|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Oh great another thread for Condiv to bitch about the democrats. That's just what the forums needed.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I think elizabeth warren is the best prson to tackle pissbaby No actually it's Al Franken. "Why not me" indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Don't people often under-report voting for the loser? Isn't that significant enough that pollsters have stopped weighting by votes in last election? Seems like the same sort of effect could lead people to say they wouldn't vote for the loser if the election happened again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama's giving a speech about healthcare at a healthcare conference. The organizer, Cantor Fitzgerald, is a midsize wall street firm that was not a mortgage banking institution before the financial crisis and did not receive a bailout. Obama's DOJ indicted one of their traders for fraud 4 months ago. So obviously this is a naked bribe. No you see morally pure former presidents and their families all take vows of poverty and follow the Rule of Benedict. EDIT: Actually that joke is ironic given the extent of financial connection between the most important monasteries and the wealthy in middle ages Europe. Oh well. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
That interview was clearly talking about what Obama would do with the rest of his career generally. To see it as a broad promise never to take any money from any financial firm ever, you have to really want to see that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What is the matter with you? Where were you when Willa Rogers and company spent years screaming about Obamacare and praying for it to fail in the healthcare threads?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I agree completely but where are you seeing this? They have great policies. Just terrific policies. That the American people love and support. It's gonna be great!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Osoff is going to lose in the runoff because why vote for Diet Republican when you can have the real deal. This is something 'pragmatists' can never wrap their heads around, for some reason. I understand why the party wants to run guys like Osoff, but if you are a normal person who wants to see Democrats get elected then supporting Panera McAusterity is just plain stupid. It's loving GA-06 you gaseous gibbon.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:we should run a guy named goldman who can talk about his ballsack Or one who is the NFLs best DE.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 03:24
|
|