|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
SSNeoman posted:And they are not wrong actually. Collusion is a thing. You're technically correct, which makes it doubly stupid that Obama is dragging the Democratic Party's name through the mud for a mere pittance.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Ornedan posted:Plausible deniability. The Trump administration could theoretically go ahead with prosecution, but it's a safe bet they won't. There's no evidence of Obama not prosecuting. There's no evidence of deliberate delay. There's just assertion that obama must be a lying traitor who sold us out for 400k. Why did they indict in December? Probably because they were still building their case, expecting Hillary would win, and then rushed the indictment out when she lost so trump couldn't just flush it all down the memory hole. Raskolnikov38 posted:well let's just start exploring yours then shall we Stereotypes of black people too racist for this thread: purchasing rims Stereotypes of black people unchallenged throughout this thread: smiling older black man, obsequeously loyal to white oppressor, willing to sell out his people for marginal improvements to his quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're technically correct, which makes it doubly stupid that Obama is dragging the Democratic Party's name through the mud for a mere pittance. It's one of those things where on a personal level, if it was one of my friends being asked to do it, hey, more power to them. When the person in question is supposed to be a representative of the party that has as one of its ostensible goals preventing exactly this kind of institutional corruption, the sentence "what the gently caress do you think you're doing" starts bubbling its way to the forebrain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Stereotypes of black people too racist for this thread: purchasing rims lol you literally try to pull this bullshit after going on at length about how those 400 grand are irrelevant to Obama's personal quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
"Other people are racist so it's okay for me to be slightly less racist"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:"Other people are racist so it's okay for me to be slightly less racist" It's so great that the Democratic Party is run by Team "A few years ago this boy would have been carrying our bags" now. The underlying ideology leaks out in all the most interesting places.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Please I would like a response to my standing question why it's OK for a politician to donate his time for money to a lobbyist group instead of to a non-profit policy advocate aligned with his party. Obama has had months to prove his allegiance, he has decisively sided with the moneyed interests over the public. He's literally done nothing but hang out with the wealthy and powerful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
JC just apologize for the comment so that we can move on from this. As excited as I am for another Ze Pollack opus a laZe Pollack posted:*snip* I wanna see some better discussion instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:He's literally done nothing but hang out with the wealthy and powerful. He's really fighting the good fight. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:JC just apologize for the comment so that we can move on from this. As excited as I am for another Ze Pollack opus a la You're asking JC to apologize for saying something baseless and pointlessly inflammatory. Fair warning, this is not an angle that traditionally pays off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's no evidence of deliberate delay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
It probably wasn't cash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
I still haven't seen a proper reply to the points I made in my previous couple posts. Normally I make arguments cautiously because I'm not 100% sure I'm correct, but I'm pretty sure that there really isn't an adequate response to my argument there (which is why most of the posts defending Obama have been addressed at the people claiming this specific incident is definitely an example of corruption; that point can be countered, but the more important point about the cons of allowing this sort of behavior vastly out weighing the pros still stands).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
As much fun as slapping JeffersonClay around for his heinous unthinking obedience to the status quo is, there is some news about the DCCC's involvement in the Montana at-large special election. Basically, the DCCC is contributing some money to the race, but as with Kansas, they are holding back with advertising while the Republicans deluge the state with money. The article can be found here http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/montana-special-election-2017-early-voting-237751 and I've pasted the relevant excerpt below:quote:
I get that Montana went for Trump and that these special elections are uphill battles, but for gently caress's sake, that's the point of a 50 state strategy. It's also 2017, there aren't any other Congressional elections this year other than the few remaining special elections, so why hold the gently caress back? Also why is the guy who ran this component of the DCCC in 2014, where the Democrats lost 13 seats, still running this poo poo? I assume you establishment bootlickers who promised that if the DCCC and the DNC at large didn't wise up after Kansas, then you'd have serious concerns going forward, are going to point to the 200k as being sufficient, but that really ignores that the Republican advertisement challenge here is being unanswered and really does not bode well in a year where there are so few congressional elections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:As much fun as slapping JeffersonClay around for his heinous unthinking obedience to the status quo is, there is some news about the DCCC's involvement in the Montana at-large special election. Basically, the DCCC is contributing some money to the race, but as with Kansas, they are holding back with advertising while the Republicans deluge the state with money. The article can be found here http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/montana-special-election-2017-early-voting-237751 and I've pasted the relevant excerpt below: Gonna disagree, actually. The 200k looks like a good experimental value; you hit diminishing returns real loving fast when it comes to political money, as the DNC has painfully learned. Not even sending 20K is a laughable slap in the face to the idea of a 50 state strategy; establishing even if you're running in loving montana you're worth 200K is about the message I'd like to see displayed. You hold back because you want to be able to repeat this stunt across the map next year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Please I would like a response to my standing question why it's OK for a politician to donate his time for money to a lobbyist group instead of to a non-profit policy advocate aligned with his party. He was just sarcastically getting paid, relax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:55
|
|
L
|
MooselanderII posted:As much fun as slapping JeffersonClay around for his heinous unthinking obedience to the status quo is, there is some news about the DCCC's involvement in the Montana at-large special election. Basically, the DCCC is contributing some money to the race, but as with Kansas, they are holding back with advertising while the Republicans deluge the state with money. The article can be found here http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/montana-special-election-2017-early-voting-237751 and I've pasted the relevant excerpt below: also lol at comparing DCCC to "GOP Groups" Quist raised $2.5m himself; not sure why the DCCC needs to step in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
The democrat party in a tweet https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/858007470073147393
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
It's like they completely forgot that the left wanted the Bush admin to be locked up and the key thrown away. Groaning about wall street speeches is a hell of a lot milder. Oh right but they also tried to rehabilitate that lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:It's like they completely forgot that the left wanted the Bush admin to be locked up and the key thrown away. Groaning about wall street speeches is a hell of a lot milder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The democrat party in a tweet Holy poo poo everything about this
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
name one cool president who has gone on to rake in corporate dough
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
because it seems like all the cool ones either croaked in or shortly following office, or retired cincinnatus-style
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The democrat party in a tweet
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
They had won the war with themselves. The dems loved Big Business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
There's no reason to vote dem anymore. I was wondering whether or the dems would take the same tack in 2020 that they did in the dem primary - conflating econonic populism with racism. It seems like that's now a certainty. The daily show is important because it taps into the exact audience of highly educated wonks that constitute the dem leadership. For them to take this line suggests that 2020 primary is going to be 2016 primary: redux. The idpol infection has now reached the terminal stage. There is no cure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There is no cure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's no reason to vote dem anymore. Eh, there are still a few good Dems out there. Jerry Brown is pretty good overall, I'm optimistic about Kamala Harris, Warren is good, etc. Time for the centrists who aren't in red states to go though. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The democrat party in a tweet Burn it all down
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Ahahahahahaha how I am laughing. God this is wonderful. Mods, goldmine this poo poo. We're not gonna get a better coda than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. Okay so Wall Street is a bunch of corporations in competition with varying degrees of nefariousness, therefore, I suppose, you're saying we have to judge each instance of politicians taking their money individually. Taking money from a good actor is fine, taking money from a bad actor is Extremely Moral (because you're impoverishing bad people of course) as long as it isn't an explicit quid quo pro in which case it's bad, probably, unless the pro quo part was something you were gonna do anyway for free then it's good because you're pulling a scam on bad people. And of course because the public doesn't have access to the detailed insider information to distinguish the good actors from bad ones (or even criminal ones because fraud, forgery, and money-laundering for terrorists and drug cartels aren't punished in our world under the theory prosecuting financial crimes would hurt the public's confidence in the banking institutions and be bad for the economy), and because the public also doesn't have access to the terms of the deal or the private meetings between politicians and industry, the public will just need to trust that the responsibility for these ethical judgments remains with the politicians taking the money. And you think this is a safe, stable, and sustainable system going forward for all politicians in our democracy? And the only potential problem with it is that the public is too stupid to agree with you? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Ahahahahahaha how I am laughing. God this is wonderful. Mods, goldmine this poo poo. We're not gonna get a better coda than that. The collapse of rudatron into full-on hatred of all the darker peoples of the earth on grounds they're not the right flavor of woke for him has been ongoing for quite some time now. Trevor Noah issuing a lame-rear end joke in defense of the democratic establishment driving him to existential despair is not unpredictable, but it is embarrassing to watch. Not least because it demonstrates he still considers the Daily Show politically relevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The democrat party in a tweet Literally "It's super good to take dirty money as long as you're black"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The organization he's going to use doesn't exist yet. He hasn't been paid yet, either. If in September he takes the money and spends it on rims, that would be bad and dumb You have kept going on and on about how Obama can fund his foundation with this money, or his activism, but it's completely baseless. There is no reason to believe this. Obama's spokesman, Eric Schultz, said quote:“As we announced months ago, President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time. Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision and his record,” Schultz said, adding that Obama had accepted the invitation to appear at the conference “because, as a president who successfully passed health insurance reform, it’s an issue of great importance to him.” That is his chosen public statement. There is nothing there about what he's going to do with the money. There is no suggestion of any kind that he intends to use the money for any political goal. Obama himself is not making any promises about what he's going to do with this money. You have conjured up this explanation out of thin air, and there is no evidence for it. You are asking people to not pass judgment on Obama yet because of a hypothetical outcome for which there is no evidence and that may happen at some point in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Stereotypes of black people too racist for this thread: purchasing rims It's been said before in different ways but it bears repeating: Your racial politics are completely nonsensical and fundamentally unsound if you see a discussion about Obama, a rich and (until recently) very powerful man, and think he has to be defended from anything he does on racial grounds. When you say these things, it just makes it painfully clear to people that you have just heard a few bits of racial rhetoric here and there and just kind of assemble them in a way that you think is coherent, but is far away from any political philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The collapse of rudatron into full-on hatred of all the darker peoples of the earth on grounds they're not the right flavor of woke for him has been ongoing for quite some time now. Trevor Noah issuing a lame-rear end joke in defense of the democratic establishment driving him to existential despair is not unpredictable, but it is embarrassing to watch. Proud of ya dude. The show which has its finger on the pulse of liberalism is now politically irrelevant  See this is the problem of being inside an echo chamber populated by purist shitposters. After a while you crawl so far up your rear end that you can't help but lash out when reality tries to pull you back out. Instead of analyzing the interesting implications of this tweet, you guys would much rather chicken little about how this is the end of the Dems. It's time to engage with reality friends. And the reality is this: nobody who is relevant cares that Obama took speaking fees. Anyone who says they do, is concern trolling. You may argue for party purity and to to decouple wall street money from politicians, hell I even agree with you, but right now this just does not matter. Speaking fees are tilting at windmills, there are bigger fish to fry, the corruption is a lot more blatant than a paltry 400k. In a perfect world, you'd have it your way, but it's not so you don't. Trevor is right. Interesting that people suddenly started to object to speaking fees when a black President takes them. Why the only other time it was relevant was for Hillary and we know it was a right wing attack Hmmmm. SSNeoman posted:And you think the other side doesn't know this? Bullshit. They know exactly what they're doing when they chum the waters with this kind of crap. HMMMM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It's been said before in different ways but it bears repeating: It's like he's literally the conservative strawman of anti-racist people who think that a black person can do nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The democrat party in a tweet These people will find a way to lose in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Frankly I'm surprised you guys are having such a strong reaction to this. This is how these types of threads always end, and why I didn't take it seriously in the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:See this is the problem of being inside an echo chamber populated by purist shitposters. After a while you crawl so far up your rear end that you can't help but lash out when reality tries to pull you back out. Instead of analyzing the interesting implications of this tweet, you guys would much rather chicken little about how this is the end of the Dems. It's time to engage with reality friends. Are you talking to a mirror or what? But do tell about these interesting implications. SSNeoman posted:And the reality is this: nobody who is relevant cares that Obama took speaking fees. Anyone who says they do, is concern trolling. You may argue for party purity and to to decouple wall street money from politicians, hell I even agree with you, but right now this just does not matter. Speaking fees are tilting at windmills, there are bigger fish to fry, the corruption is a lot more blatant than a paltry 400k. In a perfect world, you'd have it your way, but it's not so you don't. Except the voters who are getting another reinforcement of their perception that both parties are in Wall Street's pocket. I suppose it's kinda telling how you don't consider them relevant, though. SSNeoman posted:Interesting that people suddenly started to object to speaking fees when a black President takes them. Why the only other time it was relevant was for Hillary and we know it was a right wing attack Ah yes, because the GOP will seize upon this there is literally no grounds for legitimate criticism. Dismissing everything bad that your political leaders do because the other side will also attack it is surely not how you end up with out of touch and unaccountable party elites, no sir. And even if you do, nobody ~relevant~ will care, which is why we have President Hillary and a Democratic Congress right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:07
|
|