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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

it's not on the side of Obama taking the money.

It's funny, but Josh Barro is registered with some of the speaker bureaus, and he's an active journalist not an out of office former-President. But he doesn't see the conflicts there apparently....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's funny, but Josh Barro is registered with some of the speaker bureaus, and he's an active journalist not an out of office former-President. But he doesn't see the conflicts there apparently....

Did you ever find the tweet where he was hating on Chelsea Clinton? I didn't.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obama does not get enough credit now for how he handled the situation he inherited. That said, Obama and Democrats set themselves up for political pain by failing to hold individual bankers responsible. He "admonished them so badly" that they whined to the Wall Street Journal? Where are my fainting salts? Michael Vick served time in prison for fighting with dogs, to take just one example, but the bankers who wrecked our economy didn't. If many people were willing to believe Trump when he said that Hillary was corrupt, that has to be one of the reasons why.

I don't like the Holder Doctrine either, but I put that responsibility on the guy whose legacy is smeared with it. Obama had tons of shit on his plate. Holder did what he did. Sometimes, you have to delegate.

If Holder got $400k, I'd be analogizing him to Flynn.

Cantor's already fairly D for pragmatic reasons, but nevertheless, what's the harm in Obama perhaps opening their eyes to the broader picture?

Let the guy get paid. He did some serious time, admirably. And I'm not even a huge fan. Competence under the stress of the Financial Crisis? Fuck... Like him or hate him, we owe the guy gratitude. Let the man get Collect Some Checks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Having worked next to people who represented big banks, perhaps I'm conflicted, but a very big part of the reason why very few (not none, despite what you will hear from Bernie) went to jail is because there wasn't much crime there to prosecute.

Colossally stupid risk taking isn't a crime.



Woulda helped had not the left been running around saying all bankers are crooks and poo pooing the settlements that the regulators actually made.

ETA: Which isn't to say they shouldn't have been tougher. They probably should have, but again, as Sebby's pointing out, we were in the middle of a precarious effort to keep the banking (and shadow banking) sector alive, which would have been harder to do with more bankers in handcuffs.

In a just world, willful ignorance, or "dancing to the music" as Charles Prince put it, would at least expose one to a clawback.

But we live in a deeply manipulated world -- one where might absolutely makes right.

The frustration at this is why we have Trump and Bernie, and why Hillary, establishment candidate, lost. Life isn't fair, but some semblance of the myth it is, or that the people in charge are at least attempting to create an even playing field, needs to persist.

We've no capacity to resuscitate Plato's Noble Lie anymore. Charlie Rangel nailed it when he said if we had a draft, what we'd get would be a civil war.

People fear Trump's bullshit. But his bullshit isn't really the problem. The problem is, by bullshitting so much, he's destroying any chance of people in charge ever being able to spin the necessary myths that kept society in order.

The phenomenon of the powerful losing the ability to lie to those below and have the proles believe it long predates Trump. I'd say it started with Watergate, and then the Internet, and the Iraq War lies, pretty much destroyed the power structure's credibility. But Trump is the ultimate cherry on the sundae -- bullshit to the tenth power... himself The End of Bullshit, yet covered in so much bullshit, no one spotted the irony.

But now that those at the top, the managers, the alleged "elite," can no longer bullshit the people anymore, now that the people are near entirely cynical (as they should be), and the Internet near instantly exposes the rot behind every attempted lie, what's Plan B? "Fuel the jet for New Zealand?"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Did you ever find the tweet where he was hating on Chelsea Clinton? I didn't.

There are a bunch of them but I'm not going back to search the guy's tweets. He tweets too much for that. But he has several rounds of Chelsea bashing to his name.

It is interesting that he's registered with a speakers' bureau. I mean, he's an active journalist, wouldn't the conflicts be more serious for him than for a former elected official, if taking a check for a speech raises conflicts?

ETA: Actually, if you search "Josh Barro Chelsea Clinton" in google you will see several tweet streams coming up over the last two months where Barro makes snide, disparaging comments about Chelsea Clinton in tirades and exchanges that last from hours to days. It begins with him taking offense that Chelsea wrote a kids book, but it just doesn't stop. I saw a couple commentators suggest that Chelsea should be getting a restraining order given the obsession he has.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not shushing anyone! (I've said several times I wish Obama would give the speech and have Cantor give the money to a good cause, which accomplishes everything you've said you wanted.) And I didn't call you a centrist -- my point was that since people (Adder, I think) were suggesting I was making common cause with socialists by attacking Democrats from the left, I could salve that wound by donating to a centrist. Jeebus.

Of that 65 million for he and Michelle, 15-20% off the top goes to agents. Then you have taxes. And it's paid 1/3 up front, 1/3 at delivery, 1/3 upon certain sales goals being met.

I'm not saying that's not a swell chunk of change, but... well... It's not cheap being in the circles in which popular ex-Presidents find themselves.

(I hope he starts buying better suits. A guy with an athletic build should've had his stuff tailored a bit better. Same went for Bush. But yes... both were obviously much better than Trump's off-the-rack Brionis and knee length neckwear.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(I hope he starts buying better suits. A guy with an athletic build should've had his stuff tailored a bit better. Same went for Bush. But yes... both were obviously much better than Trump's off-the-rack Brionis and knee length neckwear.)

I see no reason why he should ever wear a suit again. Other than a few weddings and funerals.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are a bunch of them but I'm not going back to search the guy's tweets. He tweets too much for that. But he has several rounds of Chelsea bashing to his name.

ETA: Actually, if you search "Josh Barro Chelsea Clinton" in google you will see several tweet streams coming up over the last two months where Barro makes snide, disparaging comments about Chelsea Clinton in tirades and exchanges that last from hours to days. It begins with him taking offense that Chelsea wrote a kids book, but it just doesn't stop. I saw a couple commentators suggest that Chelsea should be getting a restraining order given the obsession he has.

I am not seeing the tweets that fit your description, or wouldn't describe those I've seen as you do, but whatever.

It is interesting that he's registered with a speakers' bureau. I mean, he's an active journalist, wouldn't the conflicts be more serious for him than for a former elected official, if taking a check for a speech raises conflicts?

I suppose that depends on what "active journalism" entails. I think he's paid to have opinions, which dovetails nicely with speaking.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I am reacting more to the $400K than to the fact that it's Cantor

Okay, that's even more asinine than the Berners. You're a free market guy. How could you possibly object to him making what the market will pay?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You're saying we need to educate voters to accept that there is a revolving door.

Careful now, or you're going to get a lecture from a former low-level government functionary who left and made the big time...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The phenomenon of the powerful losing the ability to lie to those below and have the proles believe it long predates Trump. I'd say it started with Watergate, and then the Internet, and the Iraq War lies, pretty much destroyed the power structure's credibility.

You keep wanting to think there's new shit in the world, but there isn't. All of this stuff is ancient.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, that's even more asinine than the Berners. You're a free market guy. How could you possibly object to him making what the market will pay?

Oh, for the love of God. If you stop and think just for even a second here, you will get that my concern has everything to do with the idea that the market is doing a good job of establishing the value of his time.

I swear, I don't even care that much about this, but really?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I suppose that depends on what "active journalism" entails. I think he's paid to have opinions, which dovetails nicely with speaking.

Really? So when you read a journalist who is writing on the financial industry, it is not relevant to you whether that journalist is getting paid on the side for services provided to Goldman Sachs?

This is about ethics in journalists who are gaming us.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, that's even more asinine than the Berners. You're a free market guy. How could you possibly object to him making what the market will pay?

I would have gone with the George Bernard Shaw quote about haggling over the price, but ymmv.