LawTalkers
Page 122 of 126 « First 2272112120121 122 123124 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

Hank Chinaski 04-26-2017 02:34 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507093)
http://abc13.com/politics/96-percent...again/1906546/

Vote again?
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they'd stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.

That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn't vote.

In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.

Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.




I think that the Democratic Party Chair crapping all over the 20% or so of Dems who do identify as pro-life was before the poll. So the number of Dems who think the party is out of touch may have increased a bit.
I'd be interested in how many third party voters would switch, and which way.

SEC_Chick 04-26-2017 02:37 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507097)
Post election, voters who voted for the candidate who lost are less enthusiastic about that candidate. Footage at 11.
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? So. Much. Winning.


And now the Freedom Caucus is backing the Obamacare replacement bill. I never could have thought that nominal GOP control of government would suck so badly. Aside from Gorsuch, it is truly terrible.

Adder 04-26-2017 02:52 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507100)
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?
No. He's still being mean to women, brown people and Muslims and that's all they really wanted. They think he hates the people they hate. He can't lose.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 03:07 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507095)
I will grant that if Hillary was planning to run again, then she shouldn't have been taking paid speaking gigs because of the potential future conflict of interest.
I don't understand this.

Do I automatically have a conflict of interest forever with everyone I have ever received payment from, for myself, for a charity, for my law firm, or otherwise? Is this just me, or my firm or company?

If so, how does the rule apply to CEOs of large companies, or lawyers at law firms, or college presidents, or non-profit board members?

I'm a big fan of disclosure (something the Berners never really got - we still don't have that joker's tax returns - something that keeps him from beating up on Trump on the issue). I'm not a big fan of treating every interaction with the world as a disqualifying event. We want people who do stuff, not who sit in the corner proud of their purity.

Pretty Little Flower 04-26-2017 03:10 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507084)
Speaking of music (and in plf's absence),

TM
Yeah, my bad. I've been super busy and important. Mostly important. But here is a cool old psychedelic funk rock instrumental, with a funk flute solo and everything. Free your mind. It's Michael Liggins and the Super Souls. "Loaded Back." The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8tszLmocWU

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 03:10 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507100)
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? So. Much. Winning.
Yeah, I find this surprising. Having talked to a few of them, including a couple I thought of as friends, I'm increasingly coming to believe that they mostly just hate people like me and the more I point out Trump's hypocrisy the less they care.

Adder 04-26-2017 03:15 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507102)
Do I automatically have a conflict of interest forever with everyone I have ever received payment from, for myself, for a charity, for my law firm, or otherwise?
We're poorly placed to understand this, because we get fees from people that might not look politically astute all the time.

But the optics are bad in a post-financial crisis world in which nearly everyone thinks Wall Street fucked up big time, if they aren't all outright crooks. Granted, it was basically SOP that Bernie (and then Trump and the right).

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2017 04:44 PM
15%
 
This can't be right... You can just draw $$$ out of your corp or LLC at 15% under the Trump plan?

I had to have misheard that.

SEC_Chick 04-26-2017 04:47 PM
Re: 15%
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507115)
This can't be right... You can just draw $$$ out of your corp or LLC at 15% under the Trump plan?

I had to have misheard that.
I guess that solves the problem of carried interest.

It won't happen, in any case.

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2017 04:50 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507093)
http://abc13.com/politics/96-percent...again/1906546/

Vote again?
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they'd stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.

That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn't vote.

In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.

Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.




I think that the Democratic Party Chair crapping all over the 20% or so of Dems who do identify as pro-life was before the poll. So the number of Dems who think the party is out of touch may have increased a bit.
Pro life is not "in touch." It is fringe. That tent covers more loons than moderates.

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2017 04:52 PM
Re: 15%
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507116)
I guess that solves the problem of carried interest.

It won't happen, in any case.
Agreed, but if it could happen... That'd be pretty, uh... near orgasmic?

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2017 04:55 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507096)
This. And now the whole party. Bernie raises some issues that the Dems should embrace (and Hillary did, at least nominally).

But they've got to get away from Bernie the man, who is toxic, selfish and incompetent. He isn't the way forward.
Genuineness is a strong brand against which to compete. He's still the only one of the three I'd leave alone around the good silverware.

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2017 05:00 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 507089)
So let's see what is funded in the budget bill: Planned Parenthood, the Iran deal, refugee resettlement, sanctuary cities, Obamacare subsidies.

Defunded: Border wall.

Sessions DOJ defending Obamacare contraceptive mandate.

And *still* the polling shows that if the election were held today, Trump would win. I have to admit though, Evan McMullin turned out to be an embarrassment. If I had it to do all over again, I would just write in someone I randomly selected on election day.
I'm not convinced by any means, but did I not predict he'd wind up closer to moderate than most expected?

But let's not discount the crazy part of him... We are fucking with NK or no good reason. That could end less than happily.

Adder 04-26-2017 05:21 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507119)
Genuineness is a strong brand against which to compete.
I'll grant you that he benefits from the perception of genuineness, but his actions tend to undermine the case for it being real. Bernie wants first and foremost to promote Bernie. Progress be damned.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 05:23 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507105)
We're poorly placed to understand this, because we get fees from people that might not look politically astute all the time.

But the optics are bad in a post-financial crisis world in which nearly everyone thinks Wall Street fucked up big time, if they aren't all outright crooks. Granted, it was basically SOP that Bernie (and then Trump and the right).
Many years ago, I ran for democratic national committee. My opponent charged that I was dirtied because I worked at a big law firm that had a lobbying practice. No one bought it, and it did not become an issue, and he dropped it.

For stuff this thin to have traction, you have to have an electorate and media that is already predisposed against the candidate.

Adder 04-26-2017 05:24 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507120)
I'm not convinced by any means, but did I not predict he'd wind up closer to moderate than most expected?
He's completely incompetent and uninformed, and malleable to a frightening degree. That's not moderate. That's susceptible to some influence by the massive ship of state.

Better than the worst case scenario, but that malleable thing can be used for evil too.

Quote:
We are fucking with NK or no good reason. That could end less than happily.
His people love this too. None of this pussy diplomacy bullshit. Finally, a president with balls!

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 05:26 PM
Re: 15%
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507118)
Agreed, but if it could happen... That'd be pretty, uh... near orgasmic?
Yeah, until the economy stalls and you stop making money for the government to tax.

You knew at the end of the day he'd have the same solution every real estate developer ever has had: stop using your own money, borrow it, spend like a banshee on something glitzy (fireworks over North Korea!) and stick a bunch in your own pocket one way or another, and then when it all goes to hell let the lenders foreclose, the buildings disintegrate, the neighborhood go to pot, and move on to the next property.

Real estate. The world's oldest scam.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 05:51 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507088)
Oh Bullshit.

If this is corruption, everything anyone does for money before, after or during being President is corruption. What are your rules for what a past president or a presidential hopeful is supposed to do? What would you say would not be "corruption". Here are some specific questions:

1. Should they take speaking fees?
2. Should they take fees for media appearances (e.g., Fox, CNN, MSNBC)?
3. Should they take professional (legal, accounting) fees?
4. Should they take other consulting fees?
5. Should they take royalties?
6. Should they take rent payments?
7. Should they sell real estate?
8. Should they own stock?
9. Should they own media interests?
10. Should they own a peanut farm and sell peanuts?
11. Should they take fees for entertainment (acting, porn, prostitution)?

Is it only democrats who can't do anything but serve in public office? Or can Republicans do all of the above but not democrats because their base doesn't care?
They didn't break a rule or law, but it is a very mild form of corruption. You can't take that much money and fail to arouse suspicions that there's a quid pro quo. If I were a former President and had a $65 million deal for my memoirs, and Cantor Fitzgerald offered me $400K for a speech, I'd do the speech and make sure the money went to a good cause.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 05:53 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507092)
In retrospect, Hillary should not have been as nice as she was to Bernie.

She should have pushed to have him disclose his taxes and finances to the same degree as hers, including the pay-off his wife got after running a school into the ground, and should have defended the Foundation from daybreak to sunset: when did he do anything to actually provide drugs to aids patients?
Trump hurt her much more with the appearance of corruption than Bernie did.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 05:54 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507095)
From the left, it's having anything to do with banks that's disqualifying.
If Boeing or McKesson or Google were offering the money, I'd say the same thing.

eta: also, what Josh Barro says.

ThurgreedMarshall 04-26-2017 06:35 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507120)
I'm not convinced by any means, but did I not predict he'd wind up closer to moderate than most expected?
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 04-26-2017 06:39 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507125)
They didn't break a rule or law, but it is a very mild form of corruption. You can't take that much money and fail to arouse suspicions that there's a quid pro quo.
Suspicions do not equal corruption ("very mild" or not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507125)
If I were a former President and had a $65 million deal for my memoirs, and Cantor Fitzgerald offered me $400K for a speech, I'd do the speech and make sure the money went to a good cause.
How do you know what he's planning on spending his money on? And he's going to get speaking fees from all sorts of organizations left, right, and center. What you're saying is absolutely ridiculous.

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 06:45 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507129)
Suspicions do not equal corruption ("very mild" or not).
I think we mean "corruption" in different ways.

Quote:
How do you know what he's planning on spending his money on? And he's going to get speaking fees from all sorts of organizations left, right, and center. What you're saying is absolutely ridiculous.
If he wants to give speeches and have the money go straight to a cause, that would be great.

ThurgreedMarshall 04-26-2017 07:00 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507130)
I think we mean "corruption" in different ways.
I disagree with the premise. Obama could have been 18 steps further to the left and when he left office he would have as many speaking engagement opportunities as he has right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507130)
If he wants to give speeches and have the money go straight to a cause, that would be great.
You neglected the second point. If he takes money for speaking engagements from all sorts of organizations and associations does that mitigate your concern? Or is it that there is a possibility that his decision-making was possibly corrupted to favor any entity that can afford to pay him huge fees, while giving short shrift to those who couldn't?

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 07:40 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507125)
They didn't break a rule or law, but it is a very mild form of corruption. You can't take that much money and fail to arouse suspicions that there's a quid pro quo. If I were a former President and had a $65 million deal for my memoirs, and Cantor Fitzgerald offered me $400K for a speech, I'd do the speech and make sure the money went to a good cause.
What a crock of shit.

At most you mean "appearance of corruption" and even there you only the quid and do not even have the ability to speculate as to the quo.

He's a former President. What does he have to sell? Sure, he may be a thought leader or the like, but he no longer has any oversight or decision making authority.

You should pick up a book written by an old classmate of mine called "The Disruptor's Feast" (I have pimped it on FB a few times) by Frits van Paasschen. Frtis talks about the process by which he made his mark on growing and restructuring the Starwood chain. In one of the early chapters he talks about having Bill Clinton speak at a big corporate gathering where he was trying to refocus the massive team that ran the operations all over the world on global opportunities and directions, and he gives you a good sense of what he was using Bill for - to inspire and rev up his team, to leave them with a memorable message, to make sure they kept focused on the ways the world was changing in their corporate planning. And it is good for a thought leader like Bill to have that kind of influence. He doesn't get to change the country anymore, but he can still impact pretty big bits and pieces of the world like this. And he gets to hang out with people who can talk to him about what's happening in Uzbeckistan.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 07:42 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507128)
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

TM
We need to gain an ability like "pinned tweets" for these kind of evergreen posts.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 07:46 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507127)
If Boeing or McKesson or Google were offering the money, I'd say the same thing.

eta: also, what Josh Barro says.
Josh has been unbearable the last few days. He's also been ranting about Chelsea Clinton continuing to exist. It seems Clinton Derangement Syndrome is an uncurable, permanent condition. And the syndrome degenerates into moronic misogyny if not treated with constant ridicule.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 07:59 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507131)
I disagree with the premise. Obama could have been 18 steps further to the left and when he left office he would have as many speaking engagement opportunities as he has right now.
I don't get what premise you're disagreeing with. And I don't actually think that it's true that what he did as President is irrelevant to the kinds of speaking engagements he will get as an ex-President. Bush is more likely to get paid to speak to Exxon. Obama is more likely to get paid to speak to Google.

Quote:
You neglected the second point. If he takes money for speaking engagements from all sorts of organizations and associations does that mitigate your concern? Or is it that there is a possibility that his decision-making was possibly corrupted to favor any entity that can afford to pay him huge fees, while giving short shrift to those who couldn't?

TM
I'm not saying there's a rule he has broken. There's no question that he has a right to give speeches for $$$. But set aside what's best for him for a moment. Is it good for Democrats that he take $400K from Cantor Fitzgerald? Obviously, no.

He is not going to get money from all sorts of organizations. The NRA, for one, is never going to pay him. And assume that his decision-making was not affected during his Presidency by concerns about who might be inviting him to speak later -- even so, people will look at the invitations and the fees and assume the worse. That undermines confidence in the system and his party.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 08:04 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507132)
What a crock of shit.

At most you mean "appearance of corruption" and even there you only the quid and do not even have the ability to speculate as to the quo.
I'm not talking about a quid pro quo, not at all. If we were talking about Citizens United, we all would get the concern with corruption in the broader sense -- the overall effect on trust in the government that comes when large sums of money are exchanged legally to political actors.

eta: And I understand that corporations might pay big money to ex-Presidents for legitimate reasons.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 08:11 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507134)
Josh has been unbearable the last few days. He's also been ranting about Chelsea Clinton continuing to exist. It seems Clinton Derangement Syndrome is an uncurable, permanent condition. And the syndrome degenerates into moronic misogyny if not treated with constant ridicule.
I was agreeing with the post I linked to, not necessarily anything else that Josh Barro has said recently. That said, I haven't seen any such rants -- the closest I can find is this tweet, and it's not close.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 08:17 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507136)
I'm not talking about a quid pro quo, not at all. If we were talking about Citizens United, we all would get the concern with corruption in the broader sense -- the overall effect on trust in the government that comes when large sums of money are exchanged legally to political actors.
From your post 4858:

"You can't take that much money and fail to arouse suspicions that there's a quid pro quo."

I think you were talking about a quid pro quo.

If we were talking about Citizen's United, we would be talking about amounts being spent within a very short window before an election by corporations to smear Hillary Clinton (for things comparable to taking speaking fees when out of office without an active campaign going on). Citizen's United wasn't about payments to a candidate at all, but about independent expenditures to smear a candidate.

Hank Chinaski 04-26-2017 08:23 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507122)
For stuff this thin to have traction, you have to have an electorate and media that is already predisposed against the candidate.
Yes, and can you think of an example?

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2017 08:26 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507138)
From your post 4858:

"You can't take that much money and fail to arouse suspicions that there's a quid pro quo."

I think you were talking about a quid pro quo.
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.

Quote:
If we were talking about Citizen's United, we would be talking about amounts being spent within a very short window before an election by corporations to smear Hillary Clinton (for things comparable to taking speaking fees when out of office without an active campaign going on). Citizen's United wasn't about payments to a candidate at all, but about independent expenditures to smear a candidate.
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.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2017 08:26 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507139)
Yes, and can you think of an example?
That's exactly right.

Hank Chinaski 04-26-2017 08:27 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507131)

You neglected the second point. If he takes money for speaking engagements from all sorts of organizations and associations does that mitigate your concern? Or is it that there is a possibility that his decision-making was possibly corrupted to favor any entity that can afford to pay him huge fees, while giving short shrift to those who couldn't?

TM
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?

Hank Chinaski 04-26-2017 08:29 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507132)
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 04-26-2017 08:30 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 507142)
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 04-26-2017 08:32 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507140)
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 04-26-2017 08:37 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507145)
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.

Quote:
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 04-26-2017 08:46 PM
Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507146)
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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 AM.
Page 122 of 126 « First 2272112120121 122 123124 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com