***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

All I'm saying is that the next time Barack wants to talk about the corrosive influence of money in politics it will be way easier to give him a side eye with these wallstreet speeches.


Look I do not believe that anything nefarious is going with these speeches. I didn't think anything bad was going on with Clinton.

Ive said before politicians are more likely to tell the truth and public and lie behind closed doors than the reverse.

But still it LOOKS bad and looks matter.

 

[RustyShackleford]

All I asked is by who though?

I just wish that if people on the left want Obama to maintain this level of purity as a political strategy of their owns sense of ease, they be honest about it. Acknowledge that it is sort of an irrational request.

 

[everysingletime]

I love that President BO is getting paid. At least we know he'll pay his taxes and be okay doing it 

Lol why did I read President BO as President Black Ops at first..

 

[osh kosh bosh]

To anyone. Just because Republicans are worse doesn't mean it doesn't damage the perseption of your arguments when it appears like you are engaging in activity that your party constantly decries.


Obama should cake up, but just don't take wallstreet money, it's a totally rational request if Obama still wants to be involved in politics which it appears he does.


But if you want to have both don't complain if it makes your arguments about money in politics less pursuasive to the general public.bor it gives your political opposition free amunitiom.

 

[RustyShackleford]

To anyone. Just because Republicans are worse doesn't mean it doesn't damage the perseption of your arguments when it appears like you are engaging in activity that your party constantly decries.


Obama should cake up, but just don't take wallstreet money, it's a totally rational request if Obama still wants to be involved in politics which it appears he does.


But if you want to have both don't complain if it makes your arguments about money in politics less pursuasive to the general public.

The general public is harshly split along partisan lines

Half (roughly) the public will hate him anyway and already excuse the GOP's actions regarding Wall Street.

The other half (roughly) will already agree with him, are currently defending his Wall Street regulation bill, and their views on this will mainly be tied to their views on Wall Street.

And it is an irrational request if someone admits that the speeches are probably not nefarious, the point about money corrupting politics is true, yet they have problem with Obama being the messenger because of his previous speaking arrangements.

A lot of politics is not about logic, reason, and putting things in proper context. It is about emotion.

Obama receiving money from Wall St. will make people feel uneasy, so as a political strategy then maybe he should not do it. Fine

But that falls into the emotional bracket of things, not the reasoned one.

 

[$tatus $ymbol]

Homie pledged his undying loyalty to a country that obstructed his moves solely in the name of white supremacy for damn near a decade. Secure the bag Barry. Ain't mad at cha.

 

[whywesteppin]

The problem is that we're holding Obama to a higher standard.

Which is fine amongst us. We still know he's 100x better than the alternatives, and it's fair to discuss whether it was the right move.

My issue is that the right runs with it, and now they're gloating about how Obama is a sell-out. When in reality they should be applauding him because he's doing what they always praise: making money off our free market system.

But the worst is when those on the left criticize him publicly. No, please, no. If you want to say something, give a ******* nuanced political answer like you're ******* trained to do. Don't say you were "troubled" (I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren). Say that he's free to do whatever the hell he wants to do and that you trust his judgment. If you really feel the need to, you can say that personally you don't know if you would accept without knowing more details about the arrangement. End of story.

Anyway, I agree with gamble. Get the money, Obama. People did you no favors while you were in office, and by all accounts you were the cleanest, most honest president we've had in our lifetimes. I hope you are richer than the Trump family by the time don is impeached.

 

[lightweight champion]

Watch Obama donate the entire $400k to start the healthy hunger free children Chicago chapter

 

[aepps20]

The same people talking about Obama were probably a lot of the same people that wrote in Herambe or voted for Jill Stein. Liz and Bernie are very suspect in the light. Who needs enemies with friends like Bern and Lizzy. Obama doesn't owe any of them anything.

 

[pdino]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danale...dent-heres-where-the-money-went/#36c0b134459e

 

[whywesteppin]

Obama is the Ja Rule of politics. He's gonna scam rich white people out of their money and then use it for good.

 

[kdawg]

Interesting interview with a reformed climate change denier which is pretty scathing about Republicans and Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28...ed-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/

 

[kdawg]

Just a curiosity question. This is a pic from yesterday I think:

Occasionally I think he's getting less orange then see something like this. Anyone know if it's fake tan or has he installed a tanning bed/spray booth in the WH?

It does look a little like the circles you'd get around your eyes from goggles.

Either way he looks ridiculous.

 

[PatRiley]

Just a curiosity question. This is a pic from yesterday I think:

Occasionally I think he's getting less orange then see something like this. Anyone know if it's fake tan or has he installed a tanning bed/spray booth in the WH?

It does look a little like the circles you'd get around your eyes from goggles.

Either way he looks ridiculous.

I've been wondering the same exact thing

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The problem is that we're holding Obama to a higher standard.

Which is fine amongst us. We still know he's 100x better than the alternatives, and it's fair to discuss whether it was the right move.

My issue is that the right runs with it, and now they're gloating about how Obama is a sell-out. When in reality they should be applauding him because he's doing what they always praise: making money off our free market system.

But the worst is when those on the left criticize him publicly. No, please, no. If you want to say something, give a ******* nuanced political answer like you're ******* trained to do. Don't say you were "troubled" (I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren). Say that he's free to do whatever the hell he wants to do and that you trust his judgment. If you really feel the need to, you can say that personally you don't know if you would accept without knowing more details about the arrangement. End of story.

Anyway, I agree with gamble. Get the money, Obama. People did you no favors while you were in office, and by all accounts you were the cleanest, most honest president we've had in our lifetimes. I hope you are richer than the Trump family by the time don is impeached.

eh...it's the NEW standard, not a higher one.

Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.


I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.


No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.

 

[tomdiginson]

eh...it's the NEW standard, not a higher one.

Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.


I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.


No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[-Red-]

eh...it's the NEW standard, not a higher one.

Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.


I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.


No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.

Sounds like a personal problem.

Actually, it sounds like a political problem.

osh kosh bosh I agree 100%. Out of reps though

 

[rolaholic]

eh...it's the NEW standard, not a higher one.

Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.


I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.


No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.

Sounds like a personal problem.

Actually, it sounds like a political problem.

osh kosh bosh I agree 100%. Out of reps though

+2

It's not a good look regardless of who's involved imo, Obama/Hillary etc.

Not saying he can't get paid,just that he has a lot of other,less nefarious/polarizing avenues open to him in terms of income

 

[aepps20]

LOL at Da Libbies finally realizing that Obummer was bought and paid for by wall street unlike Da Don. The first 100 days of Da Don's presidency have truly been AMAZING. Da Coal is popping and thanks to Da Coal Train saving Da 6 months of salary is only 10 years away B.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The problem is that we're holding Obama to a higher standard.

Which is fine amongst us. We still know he's 100x better than the alternatives, and it's fair to discuss whether it was the right move.

My issue is that the right runs with it, and now they're gloating about how Obama is a sell-out. When in reality they should be applauding him because he's doing what they always praise: making money off our free market system.

But the worst is when those on the left criticize him publicly. No, please, no. If you want to say something, give a ******* nuanced political answer like you're ******* trained to do. Don't say you were "troubled" (I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren). Say that he's free to do whatever the hell he wants to do and that you trust his judgment. If you really feel the need to, you can say that personally you don't know if you would accept without knowing more details about the arrangement. End of story.

Anyway, I agree with gamble. Get the money, Obama. People did you no favors while you were in office, and by all accounts you were the cleanest, most honest president we've had in our lifetimes. I hope you are richer than the Trump family by the time don is impeached.

eh...it's the NEW standard, not a higher one.

Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.


I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.


No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.

So your analogy is when Bill Clinton was president he should not have given paid speeches to big tobacco

And that is on the same level as Obama out of office speaking at a conference funded by an investment firm

Do you even realize you are holding him to a higher standard in your example

 

[noskey]

Does any objectors to Obama's planned speech even know what the subject matter is? I don't, but I'd give Barack the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Does any objectors to Obama's planned speech even know what the subject matter is? I don't, but I'd give Barack the benefit of the doubt here.

The known one is that he is a keynote speaker at a yearly health care conference. An investment firm is sponsoring

He is going to be talking about the ACA and how to move forward.

The second one I don't know where or what it is about

 

[whywesteppin]

noskey , thanks for bringing that up. What the conference is and what he actually says is important.

It just seems to me that lumping all of Wall St. together as one evil entity is on par with trump lumping together all of DC as "the swamp."

 

[-Red-]

The problem is that we're holding Obama to a higher standard.

Which is fine amongst us. We still know he's 100x better than the alternatives, and it's fair to discuss whether it was the right move.

My issue is that the right runs with it, and now they're gloating about how Obama is a sell-out. When in reality they should be applauding him because he's doing what they always praise: making money off our free market system.

But the worst is when those on the left criticize him publicly. No, please, no. If you want to say something, give a ******* nuanced political answer like you're ******* trained to do. Don't say you were "troubled" (I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren). Say that he's free to do whatever the hell he wants to do and that you trust his judgment. If you really feel the need to, you can say that personally you don't know if you would accept without knowing more details about the arrangement. End of story.

Anyway, I agree with gamble. Get the money, Obama. People did you no favors while you were in office, and by all accounts you were the cleanest, most honest president we've had in our lifetimes. I hope you are richer than the Trump family by the time don is impeached.

eh...it's the NEW standard, not a higher one.

Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.


I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.


No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.

So your analogy is when Bill Clinton was president he should not have given paid speeches to big tobacco

And that is on the same level as Obama out of office speaking at a conference funded by an investment firm

Do you even realize you are holding him to a higher standard in your example

What should the standard be? Should there even be one in your opinion?

 

[whywesteppin]

trump is now friends with Duterte: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-philippine-leader-duterte-to-the-white-house