Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

Happy Moehanga Day, everyone!
 

Happy Moehanga Day, everyone!

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

He should do what he wants with the money.

Last I knew you worked for one of the SV Behemoths. Why do you take the money?

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I think there's a significant distinction to be made between Obama and Hillary -- one which makes it easy to understand why someone would call him a great man, and her a typical politician.

Obama was forced to triangulate and play ball with Wall Street. Wall Street had already won, via the bailout, before he took office. He had no choice but to follow policies that allowed it to rehab itself because, otherwise, how was the bailout + interest going to be repaid? It seems quite clear from his policy platform and many comments he made through the Great Recession that he'd have liked to have been able to take a different approach. Most notably, recall, he admonished the CEOs of the big banks at a White House meeting in 2009 so badly they whined like little bitches to the Journal for weeks afterward. Obama was not Wall Street's water carrier.

Hillary, OTOH, and Bill, willingly triangulated for political purposes. Bill famously said his job was to serve the bond market, and allowed Greenspan to dictate a hands-off policy to him, even after Greenspan had made the infamous "Irrational Exuberance" speech. Consider that... Greenspan says on one day, "we're in a bubble," then a few months later pulls a 180 and says, "no we're not... the new new math justifies Pets.com's valuation," and Bill goes along with it. Then Newt says, "Hey, Bill... let's punish people on welfare." Bill says okay. And let's not forget, Hillary and Bill were proponents of the always popular "tough on crime" position that presaged Rudy Giuliani's "broken windows" approach to racial profil-- er, I mean, "preventative policing."

HRC is not a villain. She'd have been a fine President. Bill is not a villain. He was a fine President. But for all the good they do, it cannot be avoided -- these people are operators, malleable in the same way (through not to the same extent) as Trump. Obama had more of a spine. And it's a hard thing to finger or describe, but Obama had a decency and grace about him. I can't say it makes him a "great man," partly because I think he'd laugh at that characterization, partly because decency and grace aren't exactly epic character assets. But Obama most certainly had a compass which he tried to follow. I'd say he was a good man, which among politicians is about as high a compliment as one can offer. Hillary was more a politician, who did far more good than bad, all of that good just happening to also benefit her and Bill.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

If I had a $65 million book deal, I would make some very different life choices.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

You're making common cause with socialists (not inherently a bad thing, but it is here) by criticizing Obama for not doing anything wrong and lending credibility to their argument.

Again, the Brocialists think it's wrong to interact with bankers. They'd be on him even if he did it for free, because they think banks are bad. Nevermind that he's going to talk to them about health care.

But they're so incoherent that they think it's even worse to charge banks a lot of money (i.e., reduce their consumption). Which makes no sense.

Anyway, now that you, Yglesias and Barro are on board, we'll probably see less of it. Or at least less disclosure of what the fee is (not even sure why that's public information for him anyway).

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

Oh hell no. The Clintons are pragmatists that can be persuaded, especially if it's politically advantageous. That's nothing like Trump's ability to believe whatever the last person he talked to tells him, no matter how crazy.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I'm no longer sure I would actually. I learned to truly love the biotech industry when I got sick, and find some pretty good moral and psychic rewards to much of what I do today.

The thing is, one thing I wouldn't do whether or not I have that book deal is tell someone else how to make their life choices or where or how to do whatever it is they want to do.

Except trump, who works for me and needs to stop being an ass.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

Please do not call the Berners socialists or I'm a gonna go full trotskyite on you.

They are 1960s style trade unionists, focused on protectionism and government welfare programs. My uncles ran trade unions in the 60s. They didn't like having any women or minorities in them.

Socialists are internationalists who think of borders and nationalism as tools of the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx would turn in his grave at the idea of Bernie as a socialist.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

DOJ extracted some massive civil settlements from those banks, so rest assured there were some terrible facts out there.

Seriously? I don't have a particularly allegiance to either side of the split on the left, but this sort of hippie-bashing is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

They tried to strike a Clintonian balance, and they may even have gotten it right from a purely economic perspective -- maybe more criminal prosecutions would have been bad for the economy. But they lost the political support of the bankers, who correctly understood that the Republicans would let them do what they want, they lost the support of ordinary people, who saw bankers doing tremendous harm and not paying and price, and they didn't get political benefit from whatever good they did. Technocracy isn't always good politics.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

Right. But that also doesn't necessarily make it the wrong choice.

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

So your position is basically what GGG said it was. If you're a Democrat, after you leave office you should decline opportunities to make money.

I don't think people look at this do. I think people understand that a former President has tons of opportunities they will never have. I think this particular issue only became one this time around because Bernie needed to distinguish himself from Hillary and this played well to his rabid base. Trump saw it and jumped all over it. Like I said, people are fucking stupid--so much so that Trump, who is actually corrupt, succeeded in painting Hillary as the corrupt one.

Hell, Bernie and Trump have managed to convince you that we should cater to the dumber constituents among us who were tricked into thinking that the whole thing is rigged and all the politicians are corrupt.

TM

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

This is intentionally myopic--frustratingly so, because you realize that Goldman is made up of many people. She wasn't paid for a personal audience with Cohn. Stop being obtuse.

TM

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

Like not earning $50-80 million dollars per year for the rest of your life?

TM

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

It is clear that stupidity often makes for very good politics.

Should I put you down as pro-stupid, anti-technocratic or can we agree that whether or not something makes for good politics often bears little relationship to whether or not it is good policy.

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

Come on, now. That's not a fair summary of what I've said, and you know it.

Bernie hasn't convinced me of much at all. I don't understand why Bernie keeps popping up in this conversation -- as I said, Bernie didn't beat Hillary with this issue, but Trump did.

Some people are fucking stupid. But politics is a duel of competing visions, and when Democrats act like Republicans, they miss the chance to draw a contrast persuade on that basis. If Democrats want to persuade voters that they are less corrupt than Republicans, than they need to find ways to persuade voters that there are meaningful differences between them. I have a hard time faulting Obama for taking Cantor's money, but it's also a missed opportunity to do better.

eta: Also, it's not lost on me that many Trump voters who described Hillary as corrupt were never going vote for her -- not all of those voters are there to be won. But the fact that they chose that as a line of attack is nonetheless telling.

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

I don't see social change happening from taking big money from the likes of Goldman Sachs. It is no coincidence that former Goldman bankers are working for Trump, or that when they work for Democrats they tend to the center rather than the left. If there's a social benefit from exposing Goldman to what Hillary and Obama have to say, fine -- but that doesn't require the huge fees.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

I certainly wouldn't work as an in-house lawyer for a Silicon Valley behemoth.

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

What if it does? Like, maybe Hillary and Obama don't really want to go talk to a bunch of boring bankers, but will if it's a nice payday? That does not sound far fetched to me.

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

So in what ways is it okay to make money after leaving office? Book deal only? Getting a job with a company that can pay tremendous amounts of money in an industry that surely lobbies? Only in an industry that is Democrat-friendly? That's better than taking speaking engagements? I'd very much like to understand your universe of what is okay and what isn't? It can't just be "no banks," because tons of industries lobby and are influenced by a President's decisions.

Bullshit. Bernie made it his core issue and Trump ran with it. Don't be ridiculous.

You're going to have to explain to me why taking speaking fees is "acting like a Republican." That's asinine.

Again, if their actual actions while in office are insufficient to show no (or way less) corruption because some jackass raises a fake issue in a campaign based on a perception they were able to manipulate, then I don't know what to say. Bush colored Dukakis as a black murderer-lover. Was it politically smart for Democrats to run on a "lock black people up based on bullshit" platform for the next 20 years? Maybe. But is that how we should proceed? Or should we try to actually inform our uninformed, dumbass electorate?

TM

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

Whatever. This conversation is ridiculous. I'm done with it.

TM

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

YEAH! Me too. Everyone is so fucking talky today. Here is some early early Parliament for your earholes. "Funky Woman" from Osmium is the Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv2MHatAXdk

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

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of why companies pay these speaking fees. There is an established market and you can go to any of a number of bureaus and identify people who will speak for a fee, ranging from David Gergen to Ken Burns to George Bush. If you run a major corporate or trade show event, you need a marquee speaker, and a big budget is justified. With 2500 attendees, a modest conference, $100 per attendee give you a quarter million budget for a keynote. You can cheap out with David Gergen at $50,000, go for Ken Burns at $150,000, get George Bush for $250,000. Ken Burns or George Bush may attract a couple hundred more attendees, often at a couple thousand a pop. Who do you hire?

When you actually price some of these talks with this in mind, the former Presidents often end up looking like pretty good choices. And there is a market for them, just as there is a market rate for lawyers, and they are getting market pay. Yes, it's a lot of money. But it's market and the economics easily justify it.

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

I was just talking about this conversation with a minority associate here (in the context of a broader discussion about firm diversity) and he made an excellent point.

If you want social change you need to see minorities enter and advance at places like Goldman, and having Obama in front of the room talking to the old white guys in suits in the front tables is helpful to all the young black women in suits in the back of the room.

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

Absolutely. When we chaired the Planned Parenthood Luncheon two years ago, we looked at quite a number of speakers to get a balance of affordability vs someone compelling that would draw an audience. And Planned Parenthood's event people told us that you generally get pretty awesome responses to great speakers. The ones that aren't a draw per se have to work harder to get the audience's attention, but they're less expensive.

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

Good point.

I sit on the executive council of a diversity organization that needs a keynote speaker every year. It is absolutely vital that the keynote be well-known, dynamic, interesting, etc. We had Bryan Stevenson (who I think is probably the best speaker I've ever heard in my life) last year. We'd love to get someone like Holder or Lynch. We couldn't afford them, of course. I'd probably consider murdering someone to get Obama or Michelle, but suffice it to say if we had the money, we'd spend it. To insist that they decline these opportunities because we could easily be cast as a special interest group which could have benefited from special treatment by any of the people I listed while in office so that they would be able to land that fee once they left office is completely and utterly stupid.

Guess I wasn't completely done.

TM

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

I don't have a universe of what is OK and what isn't. I just have a view that if he has a $65 million book deal, he doesn't need $400K from Cantor. I am reacting more to the $400K than to the fact that it's Cantor, which is why I said that my reaction would be the same if it were Boeing, McKesson or Google.

Sure, but she beat Bernie, and she lost to Trump. My gut is that people who otherwise were not going to vote for her seized on that issue in the primary to express their opposition, but that she lost votes she might have won in the general because of the way Trump used the issue. Do you disagree? Or are you saying it had traction in the general only because Bernie used it in the primary? If the latter, I disagree.

If your standard is, is it legal, then you're holding yourself to the same standard that Republicans are held to, and missing the chance to differentiate. If you turn down some opportunities in a way that creates a different perception, then you're not acting like a Republican.

Again -- not trying to accuse Obama of acting like a Republican. Just regretting that he missed a chance to do something better.

I take your point that Democrats ought not do things just because they might be politically popular. Whether or not it was politically smart for Democrats to run on a "lock black people up based on bullshit" (or, "law and order" for short), it was the wrong thing to do, and sometimes Democrats need to set political expediency aside to do what is right. In a different context, Presidents Clinton and Obama both asked Democratic Congressman to risk their jobs to enact meaningful legislation, and bravo for that.

But I see a different trade-off here. I'm saying that I regret that Obama didn't decide to set his own personal interests aside to do something that would have been better for Democrats. I hesitate to draw a general rule from this -- I don't think Obama should take a vow of poverty. I remain optimistic that he's going to do a lot more than just cash in.

eta: But again, if there's a principle at stake, it's not on the side of Obama taking the money.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Your first two sentences are in complete opposition to each other.

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.

You keep quoting this guy like he is convincing. He is not.

The President upon leaving office is in high demand from all sorts of organizations. He can pick and choose from so many organizations that it makes no sense to say that he made decisions consciously or unconsciously based on how one or two industries might pony up once he was out of office. Hell, the fact that he will accept fees from tons of different organizations cuts against this guy's argument in that if he chose to work in one industry (as opposed to speaking to lots of different ones) it's much easier to think he may have made some decisions in office to make that happen afterward.

Give this up. 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.

TM

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

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 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.

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.

If you're going to argue with stuff you've made up, just leave me out of it entirely.

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.)

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.

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.

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

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....

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

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

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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?"

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

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.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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.)

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

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

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

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

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

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

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?