***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[SoleByThePound]

I completely agree with Trevor.

 

[whywesteppin]

I completely agree with Trevor.

Thank you.

I can't speak for the people in this thread but, in general, from the day he was elected, people have been expecting way too much out of Obama. People who came out to support him in 2008 immediately turned against him because he didn't match their somewhat naive view of politics. And Obama already had enough enemies going in due to the color of his skin. I'm not giving him a free pass, but I'm going to give him as much wiggle room as we give other politicians.

That said, I'm fine with people in here debating whether it was the right move. But let's just be clear that he's still far ahead of any other president in our lifetimes.

 

[aepps20]

Da Don got Da LIBBIES fighting over nonsense again. Libbies too busy crying Libbie tears over Wall street while Da Don out here building Da WALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL with MEXICO.

 

[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

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

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

 

[whywesteppin]

Da Don got Da LIBBIES fighting over nonsense again. Libbies too busy crying Libbie tears over Wall street while Da Don out here building Da WALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL with MEXICO.

don and duterte gonna build a huge wall around their private hot tub filled with libbie tears and then play 234922D peek-a-boo with their wieners. ("can you see it now? no? here, lick my ear. do you see it now?" "umm, kind of, is that it?" "no, that's my toe. try twisting my nipple." "ok, yup, i see it now.") and that glorious wall will make america great and white again. Obummer and Crooked Hillary will be lucky if they can get paid to give speeches to da Wall in Mexico.

also, i am guessing you forgot to mention this due to your overabundance of excitement, but let's not forget that da libbies and their friends on wall street will soon be choking on da glorious coal that papa trump will have raining down on da coastal elites. a layer of soot so thick that they won't be able to start their prius. who needs government regulations when you have a friend like glorious coal????

 

[-Red-]

I completely agree with Trevor.

Thank you.

I can't speak for the people in this thread but, in general, from the day he was elected, people have been expecting way too much out of Obama. People who came out to support him in 2008 immediately turned against him because he didn't match their somewhat naive view of politics. And Obama already had enough enemies going in due to the color of his skin. I'm not giving him a free pass, but I'm going to give him as much wiggle room as we give other politicians.

That said, I'm fine with people in here debating whether it was the right move. But let's just be clear that he's still far ahead of any other president in our lifetimes.

I certainly hear this and if there's any former president I wanna see flourish after leaving the White House, Obama's probably the only person on that list

For me this is really a broader question about political ideology and how that intersects with political strategy for progressive folks.

 

[RustyShackleford]

More of a general statement:

The so called progressive left baffles me sometimes. Like they are supposedly the reasonable ones that care about policy. And on the left they are the ones that have the major problem with this.

But how come they let Bernie never answer for the fact he has a major Wall Street deregulation vote on his record. I mean Hillary hit him with this, he never gave a solid answer and all his supporters seemed perfectly fine with it.

Second, Bernie and Liz Warren major Wall Street reform they are pushing is Glass Seagull. Which is cool, I support that, but they are playing loose with the details when they say or imply if it was in place it would have prevent the financial crash, and it would not prevent a future one. Yes it would lower the future regulatory burden of the Federal government, yes it has other benefits, and yes it would allow the market to hand failing banks instead of needing bailouts. But it would miss the policy goal it is being marketed with.

Not only that, they are many more reforms needed other than Glass Seagull. In fact it has seemingly morphed into purity test by Berniecrats, for people to disregard other regulations as insufficient and weak. Support Glass Seagull or your somehow in bed with Wall Street.

I am not fan of Wall Street, but the whole topic with progressives is kinda getting like the NSA/Snowden debate. Where some progressives just think they have to support a certain thing because "well, thats what we do", and there is no grey area to operate.

 

[-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?

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...

Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?

 

[whywesteppin]

I certainly hear this and if there's any former president I wanna see flourish after leaving the White House, Obama's probably the only person on that list

For me this is really a broader question about political ideology and how that intersects with political strategy for progressive folks.

I think I see what you're saying. Obama is uniquely positioned to do more with his power post-presidency than most, both due to his age and his relative popularity. I have no problem with him if he cashes in and takes it easy, but he does have an opportunity to accomplish a lot. So, in that sense, even though he's out of office, he has a potential responsibility to act in the public good, if he wants it.

Given that Obama cares deeply about health care reform, and insurance companies and Wall St. were major forces that kept the ACA from being more successful, he should do what Hasan Minhaj did last night and use his speech to go after those responsible.

 

[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

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

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...

Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?

I think the distinction is very clear. He is out of office. While he may have the power to rally people to a cause, he has very little power little to make the Dems adopt it directly.

Yes I consider the type of speech and who is paying. The second question I will ignore because it is a red herring.

 

[aepps20]

don and duterte gonna build a huge wall around their private hot tub filled with libbie tears and then play 234922D peek-a-boo with their wieners. ("can you see it now? no? here, lick my ear. do you see it now?" "umm, kind of, is that it?" "no, that's my toe. try twisting my nipple." "ok, yup, i see it now.") and that glorious wall will make america great and white again. Obummer and Crooked Hillary will be lucky if they can get paid to give speeches to da Wall in Mexico.

also, i am guessing you forgot to mention this due to your overabundance of excitement, but let's not forget that da libbies and their friends on wall street will soon be choking on da glorious coal that papa trump will have raining down on da coastal elites. a layer of soot so thick that they won't be able to start their prius. who needs government regulations when you have a friend like glorious coal????

POST OF DA Century B.

 

[-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?

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...

Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?

I think the distinction is very clear. He is out of office. While he may have the power to rally people to a cause, he has very little power little to make the Dems adopt it directly.

Yes I consider the type of speech and who is paying. The second question I will ignore because it is a red herring.

So the only quid pro quo that takes place in politics goes like this: "We'll pay you $400,000 to do this speech. But in exchange you have to do xyz (introduce a bill, vote against a regulation, etc.)."? Or that's the only kind we should be worried about?

My second line of questions was genuine. Whether you want to answer it or not, that's obviously up to you. But the issue with paid speeches to Wall Street is that their interests are viewed as generally antithetical to both the interests of various constituencies progressives care about and to their political ideology. The same could be said, to an even greater degree, for private prisons. You don't have a problem with Wall Street speeches. I'm asking if you would have a problem with speeches for private prison industry, as a means of assessing if there is a bridge you consider too far when it comes to this topic.

 

[frink85]

I can definitely see Da Don and Da Du30 getting into a pissing match/argument/fight over some middle school BS.

Hopefully they demolish each other.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

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?

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...

Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?

I think the distinction is very clear. He is out of office. While he may have the power to rally people to a cause, he has very little power little to make the Dems adopt it directly.

Yes I consider the type of speech and who is paying. The second question I will ignore because it is a red herring.

So the only quid pro quo that takes place in politics goes like this: "We'll pay you $400,000 to do this speech. But in exchange you have to do xyz (introduce a bill, vote against a regulation, etc.)."? Or that's the only kind we should be worried about?

My second line of questions was genuine. Whether you want to answer it or not, that's obviously up to you. But the issue with paid speeches to Wall Street is that their interests are viewed as generally antithetical to both the interests of various constituencies progressives care about and to their political ideology. The same could be said, to an even greater degree, for private prisons. You don't have a problem with Wall Street speeches. I'm asking if you would have a problem with speeches for private prison industry, as a means of assessing if there is a bridge you consider too far when it comes to this topic.

-Here are other ways people should worry about Wall Street (and other interest) influencing politicians besides paid speeches. Nothing it said previously hints that I believe only speeches are the only way a politician could be paid off.

I was speaking within the context of this topic, regarding the Osh's quote.

-And please don't be coy, you are specially using private prison because of their role in the prison industrial complex and the fact Obama is black. You could have asked me directly what is a bridge to far, but you did not. Criminal Justice reform is not just a issue "progressive" left fights for, it has support withing the center left too. And it is interesting that you claim private prisons are so important to progressives, when the progressive candidate candidate of choice didn't even have it in his platform until 2 months after Hillary Clinton of all people. I would think if it was such a major issue above Wall Street, that Bernie Sanders would be DOA for many "progressive' constituencies.

But yes I would have a problem if he did that. There is your answer

 

[-Red-]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

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?

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...

Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?

I think the distinction is very clear. He is out of office. While he may have the power to rally people to a cause, he has very little power little to make the Dems adopt it directly.

Yes I consider the type of speech and who is paying. The second question I will ignore because it is a red herring.

So the only quid pro quo that takes place in politics goes like this: "We'll pay you $400,000 to do this speech. But in exchange you have to do xyz (introduce a bill, vote against a regulation, etc.)."? Or that's the only kind we should be worried about?

My second line of questions was genuine. Whether you want to answer it or not, that's obviously up to you. But the issue with paid speeches to Wall Street is that their interests are viewed as generally antithetical to both the interests of various constituencies progressives care about and to their political ideology. The same could be said, to an even greater degree, for private prisons. You don't have a problem with Wall Street speeches. I'm asking if you would have a problem with speeches for private prison industry, as a means of assessing if there is a bridge you consider too far when it comes to this topic.

-Here are other ways people should worry about Wall Street (and other interest) influencing politicians besides paid speeches. Nothing it said previously hints that I believe only speeches are the only way a politician could be paid off.

I was speaking within the context of this topic, regarding the Osh's quote.

-And please don't be coy, you are specially using private prison because of their role in the prison industrial complex and the fact Obama is black. You could have asked me directly what is a bridge to far, but you did not. Criminal Justice reform is not just a issue "progressive" left fights for, and it is interesting that you claim private prisons are so important to progressives, when the progressive candidate candidate of choice didn't even have it in his platform until 2 months after Hillary Clinton of all people. i would think if it was such a major issue above Wall Street, that Bernie Sanders would be DOA for many "progressive' constituencies.

But yes I would have a problem if he did that. There is your answer

So you don't think paid speeches to Wall Street but imminently influential Democratic Party figures qualifies as something to be worried about?

And I used private prisons because I know it's an issue you care about very much. I do too. Many progressive folks seem to, as well. That's why I used the example. Not because Obama is black and it's often viewed as a "black" issue.

I could give a **** about Bernie at this point and I think much of what he's done post-election has exposed his limitations when it comes to the issues facing and important to communities of color, particularly black folks. And I didn't think he was a perfect candidate during the primaries. My involvement in this discussion isn't about him or Elizabeth Warren or any other progressive darling. I wanted to engage you in this because I respect your politics and your nuanced approach to thinking about political strategy and I think his is an important issue for progressive folks to be serious about. Like I said in another response to whywesteppin .

 

[-Red-]

I certainly hear this and if there's any former president I wanna see flourish after leaving the White House, Obama's probably the only person on that list

For me this is really a broader question about political ideology and how that intersects with political strategy for progressive folks.

I think I see what you're saying. Obama is uniquely positioned to do more with his power post-presidency than most, both due to his age and his relative popularity. I have no problem with him if he cashes in and takes it easy, but he does have an opportunity to accomplish a lot. So, in that sense, even though he's out of office, he has a potential responsibility to act in the public good, if he wants it.

Given that Obama cares deeply about health care reform, and insurance companies and Wall St. were major forces that kept the ACA from being more successful, he should do what Hasan Minhaj did last night and use his speech to go after those responsible.

Yes. But for me this is also important way beyond Obama. What do we consider acceptable or not ideologically? What strategic and/or practical considerations help to shape the answer to that question?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

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?

If it is reasonable to suspect quid pro quo.

It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.

Barrack Obama is not any of those things

I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...

Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?

I think the distinction is very clear. He is out of office. While he may have the power to rally people to a cause, he has very little power little to make the Dems adopt it directly.

Yes I consider the type of speech and who is paying. The second question I will ignore because it is a red herring.

So the only quid pro quo that takes place in politics goes like this: "We'll pay you $400,000 to do this speech. But in exchange you have to do xyz (introduce a bill, vote against a regulation, etc.)."? Or that's the only kind we should be worried about?

My second line of questions was genuine. Whether you want to answer it or not, that's obviously up to you. But the issue with paid speeches to Wall Street is that their interests are viewed as generally antithetical to both the interests of various constituencies progressives care about and to their political ideology. The same could be said, to an even greater degree, for private prisons. You don't have a problem with Wall Street speeches. I'm asking if you would have a problem with speeches for private prison industry, as a means of assessing if there is a bridge you consider too far when it comes to this topic.

-Here are other ways people should worry about Wall Street (and other interest) influencing politicians besides paid speeches. Nothing it said previously hints that I believe only speeches are the only way a politician could be paid off.

I was speaking within the context of this topic, regarding the Osh's quote.

-And please don't be coy, you are specially using private prison because of their role in the prison industrial complex and the fact Obama is black. You could have asked me directly what is a bridge to far, but you did not. Criminal Justice reform is not just a issue "progressive" left fights for, and it is interesting that you claim private prisons are so important to progressives, when the progressive candidate candidate of choice didn't even have it in his platform until 2 months after Hillary Clinton of all people. i would think if it was such a major issue above Wall Street, that Bernie Sanders would be DOA for many "progressive' constituencies.

But yes I would have a problem if he did that. There is your answer

So you don't think paid speeches to Wall Street but imminently influential Democratic Party figures qualifies as something to be worried about?

And I used private prisons because I know it's an issue you care about very much. I do too. Many progressive folks seem to, as well. That's why I used the example. Not because Obama is black and it's often viewed as a "black" issue.

I could give a **** about Bernie at this point and I think much of what he's done post-election has exposed his limitations when it comes to the issues facing and important to communities of color, particularly black folks. And I didn't think he was a perfect candidate during the primaries. My involvement in this discussion isn't about him or Elizabeth Warren or any other progressive darling. I wanted to engage you in this because I respect your politics and your nuanced approach to thinking about political strategy and I think his is an important issue for progressive folks to be serious about. Like I said in another response to whywesteppin .

My bad on jumping to conclusion about your intentions famb, I was being dismissive.

Obama is not gonna be directly involved in writing national party policy, yes he will push issue he feels is important but he will not be the most important figure on the left forever. I would be more concerned about the herd of centrist, Cory Booker, and celebrities candidates coming in 2020 than Obama. Nothing sets the progressive movement back more than moderate candidate coming around half stepping.

People have to remember Obama is pretty lefty. The only thing that pushed him centrist was a) governing and b) running for elections and having to form a coalition. He didn't back off single payer and same sex marriage because someone bought him off, he back off those positions because they would have hurt him with voters.

Free from office I would him expect him to drift left again. Even still, Obama gives reason for his policies. Even the TPP which I disagreed with he presented a sound economic argument for it (even though it was kinda weak) and I understood it was about geopolitics. So anyone can disagree with Obama, I have and probably will some more, but Obama more than any other politician at least presents a reason for his stance. And I have always said that the left needs to have a war of ideas. If Obama is truly bought, he will show his cards in true time.

And people have to remember, the right is gonna try to do a reverse Reagan on Obama. There were plenty of people that were glad Reagan's *** was gone, even on the right. But the GOP through a consistent effort once he left office, rewrote history and made Reagan the patron saint of successful conservationism. Even Obama pointed this out, we can't discuss sound economics in America because we have a generation that has a completely warped view of sound policy because of the Reagan era. The right is out to do the opposite of Obama, through rewriting history, make hims seem way worst that the two clowns that came before and after him. For a lot of reason, including political strategy, everyone of the left must defend against this.

No need to assist the right in throwing him under the bus before then. If Obama truly violates, even I will be there to shade him.

I already conceded that I can understand people having an issue with it for emotional reasons of strategy. That Obama needs to be seen as pure for his words to have the full effect. I understand where that sentiment is coming from, especially with the current state of affairs. But I wish people on the left first reaction would be to defend Obama and give the man the benefit of the doubt, before the provide the right with a shield.

 

[gry60]

Don't we have more pressing problems than debating Obama's speeches?

Problems like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...trump-popularity-ratings-barack-a7710781.html

Donald Trump has blamed the US constitution for the problems he has encountered during his first 100 days in office.

In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.

“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

Surely, Ted Cruz is reading this and having a change of heart about da Don, right? RIGHT?

 

[whywesteppin]

No, I think Teddy has a hardon listening to Daddy Trump get all authoritarian.

Given that da don can't even pass a travel ban or repeal obamacare, I don't think he's going to pass a constitutional amendment anytime soon. What this is good for though is to get every Republican on the record about this issue so that they can be exposed later (Priebus has already fallen for it).

 

[Based Jesus]

Don't we have more pressing problems than debating Obama's speeches?

Problems like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...trump-popularity-ratings-barack-a7710781.html

Donald Trump has blamed the US constitution for the problems he has encountered during his first 100 days in office.

In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.

“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

Surely, Ted Cruz is reading this and having a change of heart about da Don, right? RIGHT?

He really was stupid enough to call checks and balances a bad thing for the country? Jesus christ Donny at least try to not look like an oligarch. 

 

[RustyShackleford]

How can Da Don make America great again, when the fundamental set of laws holding the country together are getting in the way.

 

[EddieDoyers]

You can never respect a president who takes the constitution for granted.

 

[whywesteppin]

How can Da Don make America great again, when the fundamental set of laws holding the country together are getting in the way.

exactamundo, comrade. da don's first 100 days would've been even greater had it not been for those meddling constitutional laws.

You can never respect a president who takes the constitution for granted.

I can't respect a politician who can't even read the Constitution.

 

[Mr.Guy]

Da Constitution overrated anyways b. Da don don't need no constitution to flourish.

 

[aepps20]

DA DON WROTE DA CONSTITUTION B.