|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's almost like you don't know how to read. "Go to wall street" doesn't mean "get paid for a single speech" hth. Yes, i'm sure Obama will have the same restraint Hillary Clinton did when it came to speeches.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/26/sanders-and-21-democrats-introduce-bill-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/ In good news Bernie and prominent Dems are pushing for raising the minimum wage. Hope he keeps ensuring a united party commites to actually helping people. You know despite him being a racist sexist monster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's almost like you don't know how to read. "Go to wall street" doesn't mean "get paid for a speech at a healthcare conference" hth. Yeah this speech is in Boston, how could anyone possibly say he went to Wall St
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Yes, i'm sure Obama will have the same restraint Hillary Clinton did when it came to speeches. It's clear that you are Edit- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. it's not deliberate. But it's a really bad interpretation of that interview. frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Yeah this speech is in Boston, how could anyone possibly say he went to Wall St We could go into a detailed linguistic analysis of what 'go to wall st' meant in the used context but I'm not arguing that he meant physically so you can fuckoff with that dumb strawman. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's clear that you are deliberately misinterpreting his words to make them out to be lies. Why undermine your own argument like that though? I disagree with many posters here on this issue, but i get their arguments. This argument is really obviously bad and disingenuous. Isn't that what you do all the time? Also for you to accuse anyone else of being disingenuous. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's clear that you are deliberately misinterpreting his words to make them out to be lies. Why undermine your own argument like that though? I disagree with many posters here on this issue, but i get their arguments. This argument is really obviously bad and disingenuous. I mean, if you're implying that this is just a one time mulligan for Obama, that's not a very reasonable assumption to make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I mean, if you're implying that this is just a one time mulligan for Obama, that's not a very reasonable assumption to make. I'm not implying anything. That interview has nothing to do with this event and what he said was not contradicted by this event.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
He isn't literally being employed by Wall Street, so he's not going against his word when he accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars from them - something a real human being honestly believes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:We could go into a detailed linguistic analysis of what 'go to wall st' meant in the used context but I'm not arguing that he meant physically so you can fuckoff with that dumb strawman. LOL yeah, you don't mean the literal physical location, that would be ridiculous! You mean an unspecified number of times he'd go to Wall St. and make money, never ever change
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:LOL yeah, you don't mean the literal physical location, that would be ridiculous! You mean an unspecified number of times he'd go to Wall St. and make money, never ever change 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm not implying anything. That interview has nothing to do with this event and what he said was not contradicted by this event. Essentially you want to pedant your way out of this argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Essentially you want to pedant your way out of this argument. In the context of that article, what do you think the interviewer meant when he asked the president "so you aren't going to go to wall street, make a lot of money?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm not implying anything. That interview has nothing to do with this event and what he said was not contradicted by this event. lol these $400,000 from a wall st firm have nothing to do with working for wall st show me the w-2 honestly that centrists even try to defend the modern day democratic party while getting owned by it is amazing, how easy would it be to just walk away from the keyboard before the Democrats dunk on you again
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Lets pretend Wall St. would be cutting Obama big checks if he sent them to prison and signed regulations that had teeth in it. This is the craziest thing about this whole dumb argument. It is transparently obvious that, at the very least, a President would probably not receive financial benefits from corporations if he acted to their detriment while in office. So even if you don't accept that politicians are directly rewarded for acting to the benefit of certain corporations while in office, it is at the very least clearly true that, by not acting to their benefit, they more or less ensure they will not receive these benefits. I can't think of a single logical reason to just not allow former Presidents to financially benefit from certain corporate sectors. It's not like giving people conditions that extend beyond their time working a job isn't a thing; people regularly are legally mandated to not expose information about the firms they work at, etc, so it clearly isn't unusual to make employment contingent on certain behavior after the employment period ends. And, as previously mentioned, it's not like Presidents aren't fully provided for after leaving office. Heck, if it's really important to you that presidents have the option to become turbo-rich after leaving office, there's always stuff like future book deals that don't really constitute a potential conflict of interest while in office. Almost all the other arguments made by centrists in this thread, even if I disagree, I can at least understand where they're coming from and why they might feel that way. But this is just insane. There isn't a single good reason to not condemn this sort of behavior, if not outright ban it as a condition for accepting the office of President (or ideally Congressional positions as well). As mentioned before, making employment contingent on conditions that apply after the employment period ends is not some crazy, unusual thing. It is a tool we have to help minimize the influence corporate interests have on politicians, and there isn't a single good reason not to use it. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol "Uhm, when he said 'go to wall street', obviously he meant being hired full time and being physically located on wall street, show me where Obama's desk is!"  A 400k speech is actually worse, at least i could pretend Obama was toiling away for his pay at some bulge bracket firm or something instead of making that much money in a couple hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Never forget this beautiful bastardSSNeoman posted:I said that if the DNC didn't learn from Kansas I'd change my mind and agree with the OP. Mr one more chance
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:"Uhm, when he said 'go to wall street', obviously he meant being hired full time and being physically located on wall street, show me where Obama's desk is!" Do you think when the question was asked either the interviewer or the interviewee understood it to mean "will you ever accept money to do anything for any firm on wall st ever again"? or do you think they were talking about generally how obama would spend his time after office and whether it would be substantially devoted to a new lucrative career in the finance sector?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:"Uhm, when he said 'go to wall street', obviously he meant being hired full time and being physically located on wall street, show me where Obama's desk is!" lololol dunkin on u tardsNevvy Z posted:Do you think when the question was asked either the interviewer or the interviewee meant "will you ever accept money to do anything for any firm on wall st ever again"? lol he's been out of office a little over 3 months
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:lol he's been out of office a little over 3 months Lol at the idea that how long it's been matters. Look at how you can't even answer the question. There's plenty of good arguments even in this thread made on the topic. The one about the interview is a really really bad argument and you are dumber for trying to support it. Ylata, that post is awesome and I agree with it except that i'm not mad at Obama for following the rules as they exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lol at the idea that how long it's been matters. Look at how you can't even answer the question. wait, so it's not the location, and it's not the temporal aspect, maybe YOU should tell us what loving Bizarro World interpretation you have here
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Look at how you can't even answer the question. Being paid $400,000 for services rendered by a wall street firm is pretty much the definition of working for someone. I hope this helps you in your quest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
How loving dense do you have to be to take money for a Wall Street speech when you don't need the money (his memoirs sold for like tens of millions of dollars and someone already posted that presidents have lifelong pensions), when one of the effective attacks on your failed candidate were her Wall Street speeches, and at a moment when the party you're the face of is trying to make itself look more in touch with the regular people who hate WS? I'm genuinely embarassed that I was irritated by anti-Hillary people before the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:wait, so it's not the location, and it's not the temporal aspect, maybe YOU should tell us what loving Bizarro World interpretation you have here I did. It's pretty obviously the right one. you are just so mad at this money you can't even think rationally about an unrelated interview.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
It's not mysterious why Cantor Fitzgerald is paying 400k, either. They want people to come to their healthcare conference, so they hired the biggest name in government healthcare policy to headline it. Interesting aside, Cantor Fitzgerald lost like 600 people on 9/11 and they (unsuccessfully) sued the KSA afterword. The optics are still bad here though. The last thing democrats should be doing is triggering the Sanders wing. Tie trump to Wall Street, not yourselves, dummies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious that Barack Obama accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall St firms in exchange for his time in no way means that he is working for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I did. all you've done is post the emote and tell people they are idiots and
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
nevvy you can pretend to be as stupid as you want but the interviewer and Obama both understood the question was not "are you going to become a floor trader"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:How loving dense do you have to be to take money for a Wall Street speech when you don't need the money (his memoirs sold for like tens of millions of dollars and someone already posted that presidents have lifelong pensions), when one of the effective attacks on your failed candidate were her Wall Street speeches, and at a moment when the party you're the face of is trying to make itself look more in touch with the regular people who hate WS? I'll give credit where credit's due, at least Obama had the sense to accept these implied bribes AFTER his presidency was over, Hillary thought she could get away with it before even being elected, LMAO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:nevvy you can pretend to be as stupid as you want but the interviewer and Obama both understood the question was not "are you going to become a floor trader" edit: realtalk tho that is a rad emote, it actually does improve Nevvy's awful posting slightly
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:nevvy you can pretend to be as stupid as you want but the interviewer and Obama both understood the question was not "are you going to become a floor trader" Oh word? Please demonstrate where in that interview it's suggested that they were tlaking about taking any money from wall street ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh word? Please demonstrate where in that interview it's suggested that they were tlaking about taking any money from wall street ever. Please tell us what your interpretation is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:if you'll accept nothing less than full acquiescence from the left then it's a joke to consider you allies. Turns out the Tea Party of Democrats is actually the establishment, not the left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
That interview was clearly talking about what Obama would do with the rest of his career generally. To see it as a broad promise never to take any money from any financial firm ever, you have to really want to see that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's not mysterious why Cantor Fitzgerald is paying 400k, either. They want people to come to their healthcare conference, so they hired the biggest name in government healthcare policy to headline it. i like how you disingenuously tried to pretend the 400k wasn't from a financial services firm cause "they're having a healthcare conference"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Please demonstrate where in that interview it's suggested that they were tlaking about taking any money from wall street ever. you keep saying "ever" like you think this is bound by time or something? like it's been a few months since he left office, did you think the interviewer was implying like in 2 weeks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That interview was clearly talking about what Obama would do with the rest of his career generally. To see it as a broad promise never to take any money from any financial firm ever, you have to really want to see that. It's not "never" it's been 3 months. It's like saying "I'm quitting drugs" and then waiting 2 days and takin a big ol' hit "Well he didn't say WHEN he'd quit"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Do you think when the question was asked either the interviewer or the interviewee understood it to mean "will you ever accept money to do anything for any firm on wall st ever again"? or do you think they were talking about generally how obama would spend his time after office and whether it would be substantially devoted to a new lucrative career in the finance sector? Nevvy you have backed yourself into the corner of saying "No, when Obama said he wouldn't be working for Wall Street he didn't mean he wouldn't be working for Wall Street" The entire point of the Pragmatic Centrist ideology is that it means you don't have to bother defending corruption, you just say "Well, it's not an ideal situation, but I'll accept it in the name of [insert unconnected concept here]" and consider the matter closed. You're trying to defend something it is impossible to defend on ideological grounds, ideologically. this is not a winning strategy, pragmatic man
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh word? Please demonstrate where in that interview it's suggested that they were tlaking about taking any money from wall street ever. what the gently caress do you think president's do Post-presidency if not give speeches and write memoirs
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Nevvy you have backed yourself into the corner of saying "No, when Obama said he wouldn't be working for Wall Street he didn't mean he wouldn't be working for Wall Street" This is a really bad read on the interview and the events in question. Ogmius815 posted:That interview was clearly talking about what Obama would do with the rest of his career generally. To see it as a broad promise never to take any money from any financial firm ever, you have to really want to see that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy Expressing opinions is now "apathy" and somehow also implies that the person expressing said opinions does literally nothing else to support his/her political causes. This is an extremely disingenuous argument no matter how you slice it. "Heh you're just whining* instead of making real change" is basically the response once there's no other defense for a person's side of an argument. *where "whining" literally = "expressing an opinion"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:00
|
|