Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

We hold ourselves to a standard. Period.

But no one runs for Saint.

You're right. Hank has my proxy here.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I'm thinking about marginal voters, not Adder.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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

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

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-XxNMAWAAEa_Ty.jpg

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

"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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

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

Damn man. Sebby and I agree.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

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

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.

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

Yes, Hank, you and I agree today, too. I think Sebby was characterizing Ty on the great stuff.

He ends his Presidency with one major legislative accomplishment, ACA, the ultimate destiny of which will be determined by his successors and the legislature which tried to thwart it. It has actually been a while since a President had any meaningful legislative legacy - Reagan was really the last time there was a legislative change on this scale (the '86 Tax Code).

In foreign policy, I don't know how it will turn out in retrospect. The issues I have with his foreign policy looking back today are almost entirely with his Middle Eastern policies, and, frankly, he may have ended up doing the best he could with a bad situation, though at this moment in time I think he could have done better. We will see how much worse his successor is.

But, yes, he can aspire to being seen as a good president, but not a great one.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I find it extremely troubling that the two people who get scrutinized over these sorts of speaking fees are a woman and black man. Not an eyelash is batted over the white men who routinely command these sorts of fees.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

That isn't true. The opposing party always slams an exiting president for cashing in. What is odd here is Dems questioning a Dem Ex-President.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I don't lump Ty into the category of folks who think like this, but, yes, I think a lot of the Trump Trolls and Bernie Bros out there assume white men get big checks all the time, no biggie, but what must a black dude or some chick have done to get this kind of payment?

I mean, it's like a black dude playing a lot of golf when he's supposed to be out draining our swamps. Where does he get off doing that?

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

(Not scrolling first and GGG already said it, but) Would it be different if he took a partnership at Wachtell? If so, why?

I'm pretty sure that that would inspire some Brocialist grumbling, but not even get a mention from the likes of Yglesias and Barro. Which is dumb. If it's bad to take Wall Street money for speeches it should be bad to take it as legal fees.

As for Barro, the response to this: Is that there's always another interest group. Whichever one isn't pissed off might pay for speeches.

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

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

I don't think Exxon doesn't want to hear from Obama because of what he did during his presidency but rather because of who he is and who Exxon is.

Actually, the Google/Bush example kind of highlights it. Bush did nothing I can think of that was hostile to Google's interests as president, yet we both think Google is unlikely to hire him to speak. That's because a bunch of California liberals don't want to hear from a GOP ex-President, not because of some pre-corruption he didn't give them.

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.

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

The premise is, accepting speaking fees after you've held office is "soft" corruption. Given how in-demand all Presidents are after they leave office for speaking engagements, the wide array of organizations he will be paid to address, the fact that he's the first black President, the actual knowledge and perspective he has on the world and life in general--political, practical, whatever--the idea that he might somehow be making decisions in office to make sure that gravy train is available when he leaves is quite simply ridiculous.

More likely? I disagree. Obama is just as likely to be in demand on Wall Street as in Silicon Valley.

No one said you are.

Ah. The good old, "obviously" line. When something is obvious, there is no need to say so.

Look, I understand that people are fucking stupid. Bernie gains traction because people don't understand that addressing Wall Street for a speaking fee is not the same as being owned by Wall Street. I get that perception is everything to completely uninformed voters. But does it make sense for no Democrat to ever address Wall Street banks? That's obviously ridiculous. They make up a huge portion of our economy and one would think could benefit from hearing a perspective outside of the one they constantly jerk each other off with inside their Greenwich-to-Wall Street bubbles--i.e., we are smarter and work harder than everyone else and deserve tons of money and can self-regulate. Maybe you and Bernie and whoever's article you shared should think about what they're actually saying at these speaking engagements.

And what makes the most sense is for Bernie to start pushing the theme that we shouldn't shield each other from ideas. Hell, if he can take Berkley to task for it, he can shut up about Democrats speaking to Wall Street without implying they're bought and sold. Focus on the message.

Yes, he absolutely will be paid to speak by a ton of organizations. Your example of the NRA doesn't prove your theory.

If Bryan Stevenson is paid to address a group of district attorneys or judges, is the assumption that he can't advocate against injustice in the justice system? If Coulter is paid to spew her garbage at Berkley, is she any less racist?

What undermines confidence in the system are the actual decisions politicians make. The fact that politicians have handed over the government to corporations by allowing them to draft legislation, develop policy, access decision-makers, etc. is the problem. Speaking engagements, especially for Presidents, after leaving office is not the problem. Trying to make it into one is a cheap trick politicians use to campaign to people with small minds.

TM

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

Damn, man. Hank and I agree.

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

Whiff.

TM

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

I actually think hindsight is going to give him great credit for restraint in foreign policy, as the current administration and probably successive future ones get right back into the war games.

He was less peaceful than I'd prefer, but he also seemed to be one of the only people in Washington that understood that there are limits to what can be accomplished with American military power and that problems like Syria and North Korea do not have military solutions.

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

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.

TM

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

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.

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

This is possible, though not my view. Let's have this discussion again in 5 years.

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

When Trump keeps me up at night, this helps me get to sleep.

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

Which would go entirely unnoticed.

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

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?:

https://lewwaters.files.wordpress.co...iers-tears.jpg

TM

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

Exactly.

TM

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

Burn her with fire!

TM

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

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!).

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

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?

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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

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?

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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?

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

Re: Let's Try to Put This Stupidity to Rest
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.