|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Huh, I never really considered that but it does make a lot of positions make much more sense. Its neoliberalism 101, workers are the first and most dangerous obstacle to profit
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Fansy posted:If FDR proposed the second Bill of Rights today, how would liberals respond? Lots of hot takes online about how problematic it is. SSNeoman posted:People lost their poo poo over BERNIE BUYING A THIRD HOUSE!!! back in 2016. I hate extreme leftists. "People" didn't lose their poo poo, a pack of dishonest and cynical Clintonistas made a lame attempt to use it to tar Sanders as a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Fados posted:Its neoliberalism 101, workers are the first and most dangerous obstacle to profit https://twitter.com/latimes/status/857792756927909890
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Do you remember during the crash, corporations were testing the waters on unpaid internships from among the general populace? Like literally "come be an unpaid intern and maybe we'll hire you someday" lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
most people would call those leftovers "dividends" but yes thats the basic idea hot pants jesus christ Most days I honestly don't know which is worse; the chattel inequalities of the prevailing economic and political system, or the suffocating mediocrity of those currently holding the whip. After a point the poo poo gets embarrassing for those who would be ruled, y'know?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
millenials don't need to worry about retirement because either we'll have gotten past late stage capitalism or we'll all be dead in bread riots
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:millenials don't need to worry about retirement because either we'll have gotten past late stage capitalism or we'll all be dead in bread riots drafted into the trumpenstaffel for WW3 vs Canada and China
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
I think that what a lot of people defending Obama taking money don't realize is that, even if it isn't "payment for services rendered" so to speak (and I actually don't believe it is in the sense of "you did good things for us, now we will give you money"), it is still a direct result of his actions in office. This is easy to understand if you imagine the opposite situation. If Obama had presided over an administration that was relatively hostile to Wall Street and behaved in ways that were to Wall Street's notable detriment, it is extremely less likely they would be willing to involve him in transactions like this. This is why it's impossible to allow this sort of behavior without also basically creating a backdoor for corruption that can't be directly traced. And we fortunately have an easy way to deal with this - just don't allow former presidents and congressmen/women to receive money from certain corporate interests after their terms end and ensure they are otherwise well provided for (which we already do for presidents). And even if you ignore the pension, there are plenty of other ways to make money that lack the same ethical dubiousness, with Obama's book deal being a prime example. So I think the key point isn't so much that a president/politician receiving money in this matter is necessarily corrupt, but that if it was there would be no way for us to do anything about it. If there actually was an unspoken understanding that behaving in a way beneficial (or at least not harmful) to an industry would yield rewards later (and there effectively is for the reasons I mentioned before), there would be no way to stop it if we allow this sort of thing. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
oh hey https://twitter.com/PostRoz/status/857764807231111169
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So I think the key point isn't so much that a president/politician receiving money in this matter is necessarily corrupt, but that if it was there would be no way for us to do anything about it. Ding ding ding that's the goal. Normalize behavior that is impossible to distinguish from corruption from the outside, thereby normalizing corruption. The exact kind of thing that companies would sue their current and former employees for doing because it creates an avenue for internal corruption, they want the public to accept politicians doing because it creates an avenue for public corruption. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So I think the key point isn't so much that a president/politician receiving money in this matter is necessarily corrupt, but that if it was there would be no way for us to do anything about it. If there actually was an unspoken understanding that behaving in a way beneficial (or at least not harmful) to an industry would yield rewards later (and there effectively is for the reasons I mentioned before), there would be no way to stop it if we allow this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
I always figured that if America became a one-party state it would be in the aftermath of some terrible war or other calamity with breakdown of rule of law and suspension of civil rights and poo poo. Turns out it's happening right now because one of the parties has decided that cashing checks is cooler than winning elections. This thread title is so loving accurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that what a lot of people defending Obama taking money don't realize is that, even if it isn't "payment for services rendered" so to speak (and I actually don't believe it is in the sense of "you did good things for us, now we will give you money"), it is still a direct result of his actions in office. This is easy to understand if you imagine the opposite situation. If Obama had presided over an administration that was relatively hostile to Wall Street and behaved in ways that were to Wall Street's notable detriment, it is extremely less likely they would be willing to involve him in transactions like this. I made this point in the Trump thread by imagining what would happen if Warren was the president and she did all the regulations on Wall Street that she wanted. People unironically said that Wall Street would still pay her money to give speeches because she'd be a celebrity now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
That's what you get when you have abstracted the economic system to such an extent that the financial class and the capital owners they serve are so far removed from actual business operations that the workings and social impact of the companies they are supposed to be steering become basically fairy tales to them. And the only reality that matters is what their insular cummunity sees graphed on their monitors. We have created a Plato's cave, but we actually allowed the most powerful and supposedly most talented people to lock themselves in it and resist all outside suggestions that there may be more to the world. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I always figured that if America became a one-party state it would be in the aftermath of some terrible war or other calamity with breakdown of rule of law and suspension of civil rights and poo poo. Turns out it's happening right now because one of the parties has decided that cashing checks is cooler than winning elections.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's what you get when you have abstracted the economic system to such an extent that the financial class and the capital owners they serve are so far removed from actual business operations that the workings and social impact of the companies they are supposed to be steering become basically fairy tales to them. And the only reality that matters is what their insular cummunity sees graphed on their monitors. Die Massnahme's Song of Supply and Demand pretty much summed it up in the 30s in 5 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgJZADHsyg
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Given the social justice wonks have tied themselves to financial butchery we are going o see the abattoir of acceptable liberal opinions . anything that hits the 60k+ crowd is going to be racist and sexist for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
cross-postin from c-spam: https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/857305946988654594 i can't believe bill gates has been tearing obama a new one over his speaking fees Condiv fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:I made this point in the Trump thread by imagining what would happen if Warren was the president and she did all the regulations on Wall Street that she wanted. They might, I'm sure there would be a sense of accomplishment among some firm being able to say "President Liz Warren spent 8 years making GBS threads on us, but we're so rich we can pay her to come by and kiss our asses for an afternoon". If Obama had spent his time in office throwing bankers who broke the law in jail, it might dull the sting of him selling out to them today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So I think the key point isn't so much that a president/politician receiving money in this matter is necessarily corrupt, but that if it was there would be no way for us to do anything about it. If there actually was an unspoken understanding that behaving in a way beneficial (or at least not harmful) to an industry would yield rewards later (and there effectively is for the reasons I mentioned before), there would be no way to stop it if we allow this sort of thing. Yeah. That sucks and we should definitely change the rules. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
People keep missing the loving point. It's not about a one time speaking fee It's about politicians spending their PUBLIC careers buddying up with CEOs and venture capitalists etc. so when they retire they immediately jump into an endless carousel of corporate gigs and officiating corporate events arranged by the friends they made in office - the same friends who were there all along to influence their decision making by taking up the valuable time available to the POTUS. The money is just the cherry on top of the poo poo cake that is politicians insulating themselves from the public and spending time with the people ruining their own country because the path offered by corporate lobby is much easier and more rewarding. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
i dont want to talk about this because it distracts from the real issue, that noted war criminal barack obama can dronestrike weddings and not only stay out of prison but go give speeches in public without getting booed and hissed at
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i dont want to talk about this because it distracts from the real issue, that noted war criminal barack obama can dronestrike weddings and not only stay out of prison but go give speeches in public without getting booed and hissed at Not after this big payout he took from wall st fat cats, surely now the  optics will be so bad that the people will turn on him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Not after this big payout he took from wall st fat cats, surely now the well, the sane ones that don't love being ruled by a criminal plutocracy are i've seen a decent amount of former hillarybros toss up their hands over this obvious corruption in this very thread Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
It will be one more nail in the coffin of the Dem public image, but hey, at least Wall Street lost an infinitesimal amount of its ill-gotten gains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It will be one more nail in the coffin of the Dem public image, but hey, at least Wall Street lost an infinitesimal amount of its ill-gotten gains. That is the funniest defense. He's a modern day Robin Hood, you see, what with separating the rich from their ill-gotten money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:but go give speeches in public without getting booed and hissed at Until Bernie Sanders becomes a democrat, Barack Obama is and will be the most popular democrat in the United States for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:Until Bernie Sanders becomes a democrat, Barack Obama is and will be the most popular democrat in the United States for the foreseeable future. most popular democrat? that's similar to being the sexiest leper right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:Until Bernie Sanders becomes a democrat, Barack Obama is and will be the most popular democrat in the United States for the foreseeable future. That is only because he is the most likable of the bunch at this point. There really isn't much else to say about the Democratic Party, it exists because the Republicans are worse. It isn't part of a system where any type of change is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:cross-postin from c-spam:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that what a lot of people defending Obama taking money don't realize is that, even if it isn't "payment for services rendered" so to speak (and I actually don't believe it is in the sense of "you did good things for us, now we will give you money"), it is still a direct result of his actions in office. This is easy to understand if you imagine the opposite situation. If Obama had presided over an administration that was relatively hostile to Wall Street and behaved in ways that were to Wall Street's notable detriment, it is extremely less likely they would be willing to involve him in transactions like this. They're trying to get people to come to their healthcare conference and Obama's a huge draw whether he guillotined a bunch of bankers or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
No one is mad at the company trying to pay Obama. They are mad at Obama for accepting the money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
They're paying him to profit from their healthcare conference, not as a reward for his administration actions, and they would even if he had been tougher on Wall Street. They just care about making money here, no more and no less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
You're a craven idiot, JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Maybe this is satire? Is Amanda Marcotte a satirist? I mean intentionally. she is not JeffersonClay posted:They're paying him to profit from their healthcare conference, not as a reward for his administration actions, and they would even if he had been tougher on Wall Street. They just care about making money here, no more and no less. or... it could be both! their healthcare conference provides a convenient excuse for them handing bags full of cash to obama. it's just like how hillary's wallstreet speeches were a convenient excuse to pay her back for her corruption. btw, you never answered my question. how is obamacare supposed to keep working if you continually gotta find investors to grease the wheels? what happens to obamacare if we hit an economic downturn and investment dries up? Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she is not Hillary's Wall Street speeches were payment upfront for her future presidency. Boy did they get burned on that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They're paying him to profit from their healthcare conference, not as a reward for his administration actions, and they would even if he had been tougher on Wall Street. They just care about making money here, no more and no less. Yes i'm sure on Alternative Earth April 28, 2025 Wall Street gives ex-POTUS Bernie Sanders 400k to speak at one of their conferences after he sends half their CEO's to jail
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They're paying him to profit from their healthcare conference, not as a reward for his administration actions, and they would even if he had been tougher on Wall Street. They just care about making money here, no more and no less. Yes, they are trying to make money by erasing the border between politics and business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They're paying him to profit from their healthcare conference, not as a reward for his administration actions, and they would even if he had been tougher on Wall Street. They just care about making money here, no more and no less. Maybe Obama should just donate the money to a cause supportive of the ACA then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People keep missing the loving point. Exactly. The sad part is none of it is surprising at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:10
|
|