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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I didn't say great President, I said great man. the dignity that he brought to a position where there was a huge thread of hatred towards him for his skin color was impressive. Also, he just always struck me as the most sincere president of my lifetime in how he represented himself, he was human in a way that others never were.

Given congress we will never know if he could have been a great President.

While I think that all of what you said above makes him a great President, when combined with what he did achieve, coming from you, that post?:



TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think it's bad for Dems that socialists are trying to make it look bad for Dems and even worse that some Dems are taking up the cause.

Exactly.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here is Hillary Clinton talking to Goldman Sachs. She is advocating a program to give women entrepreneurial support, and talking about the role of women in the Global economy and using her forum and the CGI/Goldman relationship to build support for investing in women and in integrating women's contributions into metrics and measures of wealth and well-being.

Burn her with fire!

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Burn her with fire!

TM

One of the key things that really riles me is people objecting to someone speaking, not to what they say.

This is especially dangerous when saying you don't want a woman or minority to speak. The onus always must be on the person who, like Ty, is trying to quiet them or limit who someone speaks with to some approved list or some approved conditions (speak, but don't you dare have them pay you for your services!).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I was in no way saying "everyone does it" as either an excuse or a defense.

I was saying "piss off jerk" to someone being excessively self-righteous in the nicest way I could muster.

Obama taking a fee does nothing wrong. There is not even an appearance of corruption when he takes a fee at a point when he has no power to offer anything, and when his record is such that you can't find anything he has done for them in the past. His record is established, it isn't changing, and it's not one of bending over backwards for bond traders.

Apparently you think I'm just not applying "high" enough standards. My standards, being based on logic and sense, are higher than yours. You are trying to cast shade on a good man for something that makes no sense. You are slurring him, and trying to be self-righteous doing it. Since you aren't seeming to get it, let me make it clear: Piss off, jerk, and take the self-righteous bullshit off to Bernie land.

Obviously you aren't understanding where I'm coming from or what I'm trying to say, so I must not have put it very well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You think that's because of what they did as president and not who each company is likely to want to hear from?

No, obviously not.

As I said to my daughter the other day, I worry that Obama will turn out to have been the best president of my lifetime. I have enormous respect for the man. That doesn't mean he's perfect.

When I've criticized him, it has often been for being too cautious and centrist, and suggesting that he shouldn't take $400K from Cantor is of a piece with that. Obama has every right to take the money. I don't think he was corrupt, and I don't think this was part of a quid pro quo. I have worked at a company that spent big $$$ to have a former politician speak, for legit reasons, so I get that too.

All of that said, I think it would be better for Democrats if Obama had not accepted the fee, or if he had arranged for Cantor to pay some profitable or political cause. When he takes almost a half million dollars to show up and talk to finance guys, it doesn't help the cause.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Pure garbage, unless by "something better," you mean setting an example and never accept speaking fees. Bill Clinton took tons of speaking fees and runs a global foundation that does a ton of great things. If you think Obama doesn't have a huge second act coming, you're crazy.

I look forward to Barack Obama's next act, but I hope it works better politically than Bill Clinton's politics did, because for all the great things that he has accomplished since he left office, his brand of politics is a loser right now, both in the United States and around the world. Too many voters have decided, and not without some basis in reality, that Clinton-style politics works out great for the Clintons and not for average people, and when Obama can earn the value of a nice house in most parts of this country for giving a speech to some bankers, that's what a lot of people will think.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here is Hillary Clinton talking to Goldman Sachs. She is advocating a program to give women entrepreneurial support, and talking about the role of women in the Global economy and using her forum and the CGI/Goldman relationship to build support for investing in women and in integrating women's contributions into metrics and measures of wealth and well-being.

She got paid for this.

She should do this every fucking day of the week, and she should do this for JP Morgan and Cantor Fitzgerald and every other firm on Wall Street.

She should take Exxon's money to do this.

She should get Obama doing this.

This is very good.

And if you think that is not the case, you are getting in the way of a powerful force for social change.

I don't see any social change happening from talking to Goldman Sachs. Gary Cohn was running Goldman Sachs when she spoke that day -- what's he been up to lately?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obviously you aren't understanding where I'm coming from or what I'm trying to say, so I must not have put it very well.

I think it is pretty clear. You are being a righteous prick.

You want me to agree with you after understanding you. After hearing you out, I completely disagree. That is to say, I think you are wrong. Wherever you are coming from, it is a land I have visited and found full of Cleveland Steamers.

Do I need to put this in Seussian rhymes?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't see any social change happening from talking to Goldman Sachs. Gary Cohn was running Goldman Sachs when she spoke that day -- what's he been up to lately?

Like it or not, social change requires resources. Simply getting GS to the point where they hire more woman is critical and much needed social change, and you won't do that without dealing with them. But whether GS resources end up being deployed to support infrastructure projects in the third world or juicers in silicon valley will have a lot to do with the world we live in 20 years hence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think it is pretty clear. You are being a righteous prick.

I don't see where I'm being either righteous or a prick. You must be confusing me with Josh Barro or someone else whose tweets you're misreading. Show me a post where I was righteous and I'll donate another $10 to Jon Ossoff for you -- or maybe there's an even more centrist Democrat whom I could support in a show of party unity?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Like it or not, social change requires resources. Simply getting GS to the point where they hire more woman is critical and much needed social change, and you won't do that without dealing with them. But whether GS resources end up being deployed to support infrastructure projects in the third world or juicers in silicon valley will have a lot to do with the world we live in 20 years hence.

If you follow that line of thought, Democrats should talk to the Goldmans of the world for free, to make sure they get more of the message. Charging a higher price reduces Goldman's consumption.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't see where I'm being either righteous or a prick. You must be confusing me with Josh Barro or someone else whose tweets you're misreading. Show me a post where I was righteous and I'll donate another $10 to Jon Ossoff for you -- or maybe there's an even more centrist Democrat whom I could support in a show of party unity?

Right here is one. It drips with so-called progressive righteousness. Why do you think I'm a centrist, having known me a few years?

I actually think TM and Adder are being much more progressive than you in this discussion, because they aren't shushing anyone. Feel free to contribute the $10 to any Democrat you like. Maybe put it toward unseating Darryl Issa with the candidate of your choice.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you follow that line of thought, Democrats should talk to the Goldmans of the world for free, to make sure they get more of the message. Charging a higher price reduces Goldman's consumption.

You'll have to show me how you get there.

Still, it makes me yearn for the world of corporate rather than firm practice. Every firm lawyer knows that people value advice more when they pay for it. Especially sharks like GS.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Right here is one. It drips with so-called progressive righteousness. Why do you think I'm a centrist, having known me a few years?

I actually think TM and Adder are being much more progressive than you in this discussion, because they aren't shushing anyone. Feel free to contribute the $10 to any Democrat you like. Maybe put it toward unseating Darryl Issa with the candidate of your choice.

This raises something else that was becoming pretty acute at the science march last weekend. Where the hell are the Bernie Bros in the resistance?

I was struck there that it seemed there was a great turnout from women's groups, a pretty respectable one form minority groups, the healthcare industry was out in full force, including representatives of hospitals, biotech firms, and the usual globalist cucks, but you just didn't see much of the Bernie Bro types around. We know about 70% of the calls made during the resistance have been from women. I see the old Hillary networks going full steam, but I'm not even seeing much chatter from the Bernie Bros on my faceback page.

Are they all on the sidelines now just sniping at the Ds or are they out trying to get something done?

Question not directed at Ty, but at all.