|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
quote: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. or triggering moderates that lean anti-establishment (which comes in many flavors: fiscally liberal, anti-globalism, etc). I know turnout was by far the main factor in 2016 rather than hypothetical moderates on the knife edge, but this is about public opinion.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:It's not "never" it's been 3 months. That's not the point. The point is that Obama said he wouldn't devote the rest of his life substantially to working in finance. That's by far the most reasonable and natural reading of the interview. Neither Obama nor the interviewer saw that question and answer as referring to speaking engagements and you wouldn't either if Bernie hadn't made Clinton's speaking fees into a dumb wedge issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's not the point. The point is that Obama said he wouldn't devote the rest of his life substantially to working in finance. That's by far the most reasonable and natural reading of the interview. Neither Obama nor the interviewer saw that question and answer as referring to speaking engagements and you wouldn't either if Bernie hadn't made Clinton's speaking fees into a dumb wedge issue. It's absolutely the point! You can't say "I'm not going to do this" and then pretty much immediately go do it and not raise eyebrows. Even if it's a one-off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's not the point. The point is that Obama said he wouldn't devote the rest of his life substantially to working in finance. That's by far the most reasonable and natural reading of the interview. Neither Obama nor the interviewer saw that question and answer as referring to speaking engagements and you wouldn't either if Bernie hadn't made Clinton's speaking fees into a dumb wedge issue. and after all, who could call four hundred thousand dollars substantial? most likely just poor people. seriously, you all keep digging yourselves deeper when the explicit point of the Pragmatic Centrist political philosophy is to justify corruption like this. embrace what you are, there are benefits, you just keep on trying to deny them for god knows what reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Obama's actions in the Presidency were all just a long con to set himself up for sweet speaking fees from financial groups after he ended his political career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Stolen from CSPAM The question was "you're not going to go to wall street, make a lot of money?" and Obama said he wouldn't. He went to Wall Street and made a lot of money, somehow centrists read this as Ogmius815 posted:The point is that Obama said he wouldn't devote the rest of his life substantially to working in finance. That's by far the most reasonable and natural reading of the interview. sirtommygunn fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Obama's actions in the Presidency were all just a long con to set himself up for sweet speaking fees from financial groups after he ended his political career. doesn't seem like much of a con to me. give wall street tons of money and let them keep evicting people after wall street imploded the markets with their avarice, cover for wall street when it turns out their title histories were forged, cover for them when they get caught repossessing on and evicting active duty service members knowingly, give banks a slap on the wrist when it turns out they're knowingly laundering money for terrorists and drug cartels seems he spent a great deal of his presidency defending banks from facing the penalties for their crimes, and is now being rewarded for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No you see morally pure former presidents and their families all take vows of poverty and follow the Rule of Benedict. But Presidents are literally provided for with six figure incomes for the rest of their lives, not even counting the option of book deals and what have you. Like, this argument is something that is explicitly wrong. It is not crazy or extreme to demand that former Presidents not receive money from powerful interests, because they are already fully provided for. No President will be living in poverty after his/her presidency. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:It's absolutely the point! You can't say "I'm not going to do this" and then pretty much immediately go do it and not raise eyebrows. Even if it's a one-off. But he didn't say he wouldn't do that thing dummy. He said something else entirely. That's the point. Ze Pollack posted:and after all, who could call four hundred thousand dollars substantial? most likely just poor people. You should work on understanding and attacking arguments that are actually made instead of weaker ones that you devise yourself. Obviously $400,000 is a "substantial" amount of money, but a speaking engagement that lasts a few hours is not a substantial part of Obama's post-presidency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Obama's actions in the Presidency were all just a long con to set himself up for sweet speaking fees from financial groups after he ended his political career. Seriously, like this. This is how you defend it. Does it look like corruption? Sure. Does anyone believe for a second that he would be getting these fees if he had gone after the companies in question in any meaningful way? Of course not. Does it stink to high heaven in context of his statements three months ago? Absolutely. Is this precisely how the mechanism of regulatory capture operates, yes. But can we know, for a fact, that this is a fee being exchanged for services rendered over the last eight years? No. And therefore, it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But he didn't say he wouldn't do that thing dummy. He said something else entirely. That's the point. OH MY GOD those are literally the words he used. I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt that he meant a whole career! It's STILL ridiculous!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But he didn't say he wouldn't do that thing dummy. He said something else entirely. That's the point. no-one cares cause we're not currently at the end of history looking back on when obama took money from bankers that one time (lol if you think this is a one time thing anyway, he already stuffed the obama foundation full of bankers and lobbyists). we're 3 months out from obama saying he wouldn't be making money off wallstreet and he's already doing the same shady speaking engagements hillary was
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:OH MY GOD those are literally the words he used. I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt that he meant a whole career! It's STILL ridiculous! Your interpretation of that interview is incredibly tortured.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But he didn't say he wouldn't do that thing dummy. He said something else entirely. That's the point. That in your fanfiction Obama added the word "substantial" to his statement is no doubt a source of great comfort to you. Isn't it curious how even Ogmius' version of Obama still made an egregious fuckup, though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You should work on understanding and attacking arguments that are actually made instead of weaker ones that you devise yourself. Obviously $400,000 is a "substantial" amount of money, but a speaking engagement that lasts a few hours is not a substantial part of Obama's post-presidency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Your interpretation of that interview is incredibly tortured. Quote the interview right now so we can confirm whether we are talking about the same statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i like how you disingenuously tried to pretend the 400k wasn't from a financial services firm cause "they're having a healthcare conference" It's a health care conference put on by a Wall Street firm. There's nothing disingenuous about my post, I even state that the optics of being associated with Wall Street are bad! A disingenuous post would be one like Condiv posted:it's payment for sevices rendered. namely keeping them out of jail during their many scandals in his administration. it's also payment for letting them run the country for 8 years. that's p anti-DNC to me, but you new democrats seem to think bribes are good and cool now so... Because it ignores the fact that Obama was hired to speak at a healthcare conference because he'll increase attendance, and that the firm in question was not responsible for the financial crisis, and that Obama's DOJ indicted one of their former employees for fraud he committed while at the company. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Why is a financial services firm paying Obama half a mil to talk? YES! Okay maybe not 400k, but definitely Hillary amounts. What, you think just cause they're politically different that they would pass up the chance to use a former President or even Senator to give themselves more prestige? Especially one as popular as Bernie? Of course not. Not to mention some Wall Street execs actually agree with him, like the RL Gordon Gecko.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's a health care conference put on by a Wall Street firm. There's nothing disingenuous about my post, I even state that the optics of being associated with Wall Street are bad! oh? which firm was responsible for the financial crisis? did we ever get a non-bullshit answer to that, cause i think if we did there would be people in jail for it. i do not believe for one second that obama was hired to increase attendance and only to increase attendance. it's a convenient excuse for bribery Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
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. Calling it a healthcare conference is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Stolen from CSPAM This is the interview I'm referring to. This statement means "I am not going into finance in my post presidency". Contra you idiots, it does not mean "I, President Barack Hussein Obama, solemnly pledge not to accept any money from any financial firm".
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Your interpretation of that interview is incredibly tortured. Ogmius815 posted:That's not the point. The point is that Obama said he wouldn't devote the rest of his life substantially to working in finance. I bolded the parts that were 100 percent YOUR tortured interpretation that are not supported by the text
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Seriously, like this. This is how you defend it. Does it look like corruption? Sure. Does anyone believe for a second that he would be getting these fees if he had gone after the companies in question in any meaningful way? Of course not. Does it stink to high heaven in context of his statements three months ago? Absolutely. Is this precisely how the mechanism of regulatory capture operates, yes. But can we know, for a fact, that this is a fee being exchanged for services rendered over the last eight years? I don't think it's quid-pro-quo and you clearly do, and I'm sorry for mocking that. What standards should we use when ex-presidents get paid a shitload of money in speaking fees, though, to decide when it's done as a form of influence on politics vs when it's just institutions with too much money blowing cash on the prestige of an ex-President speaking at an event? And do we decide there is intent behind it, or is it a problem of this problem organically arising from the way the political system and financial laws are currently written?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is the interview I'm referring to. This statement means "I am not going into finance in my post presidency". Contra you idiots, it does not mean "I, President Barack Hussein Obama, solemnly pledge not to accept any money from any financial firm". just wondering but how do you function in the real world? is it difficult?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:just wondering but how do you function in the real world? is it difficult? I find that being able to work out what other people mean when they speak is a pretty valuable life skill. How is not being able to do that working for you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is the interview I'm referring to. This statement means "I am not going into finance in my post presidency". Contra you idiots, it does not mean "I, President Barack Hussein Obama, solemnly pledge not to accept any money from any financial firm". "You're not going to go to Wall Street, make a lot of money?" asked the interviewer But lets try make a tortured interpretation out of thin air what the context of the question and answer was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oh? which firm was responsible for the financial crisis? did we ever get a non-bullshit answer to that, cause i think if we did there would be people in jail for it. One of the big ones? One that was selling hosed up mortgages and foreclosing on people? One that made lovely investments and required the government to bail them out? Cantor Fitzgerald was none of these. Fansy posted:Calling it a healthcare conference is disingenuous. LOL he's speaking at the Cantor Fitzgerald Healthcare Conference 2017.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Were any of these people complaining that people who didn't vote Clinton cared more about their wallets than the country? Because LOL apparently that's only alright if you're an ex-president
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is the interview I'm referring to. This statement means "I am not going into finance in my post presidency". Contra you idiots, it does not mean "I, President Barack Hussein Obama, solemnly pledge not to accept any money from any financial firm". I read it that Obama claims that if he ever came upon Wall Street in the rest of his life his body would melt as if exposed to the Ark of the Covenant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Everyone shut the gently caress up about speaking fees, OP actually found something damning. What's all this about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Everyone shut the gently caress up about speaking fees, OP actually found something damning. http://www.pspcapital.com/funds-partnerships-team.html CEO of a hedge fund of course
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:"You're not going to go to Wall Street, make a lot of money?" asked the interviewer When people talk about "going to wall street", what do you think they usually mean? Do you think they mean going to see that bull statute and taking a selfie in front of it? Do you think they mean having any kind of professional relationship with the finance industry? Like if a lawyer gets a job at a law firm that has clients in the financial industry, are they "going to wall street?". If someone gets a job at a startup that's about to have an IPO, are they "going to wall street"?" That isn't what they mean. They mean "going to work in finance as a career". That is how that phrase is used and this is the most naturalistic reading of Obama's statement. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:YES! Hiya, checking in with professional expertise here, axeil will be able to back me up on this one. They -could-. But when the bright young thing proposes it, there will be someone at the meeting table who shifts posture uncomfortably, and one guy who grimaces a little, and after a little discussion someone will say in that wonderful adult-trying-not-to-tell-a-child-no-outright tone "I'm not sure that fits with our target optics." The word "synergize" may be used depending on precisely how far up its own rear end the table in question is. The proposal will be tabled, and somewhere between that moment and the actual requests for speakers the proposal will die a quiet, ignominious death. Consulting's a bad line of work to stay in if you ever feel embarrassment-by-proxy. There's no rule forbidding it. On paper, it's a great idea! And yet, the vague, carefully-never-openly-voiced sense of hostility is sufficient to guarantee that the social calendar of the most popular politician in America is curiously bereft of invitations to Wall Street speaking engagements. Systemic incentives: they're a bitch and a half. As Majorian can vouch, there is nothing quite so concerned about how Other People Might Be Turned Off By This as someone who is, themselves, really profoundly turned off by the This in question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
What about "going to" a place inherently means its about a long-term job? In the context of the interview it could mean any kind of employment or service in exchange for a large sum of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:When people talk about "going to wall street", what do you think they usually mean? Do you think they mean going to see that bull statute and taking a selfie in front of it? Do you think they mean having any kind of professional relationship with the finance industry? Like if a lawyer gets a job at a law firm that has clients in the financial industry, are they "going to wall street?". If someone gets a job at a startup that's about to have an IPO, are they "going to wall street"?" That isn't what they mean. They mean "going to work in finance as a career". That is how that phrase is used and this is the most naturalistic reading of Obama's statement. Yeah, in this case he's only accepting money from a wall street firm in exchange for labor, it's completely different than a career
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Here, for example, is an article talking about elite college grads going into finance. You can see how "flocking to wall street" here means "going to work for financial institutions and for finance consulting". If a Harvard grad who works for the government as a regulator attends a conference on financial regulation, he is not "going to wall street" in the way this phrase is typically meant, even if he gets paid to speak and even if the even is literally happening in the FiDi (which, incidentally, Obama's event is not). http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septoct-2014/why-are-harvard-grads-still-flocking-to-wall-street/ Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:What about "going to" a place inherently means its about a long-term job? In the context of the interview it could mean any kind of employment or service in exchange for a large sum of money. No. In the context of the interview, Obama is speaking generally about what he plans to do with the rest of his life. He says that he isn't planning to go into finance, which he is not doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
I'd say "going to Wall Street" for a politician usually means sitting on the board of some big firm. Barney Frank went to Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:One of the big ones? One that was selling hosed up mortgages and foreclosing on people? One that made lovely investments and required the government to bail them out? Cantor Fitzgerald was none of these. hmm, seems unlikely, since they were begging for the bailout in 2008: http://www.reuters.com/article/financial-bailout-cantorfitzgerald-idUSN0229525520081002 also, last i heard the smaller firms were involved in the crisis too, bundling up subprime mortgages and shuffling them off to other banks i dunno why you're trusting that this wall street guy wasn't involved when we already know justice was not even pursued wrt the 2008 financial crash
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:When people talk about "going to wall street", what do you think they usually mean? Do you think they mean going to see that bull statute and taking a selfie in front of it? Do you think they mean having any kind of professional relationship with the finance industry? Like if a lawyer gets a job at a law firm that has clients in the financial industry, are they "going to wall street?". If someone gets a job at a startup that's about to have an IPO, are they "going to wall street"?" That isn't what they mean. They mean "going to work in finance as a career". That is how that phrase is used and this is the most naturalistic reading of Obama's statement. Going to have to c/p what i wrote before, but you're being a pedant (also i like how you ignore the money aspect of the question) 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!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:44
|
|
