an outsider against her as an insider.

Well, that's clever. You just now carved out from something everyone does something you think Democrats shouldn't do. And now it's a standard that Democrats should be held to. Given the fact that you refuse to define how former Presidents can make their money, do you realize how ridiculous that is?

What's ridiculous is me repeatedly declining to make anything a standard, and your pretending that I'm holding anyone to any kind of standard.

I disagree. You just said that he is not living up to the standard for Democrats you just defined, which necessarily means he's acting like a Republican.

If you're going to argue with stuff you've made up, just leave me out of it entirely.

Your first two sentences are in complete opposition to each other.

Not at all. I regret that he took this money from Cantor. I do not want to turn that into a general standard, and do not think that he should take a vow of poverty. (Notably, I've never said I have a problem with his taking much more money from a publisher for his memoirs.)

But here's the big question: If Obama is planning on doing incredibly wonderful things, where does that stand in relation to him also earning a ton of money? When we judge him based on all he's done before he was a politician, all he did (or wanted to do) while he was in office, and whatever he does after he leaves, is it possible to come up with a picture of him based on the totality of what he's actually done? Or should we all focus on his inability to live up to this standard in which one must avoid the soft corruption behind taking speaking fees upon leaving office? That is the kind of childish analysis that our uninformed electorate needs to be disabused of. Especially since it's a bullshit smokescreen employed by Republicans to conflate actual corruption with this ridiculous perception of corruption.

If he were to ostentatiously turn down some opportunities to make big coin, or to have firms donate it to charity, that certainly would give him cover to both make money and look better than Republicans.

You keep quoting this guy like he is convincing. He is not.

I think he makes a good point, but you don't, you don't.

If you limited your argument to people like the Clintons, who commanded huge fees after leaving one office, but immediately prior to running for office, you'd have a leg to stand on--especially when she and everyone else in the world knew she was going to run again. But this "soft corruption" theory you're holding on to as it relates to Obama and speaking fees is stupid.[/QUOTE]

Look, it's the same problem that Democrats have when they leave other (non-elective) government offices for highly paid job. You're saying we need to educate voters to accept that there is a revolving door. I'm saying that's easier said than done.