|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Future spoiler: Everyone defending Obama getting 400k from Cantor will just as vigourosly defend Obama's future extravagent speaking fees to questionable entities, which I think everyone knows are coming deep down inside.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
Condiv posted:i thought you said this was a needed conference to save obamacare. why does he want a big paycheck for that, much less from a financial services firm? would he not save obamacare if he wasn't paid by wallstreet? Because Cantor is going to profit from his appearance so why should he let them do that for free? WampaLord posted:I assumed he was planning on raising money to do this the normal way, by asking for donations to a political organization, not funding it himself personally. Is it abnormal for ex-presidents to fund their charities with the profits from their speaking gigs? Carter does this, and clearly the Clintons did too. Pedro De Heredia posted:You are complaining about people believing things without evidence, but you have no evidence about the motivations of this fee and speech. You are just assuming. I'm complaining about democrats making unfounded assumptions about democrats, and providing an alternate narrative where those unfounded assumptions about democrats need not be true. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is it abnormal for ex-presidents to fund their charities with the profits from their speaking gigs? Carter does this, and clearly the Clintons did too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Hey didn't that politician who just suffered a catastrophic loss do this same thing? What's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because Cantor is going to profit from his appearance so why should he let them do that for free? i thought he did the event cause he was trying to save obamacare? i guess he just wants money... money from a financial services firm who hosed people over after the big second chance they got in 2008. whose case he threw, and for which he's being rewarded now
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
If you were just making an optics argument, I'd agree with you. But you apparently think the Clinton foundation was a vile nest of corruption because there isn't a single right wing conspiracy you won't parrot if it lets you poo poo on the democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm complaining about democrats making unfounded assumptions about democrats, and providing an alternate narrative where those unfounded assumptions about democrats need not be true. "Alternative narrative" Also this isn't "democrats complaining about democrats" Obama has more in common with Trump or Romney than anyone posting in this thread. JeffersonClay posted:But you apparently think the Clinton foundation was a vile nest of corruption lol Qatar donated $1 million
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
why do you so vigorously defend corruption jc? are you a lobbyist or something? or maybe... actually hillary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i thought he did the event cause he was trying to save obamacare? i guess he just wants money... quote:money from a financial services firm who hosed people over after the big second chance they got in 2008. whose case he threw, and for which he's being rewarded now You have no evidence whatsoever to support these claims. "Democrats" who mindlessly parrot right wing smears of democrats are not helping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
remember those nice speeches hillary hid from the democrats that were a nothingburger? the ones where she patted the poor bankers on the head and told them they didn't do anything wrong and we should let them regulate themselves! also, poor people are too comfortable so their "entitlements" should be cut to save some money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"Democrats" who mindlessly parrot right wing smears of democrats are not helping. accepting $400k to speak at wall street being immoral is not a right wing smear
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Capitalists are just people and they are my friends  *dies of black lung*
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you were just making an optics argument, I'd agree with you. But you apparently think the Clinton foundation was a vile nest of corruption because there isn't a single right wing conspiracy you won't parrot if it lets you poo poo on the democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Probably not a great example for you to draw upon. Could be worse. Some people were saying that people complaining obviously had no problem with Bush and Cheney doing paid speeches like it was a good own when it's their lot who were trying to normalize them to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's no reason he can't want both. it's a right wing smear that obama let banks get away with forging title documentation with nothing but a slap on the wrist and let them continue foreclosing on homes instead of letting the owners stay in them? or when his flunkies in the DoJ took it so easy on banks repossessing on and foreclosing on active duty service members that congressional dems were complaining? those aren't rightwing smears, they're obama's record and there is no reason to believe he's not cashing in on that record now. he sold out the american populace so that the same crooked assholes that plunged us all into the great recession got to retain every bit of power they had so they could continue loving things up. and they kept loving people over during his presidency and he shielded them from everything. they laundered money for terrorists and drug cartels and got nothing but a slap on the wrist. and now he's taking massive speaking fees from them not 3 months out of office Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
I'm the cohorts of capitalists who are just eagerly looking to help the common man, and that's why they are trying to get in the bed with politicians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:remember those nice speeches hillary hid from the democrats that were a nothingburger? the ones where she patted the poor bankers on the head and told them they didn't do anything wrong and we should let them regulate themselves! also, poor people are too comfortable so their "entitlements" should be cut to save some money. My favorite hillary speech thing is telling bankers that she has a public and private position in one of her speeches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You have no evidence whatsoever to support these claims. "Democrats" who mindlessly parrot right wing smears of democrats are not helping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
the appearance of impropriety is often worse than corruption itself
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
It's pretty incredible that Jeffersonclay is still demading that no negative opinion whatsoever about the morons who have ran the Democratic Party straight into the ground may be voiced under any circumstances.JeffersonClay posted:These arguments may not make any sense right now, but mark my words, they will some day! lol you've literally spent pages ITT making up some weird political fanfiction about what Obama is totally going to do with all that cash based on nothing besides your own inability to find any fault with your political idols.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You're a craven idiot, JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:My favorite hillary speech thing is telling bankers that she has a public and private position in one of her speeches. The best part of this is that even with her willing to have a fake "public" position she still couldn't come up with one worth a drat. Cerebral Bore posted:It's pretty incredible that Jeffersonclay is still demading that no negative opinion whatsoever about the morons who have ran the Democratic Party straight into the ground may be voiced under any circumstances. Is it though? I mean, it's kind of his MO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
"Listen, just because you sometimes see Jeff and some other guy go into the woods in the middle of the night with a shovel and a rolled up carpet, then saw them return at the crack of dawn covered in mud and blood, and just because Jeff won't tell you who the other guy is and what he is doing't with him, that doesn't automatically mean the guy is a bad influence on him."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:"Listen, just because you sometimes see Jeff and some other guy go into the woods in the middle of the night with a shovel and a rolled up carpet, then saw them return at the crack of dawn covered in mud and blood, and just because Jeff won't tell you who the other guy is and what he is doing't with him, that doesn't automatically mean the guy is a bad influence on him." Only if Jeff is a Democrat
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What if he announces his intention to use it to fight voter suppression or to fund his own charity or foundation? What's the difference? Because that is speculative at this point? He hasn't announced the intention, let alone gone through with the hypothetical action of donating or funding (ignoring for a moment the absurdity of self funding a political organization aimed to fight gerrymandering). That is the point. Your willingness to give these people the benefit of the doubt at all times, no matter how often you are proven wrong, really does make you the Sean Hannity of the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because Cantor is going to profit from his appearance so why should he let them do that for free? If only there was some way for them not to profit off of his appearence. Oh well, now that they have kidnapped him to force him to appear there isn't anything he can do about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Because that is speculative at this point? He hasn't announced the intention, let alone gone through with the hypothetical action of donating or funding (ignoring for a moment the absurdity of self funding a political organization aimed to fight gerrymandering). That is the point. It's speculative that he won't give the money to charity or use it to fund political advocacy--he hasn't actually been paid yet. I'm willing to give obama the benefit of the doubt on his stated intention to fight voter suppression because I have no reason to doubt him. Why is there any absurdity in self-funding an anti-gerrymandering campaign? Cerebral Bore posted:It's pretty incredible that Jeffersonclay is still demading that no negative opinion whatsoever about the morons who have ran the Democratic Party straight into the ground may be voiced under any circumstances. Bad criticism: See Obama's just collecting the bribes he earned during his administration. quote:lol you've literally spent pages ITT making up some weird political fanfiction about what Obama is totally going to do with all that cash based on nothing besides your own inability to find any fault with your political idols. We cannot know the future. I believe Obama when he says he intends to fight voter suppression post-presidency. You think he's lying. It's fan fiction from all sides, here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
When will Obama volunteer his time to independent progressive non profits to signal his commitment to change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's a right wing smear that obama let banks get away with forging title documentation with nothing but a slap on the wrist and let them continue foreclosing on homes instead of letting the owners stay in them? Yes there is, because Cantor Fitzgerald didn't sell mortgages or foreclose on homeowners. Why would they pay him for protecting their competitors? Your narrative makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's speculative that he won't give the money to charity or use it to fund political advocacy--he hasn't actually been paid yet. I'm willing to give obama the benefit of the doubt on his stated intention to fight voter suppression because I have no reason to doubt him. Why is there any absurdity in self-funding an anti-gerrymandering campaign? Because such organizations aren't generally self funded, which makes your claim that this money will, dollar for dollar, go into funding this org dubious at best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:My favorite hillary speech thing is telling bankers that she has a public and private position in one of her speeches. And then privately she revealed she is even more against legalizing it then she is publicly. How do you hold multiple positions on an issue and all of them still suck?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes there is, because Cantor Fitzgerald didn't sell mortgages or foreclose on homeowners. Why would they pay him for protecting their competitors? Your narrative makes no sense at all. You mean cantor fitzgerald, the criminal financial services company that Obama let off the hook? My narrative makes perfect sense, you're selectively forgetting parts of it
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm complaining about democrats making unfounded assumptions about democrats, and providing an alternate narrative where those unfounded assumptions about democrats need not be true. You are not providing an "alternate narrative", you are treating it as fact. It's also not 'completely unfounded'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Because such organizations aren't generally self funded, which makes your claim that this money will, dollar for dollar, go into funding this org dubious at best. There's no reason why the organization can't be funded by both obama and other contributors. Condiv posted:You mean cantor fitzgerald, the criminal financial services company that Obama let off the hook? My narrative makes perfect sense, you're selectively forgetting parts of it No, you don't realize that Cantor Fitzgerald did not do mortgage lending for homebuyers before the financial crisis, and thus could not be motivated to avoid prosecution for fraudulent mortgages to homebuyers or foreclosures, and indeed they would benefit if their larger competitors were successfully prosecuted. Your narrative is real dumb, period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
It's really funny seeing you make these arguments. You want to act like you understand how and why this is 'bad optics', but your relentless defense of Obama shows that you don't actually get it in any real way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Good criticism: the optics here are bad and obama should have been savvy enough to realize that and avoid this outcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, you don't realize that Cantor Fitzgerald did not do mortgage lending for homebuyers before the financial crisis, and thus could not be motivated to avoid prosecution for fraudulent mortgages to homebuyers or foreclosures, and indeed they would benefit if their larger competitors were successfully prosecuted. Your narrative is real dumb, period. Cantor was indicted in December remember, for fraud? Obama indicted them well after their crimes, when he knew trump was gonna be pres, and knew it would be safe for them. Yet more criminals let off the hook by Obama, and now they're paying him back
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
JC you'll go only as far as to admit that the optics are bad, but you'll go no further in either actually explaining why they are bad or even suggesting that maybe Obama could have done something to obviate them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Cantor was indicted in December remember, for fraud? Obama indicted them well after their crimes, when he knew trump was gonna be pres, and knew it would be safe for them. Yet more criminals let off the hook by Obama, and now they're paying him back This is even dumber. If obama wanted to protect Cantor for something that happened in 2013 he wouldn't have indicted at all. But I'm glad you've abandoned the crazy assertion that Cantor Fitzgerald was paying obama for not prosecuting their nonexistent residential mortgage banking fraud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:JC you'll go only as far as to admit that the optics are bad, but you'll go no further in either actually explaining why they are bad or even suggesting that maybe Obama could have done something to obviate them. The optics are bad because people are dumb and think Wall Street is some giant nefarious octopus instead of a bunch of corporations in competition with one another with varying sizes and degrees of nefariousness and culpability for the financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:01
|
|