|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Ogmius815 posted: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. he went into finance though, it's just a limited engagement. For now.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
zeroprime posted: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? Nah, I don't think it's explicit quid-pro-quo either. It exists in the same grey area all really effective regulatory capture exists in: "it is entirely possible this is just me doing this out of the goodness of my heart, but nobody involved believes for a second you'd be getting this offer if I considered you an enemy." It doesn't matter what the intent of the organization in question is, when you get right down to it. The result is the same: every politician gets a nice, healthy reminder of what kind of gifts await good girls and boys if they don't piss off the hand that feeds them. Figuring out an effective way to address this problem is particularly thorny, for which reason the Pragmatic Centrist "ah c'mon it's just how the game is played" brush-off is shockingly effective. Easier to just pretend it's not there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted: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. Just checked it again and nope, still doesn't even include the word "finance". You do know that "Wall Street" and "finance" are not synonyms, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
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. I don't believe that's true. Time magazine 2009: "Cantor was a prominent player in the trading of credit default swaps, and that market for bond insurance has been battered by the rising defaults in home loans and other debts. Worse, some politicians and regulators, irked by the huge losses rung up by AIG in CDS contracts, have talked about creating a central exchange, much like the New York Stock Exchange, where the bond insurance would trade. Some have proposed doing away with CDS all together. Those changes would significantly curtail, or wipe out, Cantor's profits in its CDS business. What's more, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has subpoenaed Cantor and other traders of CDS contracts to see if the bond insurance was used to manipulate the market. Fears about changes in the CDS market have weighed on BGC's shares, which have fallen to a recent $2.90 from $12 a year ago." JeffersonClay posted:LOL he's speaking at the Cantor Fitzgerald Healthcare Conference 2017. What do you think Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial services firm, is doing with healthcare? I doubt they're pushing medicare for all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Just checked it again and nope, still doesn't even include the word "finance". You do know that "Wall Street" and "finance" are not synonyms, right? Wall Street is the name of a street in the financial district in lower manhattan. The term is used metonymically to refer to the financial sector, including institutions of the same sort as the one that is paying Obama to give a speech about health care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Fansy posted:I don't believe that's true. how shocking. cantor was in fact involved in fact, they were most likely one of the ones intentionally selling bad subprimes
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:he went into finance though, it's just a limited engagement. For now. Yes, you found the key distinction that separates what Obama is doing and what Obama said he would not do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
I've seen more intellectual honesty debating people who claimed holodomor was deserved than I saw today itt among dem profiteering apologists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I've seen more intellectual honesty debating people who claimed holodomor was deserved than I saw today itt among dem profiteering apologists. Said a person adopting an incredibly broad interpretation of a phrase that has a common, much narrower meaning and trying to use that interpretation to accuse people of dishonesty. You'd never try that anywhere but the unaccountable internet because people would ream you for it and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yes, you found the key distinction that separates what Obama is doing and what Obama said he would not do. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Said a person adopting an incredibly broad interpretation of a phrase that has a common, much narrower meaning and trying to use that interpretation to accuse people of dishonesty. You'd never try that anywhere but the unaccountable internet because people would ream you for it and you know it. What phrase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Wall Street is the name of a street in the financial district in lower manhattan. The term is used metonymically to refer to the financial sector, including institutions of the same sort as the one that is paying Obama to give a speech about health care. You can go to Wall Street for a one time deal. You cannot go to the concept of finance and make a one time deal. They are not synonymous, though they are obviously closely related. The point is that his quote could easily include not going to Wall Street for one time speeches, something that cannot be said if you replace "Wall Street" in his quote with "finance", something you insist on doing to avoid admitting your interpretation isn't the only possible reading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tarapalmeri/status/857257106227027968 gz everyone! The mean and nasty NAFTA will no longer hurt you. Score 1 for party purity woo! wait poo poo what do we use NAFTA fo- Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:You can go to Wall Street for a one time deal. You cannot go to the concept of finance and make a one time deal. They are not synonymous, though they are obviously closely related. The point is that his quote could easily include not going to Wall Street for one time speeches, something that cannot be said if you replace "Wall Street" in his quote with "finance", something you insist on doing to avoid admitting your interpretation isn't the only possible reading. This distinction does not exist in the common parllance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This distinction does not exist in the common parllance. I prefer when you just post when you can't make a legitimate argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This distinction does not exist in the common parllance. lol maybe in Centrist-World
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:https://twitter.com/tarapalmeri/status/857257106227027968 i'm not shedding any tears for NAFTA, but i doubt he can cancel a treaty via EO
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Even if he meant "I'm not going to be associated with Wall Street industries in a long term perspective", who does actually believe it. What is keeping him from turning his life into a series of performances for insular clubs of rich people. Also sure, I'm sure Obama certainly hasn't made any Wall Street acquaintances with whom he keeps in touch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This distinction does not exist in the common parllance. after seeing a presidential candidate get drawn over hot coals for making speeches to wall street for a year or so I'd guess that the common parlance has changed a bit
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:lol maybe in Centrist-World The political left has a special terminology for referring to the financial sector where the metonym "Wall Street", means something different than what it means to the rest of the world? You all heard it here first. In any case, since Obama is clearly a centrist monster, he wouldn't have known about your special leftists-only meaning of the term, so it would be stupid to interpret his statement as using that meaning. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Let us remember that Obama has launched a foundation that is staffed top to bottom with his pals plucked LITERALLY from Wall Street firms. He has gone to Wall Street, and has already sprouted roots over there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The political left has a special terminology for referring to the financial sector where the metonym "Wall Street", means something different than what it means to the rest of the world. You all heard it here first. In any case, since Obama is clearly a centrist monster, he wouldn't have known about your special leftists-only meaning of the term, so it would be stupid to interpret his statement as using that meaning. Can we go back to "Shattered" chat for a bit because I am still reading it? It's remarkable how spot-on Bill Clinton's advice to Hillary and her staff was after not being president for 17 years and how he was basically treated like a doddering old fool. steinrokkan posted:Let us remember that Obama has launched a foundation that is staffed top to bottom with his pals plucked LITERALLY from Wall Street firms. He has gone to Wall Street, and has already sprouted roots over there. Do you mean like finance, or the physical location? I think they can't be both because it's a double negative. Also did they go to him?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:lol maybe in Centrist-World in fairness the whole point of being a centrist is so you can yell "PURISTS!" at people when they catch you in an outright lie
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:https://twitter.com/tarapalmeri/status/857257106227027968 There is hope that since NAFTA was passed by both houses of Congress, that it is basically law passed by Congress, not merely a treaty. This of course doesn't mean Trump can't go to the SCOTUS and have that thrown out. Treaties usually require ratification by 2/3 of the Senate, but Clinton got around that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The political left has a special terminology for referring to the financial sector where the metonym "Wall Street", means something different than what it means to the rest of the world. You all heard it here first. In any case, since Obama is clearly a centrist monster, he wouldn't have known about your special leftists-only meaning of the term, so it would be stupid to interpret his statement as using that meaning. Good to see the Dem dissociation from the term "left" is in full swing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:
Literally the location, and literally the financial sector and affiliated areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not shedding any tears for NAFTA, but i doubt he can cancel a treaty via EO Ah glad to hear it then! Just one tiny problem You're "not shedding any tears" over a huge amount of American industries about to be turbofucked. Chief among them are poor rural farmers, the very people you spent the first third of the thread defending. And if you think this will make the outsourced jobs come back you're as deluded as our President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not shedding any tears for NAFTA, but i doubt he can cancel a treaty via EO He could if it was a normal treaty only ratified by the Senate, but NAFTA was voted on by both Congress and the Senate. He will find this out, and probably attempt to fight this, but he has so many other fights to take to the Supreme Court, who knows anymore what the administration is actually focused on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Delicious cake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Ah glad to hear it then! Just one tiny problem hmm, something tells me you're being disingenuous as usual
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Fansy posted:I don't believe that's true. CDSs are not inherently fraudulent, was there any indication that Cantor Fitzgerald was committing fraud, or taking on absurd amounts of risk with the assumption the government would bail them out? Here's the next paragraph from time that I cannot imagine why you did not quote. quote:But unlike its much larger financial rivals, Cantor never made home loans. It trades mortgage bonds, but never held onto bundles of those bonds hoping to make a big profit. That means Cantor has not had to suffer the same credit crunch that its larger rivals have been struggling with for more than six months as many of those loans or bonds have gone bad. Many firms have had to pull back from some trading businesses, or go out of business all together. quote:What do you think Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial services firm, is doing with healthcare? Connecting investors and healthcare companies. That's a good thing if you want Obamacare to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Connecting investors and healthcare companies. That's a good thing if you want Obamacare to work. Hahahahaha you think the extreme left wants Obamacare to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm, something tells me you're being disingenuous as usual Remember he admitted to being that when it came to abortion and Mello.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hahahahaha you think the extreme left wants Obamacare to work. This threads a winner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
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. What Obama said doesnt matter. This isn't about catching Obama on a lie. It's about him doing something that is bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Within the context of a recent college grad, "going to Wall Street, make a lot of money" would absolutely mean getting a long-term job in the financial sector. Within the context of a former president, being asked what he intends to do with his post-presidency, it's obviously talking about speeches, charity work, advocacy issues, etc. Under this context, getting paid $400k for a speech made to Wall Street qualifies, and it's downright asinine to suggest otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
zeroprime posted: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? My feeling is that it isn't possible to ever prove this sort of thing is specifically unethical, and that is all the more reason to not allow it. Short of a written "I am giving you this money because you did favors for me" contract or something, there isn't really any way to prove whether a politician is being directly (or indirectly/tacitly) rewarded for acting in a way an industry approves of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
I had this same argument last night on the Trump thread and it was insane. Like, do people need to be explained that the potential / outward appearance of conflicts of interest is bad and often explicitly regulated against? Defending Obama because it's "a healthcare conference" is like defending Clinton after the transcripts came out by saying "see, she didn't say anything bad!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:CDSs are not inherently fraudulent, was there any indication that Cantor Fitzgerald was committing fraud, or taking on absurd amounts of risk with the assumption the government would bail them out? Here's the next paragraph from time that I cannot imagine why you did not quote. uh, that doesn't exonerate cantor at all. a lot of small firms were bundling this poo poo up and shipping it off to big firms cause they knew it was toxic also lol at the idea that all obamacare needs to work is more investors. it needed a public option, but for some reason obama completely stopped supporting that when he became president
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
There'd be a lot more room for suspicion if this weren't a public event designed to attract financing for healthcare companies. Obama has a vested interest in healthcare companies getting investors so his signature healthcare bill doesn't death-spiral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:31
|
|