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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You should pick up a book written by an old classmate of mine

actually I think most of you (including SEC) should spend more time on pornhub.com. You all don't exercise enough to expect your TCB'ing years to last much longer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

EVERY Prez (save Carter? Who I think is/was a brain damage case) has done this. Maybe it's Ty's "Obama walks on water" finally being disappointed he's just a man, a great one, but still human?

I'm not particularly disappointed, but it's a missed opportunity to do something better.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, I'm talking about the corrosive appearances. I don't think Barack Obama had a quid pro quo with Cantor Fitzpatrick. I do think that his taking that money from them will cause some people to think he did, and some of them will be swing voters.



I think you're missing my point. See this by Jeffrey Toobin, for example. Citizens United OK'd a lot of conduct which does not involve a quid pro quo and which, nonetheless, a lot of lefties view as corrupt in a broader sense. It would have been better for Democrats if Obama had not taken the $400K.

Dems (and everyone sensible) need to work on requiring even-handed disclosure of financial relationships across the board and prohibitions of actual conflicts, not prohibiting anything that might trigger paranoia whether it is a problem or not. Those are laws we can get through and that will make sense, and they would really help a lot right now.

Focusing your time and energy on Obama taking a speaking fee after he's left office at a time when we have a President who has made minimal disclosure of his financial ties at a point while his children are cutting deals we don't know about in the white house with foreign powers is insanity.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Dems (and everyone sensible) need to work on requiring even-handed disclosure of financial relationships across the board and prohibitions of actual conflicts, not prohibiting anything that might trigger paranoia whether it is a problem or not. Those are laws we can get through and that will make sense, and they would really help a lot right now.

Democrats ought to hold themselves to a higher standard relative to whatever laws they might persuade a Republican Congress to enact, which I say less because I'm on a moral high horse -- hey, better for Obama to have that money than Cantor, he's more likely to spend it in a socially beneficial way, I would think -- and more because Republicans like to accuse Democrats of being corrupt too, and one way to defuse those attacks is to hold oneself to a higher standard than whatever the law allows.

Focusing your time and energy on Obama taking a speaking fee after he's left office at a time when we have a President who has made minimal disclosure of his financial ties at a point while his children are cutting deals we don't know about in the white house with foreign powers is insanity.

I'm posting on a chatboard for lawyers, and you're thinking you can improve how I allocate my time and energy? Obviously there's plenty of room for gains to be made, but thinking you're going to help me at this point seems like hubris.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Republicans like to accuse Democrats of being corrupt too, and one way to defuse those attacks is to hold oneself to a higher standard than whatever the law allows.

Defuse is whose eyes? Adder himself has said the ex-prez has the right to get rich. Trump voters wouldn't change their minds. Less open to Bernie attack? He ain't running for anything.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Democrats ought to hold themselves to a higher standard relative to whatever laws they might persuade a Republican Congress to enact, which I say less because I'm on a moral high horse -- hey, better for Obama to have that money than Cantor, he's more likely to spend it in a socially beneficial way, I would think -- and more because Republicans like to accuse Democrats of being corrupt too, and one way to defuse those attacks is to hold oneself to a higher standard than whatever the law allows.

We hold ourselves to a standard. Period.

But no one runs for Saint.

I'm posting on a chatboard for lawyers, and you're thinking you can improve how I allocate my time and energy? Obviously there's plenty of room for gains to be made, but thinking you're going to help me at this point seems like hubris.

You're right. Hank has my proxy here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Defuse is whose eyes? Adder himself has said the ex-prez has the right to get rich. Trump voters wouldn't change their minds. Less open to Bernie attack? He ain't running for anything.

I'm thinking about marginal voters, not Adder.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We hold ourselves to a standard. Period.

But no one runs for Saint.

Henry Farrell: "The claim that ‘everyone does it’ is not an excuse or defense. It’s a statement of the problem."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

But it is a bit surprising that Trump retains 96% of his voters, even after displaying what a freak show he is and breaking pretty much every one of his campaign promises?

I'm sure there are a lot of polls out there. Here's something from one from Fox News:

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

EVERY Prez (save Carter? Who I think is/was a brain damage case) has done this. Maybe it's Ty's "Obama walks on water" finally being disappointed he's just a man, a great one, but still human?

"Great man" is a bit fawning for my taste, but he was a very cool hand in a moment of significant crisis. He was a solid, moderate president who shepherd of us through a bleak period. I think the suggestion he was chummy with Wall Street is misguided. He had no choice but to utilize Wall Street friendly policies to pull the economy out of a hole. There's no quid pro quo, it's ridiculous to suggest any form of "corruption, and "and as far as I'm concerned, for a job well done, the guy is entitled to cash out as much as he likes, from whatever source he likes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Henry Farrell: "The claim that ‘everyone does it’ is not an excuse or defense. It’s a statement of the problem."

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Great man" is a bit fawning for my taste, but he was a very cool hand in a moment of significant crisis. He was a solid, moderate president who shepherd of us through a bleak period. I think the suggestion he was chummy with Wall Street is misguided. He had no choice but to utilize Wall Street friendly policies to pull the economy out of a hole. There's no quid pro quo, it's ridiculous to suggest any form of "corruption, and "and as far as I'm concerned, for a job well done, the guy is entitled to cash out as much as he likes, from whatever source he likes.

Damn man. Sebby and I agree.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Henry Farrell: "The claim that ‘everyone does it’ is not an excuse or defense. It’s a statement of the problem."

Has it occurred to anyone that he might say something to Cantor Fitzgerald that they don't necessarily want to hear? That he's been hired to give a speech does not mean he was hired to kiss their asses. Those firms are in the information business. I can't imagine any Ex head of state would be offered that kind of money without the expectation of some constructive criticism. Wall Street may be filled with clueless douche bags, but I highly doubt anyone pays 400,000 to hear nothing more than "you're great... don't change a thing."

ETA: The idea this speech is payment for hooking up Wall Street is flatly ridiculous, and so I am not going to respond to it. If you want to see an example of hooking up Wall Street, look at Trump's policies. They look nothing like Obama's.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Has it occurred to anyone that he might say something to Cantor Fitzgerald that they don't necessarily want to hear? That he's been hired to give a speech does not mean he was hired to kiss their asses. Those firms are in the information business. I can't imagine any Ex head of state would be offered that kind of money without the expectation of some constructive criticism. Wall Street may be filled with clueless douche bags, but I highly doubt anyone pays 400,000 to hear nothing more than "you're great... don't change a thing."

Please remember to apply this thinking to Hillary.

Prediction: there will be fewer speaking opportunities like this for Trump and he will command a lesser fee. Because what he has to say just isn't as interesting, even if he is ready to suck up to the finance world a lot more when it comes to policy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Damn man. Sebby and I agree.

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.