These oversimplifications are why people keep confronting you on this issue.:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one thinks he needs the money.
|
No one thinks he needs the money like no one thinks anyone who makes tons of money
needs it. But that's very different than saying he shouldn't take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party.
|
No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party, but everyone arguing with you here takes issue with your assertion that it is
bad for the Democratic Party. I've tried to distinguish between being paid huge amounts of money before running (Hillary). You won't bite and continue to act like these two things are the same or should be treated the same way. You actively ignore the many reasons why Obama would be paid handsomely and act like the fact that the
perception of corruption is dispositive of whether or not he should take money for speaking engagements after leaving office. I do not think people are focused on this the way you are. I do not think if he (and every Democratic President) declined all money from anyone forever after leaving office that that would change one voter's impression that politicians are bought and paid for. I and others have said that it's the actual access lobbyists and industries have, the campaign finance laws, and the actual decisions politicians make which continually favor corporations over people, etc. that make it so. You ignore it all and continue to act like this "soft corruption" theory is settled.
TM
Threaded Mode