• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pres Obama now doing $400k speeches for Wall Street

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gattsu25

Banned
Opto said:
the general public don't give a shit about that. Obama could spend the entire speech telling wall street to suck his nuts dry but the headline will be "OBAMA TAKES WALL STREET CASH"

He's also going to still be politically active and want to shape our country's political scene. So any democrat even remotely connected to Obama's post-presidential initiative could get a target painted on their back. Personally I don't care he's making that kind of bank, but the image of it all is bad news.
Click to expand...

Well, the only reason I asked was because he's going to be the keynote speaker at a conference for healthcare investors. I wanted to know if JABEE was aware of the context behind that (it was in the first paragraph of the OP's article).

That context would then inherently follow up with "why would people invested in healthcare be interested in hearing from the person that the revamp of the American healthcare system was colloquially named after?" The answer to that is self-evident.

But this thread only stretches to 1700 posts if no one knows what the actual speaking engagement will be. Meus banked on no one reading the article and he guessed correctly.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
PBY said:
Why is "Hey, I don't love that Obama is doing this, he should probably stop" = tearing down? Can we never criticize or disagree with our own?
Click to expand...

I mean we can be realistic about it and criticize things, but so often I find that people go full on hyperbole on this shit. He hasn't even given the speech yet. We don't know what he's going to say and yet there are people shouting from the rooftops about how the's corrupt and this derails everything he will ever attempt in his post presidency. That's a bit too fucking far when, again, this guy is the biggest asset we have against Trump and the right now and we just had an election that demonstrated the middle and the right literally don't give a shit.

The whole thing reeks of us capitulating to a dumb right wing talking point and saying "Yeah you're right, Obama's a hypocritical piece of shit." And that's all the middle of the road voter will hear now. Trump's corrupt, but hey Obama is too, despite the fact that there are galaxies between the two's actions.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
PBY said:
This is why people get annoyed. You aren't engaging honestly here. If you're worried about the far left, don't be treat them like idiots.
Click to expand...

Here's my question - do you think half the people in this thread would be as unhappy if instead, Obama was taking 400k to speak at an Apple thing? Or let's say Google?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Aselith said:
No sounds like he's saying we should pay them their full salary for life so that they don't need to work!
Click to expand...

We literally DO pay ex-presidents a huge salary for life explicitly so that they don't need to work.

I'm not saying we should do it for all of Congress, but this is a particularly bad argument in this thread.
 
Z

Zaraki_Kenpachi

Member
JABEE said:
If you are paid what you make as President ($400k) to make one speech, that's a job.
Click to expand...

So the fundamental problem seems to be you don't understand how much people make public speaking. That's fine to be ignorant but still doesn't make his choice ethically questionable.

I'm curious though, if President's salary is raised to $2mm, is it still bad? At what % does it become unethical for you? You seem to have nailed down a very precise number.

Edit: No one calls a something a "job" because you do it for an hour. Regardless of what it is.
 
K

Kin5290

Member
JABEE said:
Yes it is. Being soft on financial firms as a means of currying favor is institutional corruption. Someone giving you a job after you are out of office is an ethical issue.

The appearance of impropriety is damning. You hold the President of the United States to a lower standard than I do. I'm not surprised by corruption or questionable ethics from people who rise to public office, but I also don't have to make excuses for it. It's fucked up, but it's the new standard set by modern corporate-friendly Presidents. It is what it is, I just think it is weird how so many people are simply okay with it, or say there isn't even an ethical question.
Click to expand...
These are bold accusations. I sure hope you have substantial evidence backing them up.

There are things that Presidents can do to capitalize on their fame to make money that are actually shady or questionable. Bill Clinton took a publicist/ad campaign role for some company (I believe that it was involved in education) that it turns out was engaging in questionable practices and as a result he had to apologize. Speaking at an industry conference related to health care for a flat fee is not one of those questionable practices.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
PBY said:
Why is "Hey, I don't love that Obama is doing this, he should probably stop" = tearing down? Can we never criticize or disagree with our own?
Click to expand...
Seriously. Exaggerations and false equivalencies abound. To be clear:

- he doesn't need to be perfect.
- getting paid by Wall St is quite exceptional. This isn't just any group.

As I see it, Obama isn't just any politician. He sits at a disastrous time in history as one of the few beacons of 'credible' and 'good' in the public sphere. There is an expectation and desperation that he re-enter the world as a positive force. So to see one of his first actions as taking a $400k payday from Wall St? When everyone agrees that human beings generally feel indebted, even subconsciously, to those who help them pay the bills? That's concerning. I have no problem with him getting paid millions to write a book, as a contrast. Something tells me any newfound fondness he has toward​ Penguin Random House won't colour his future activities in a meaningful way.
 
J

JABEE

Member
Kin5290 said:
These are bold accusations. I sure hope you have substantial evidence backing them up.

There are things that Presidents can do to capitalize on their fame to make money that are actually shady or questionable. Bill Clinton took a publicist/ad campaign role for some company (I believe that it was involved in education) that it turns out was engaging in questionable practices and as a result he had to apologize. Speaking at an industry conference related to health care for a flat fee is not one of those questionable practices.
Click to expand...

That's for you to decide. The corruption works because there is no direct smoking gun. It's about influence and playing the game. Everyone is cool with this, so I'm just a crazy person shouting at a crowd.
 
Z

Zaraki_Kenpachi

Member
Socreges said:
Seriously. Exaggerations and false equivalencies abound. To be clear:

- he doesn't need to be perfect.
- getting paid by Wall St is quite exceptional. This isn't just any group.

As I see it, Obama isn't just any politician. He sits at a disastrous time in history as one of the few beacons of 'credible' and 'good' in the public sphere. There is an expectation and desperation that he re-enter the world as a positive force. So to see one of his first actions as taking a $400k payday from Wall St? When everyone agrees that human beings generally feel indebted, even subconsciously, to those who help them pay the bills? That's concerning. I have no problem with him getting paid millions to write a book, as a contrast. Something tells me any newfound fondness he has toward​ Penguin Random House won't colour his future activities in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you'd rather crucify him off of bullshit stuff you made up about how he's going to lobby hard for them and completely change his stance because they are paying him to talk about healthcare, the most visible and talked about policy of his presidency. The ignorance of how many elected officials give speeches at "wall street" events also makes the "not just any group" comment pretty amusing.

JABEE said:
That's for you to decide. The corruption works because there is no direct smoking gun. It's about influence and playing the game. Everyone is cool with this, so I'm just a crazy person shouting at a crowd.
Click to expand...

Hahaha holy shit. You literally made up stuff without even an ounce of proof and something that directly contradicts things he's done for at least a decade now but "that's for you to decide". This is literally straight from a fox news segment I'm sure we'll see tomorrow.
 
K

KingK

Member
JesseEwiak said:
I guess that's the thing. I don't think Obama should sacrifice to appease people who think he's either a neoliberal Wall Street sellout or a socialist secret Muslim. If he didn't take this money, the former would still think he made a secret deal with Wall Street to not prosecute them anyway.
Click to expand...
Two things:

1. He's going to be making millions just from any book he decides to write. Not doing this speech isn't really much of a "sacrifice" considering the other, less optically poor and ethically questionable methods he has available to make a ton of money.

2. There are actually a lot of people who don't fall into either of those categories who may have a problem with this. I actively support Obama, defend him regularly, donated and volunteered for both of his campaigns, and I kinda have a problem with it. Or there's people like my mom who are turned off by this. She voted for W. Bush (once), hated Hillary (but reluctantly voted for her), never voted for Bill Clinton, etc. Yet she gladly voted Obama twice and thinks he's the best president in her lifetime. A lot of that is because of Obama avoiding things that could appear ethically questionable, and generally being a scandal-free and trustworthy person. There are plenty of people he could appease by not doing this who don't fall into the basket of deplorables.
 
A

Aselith

Member
pigeon said:
We literally DO pay ex-presidents a huge salary for life explicitly so that they don't need to work.

I'm not saying we should do it for all of Congress, but this is a particularly bad argument in this thread.
Click to expand...

I don't see why? You could certainly make the argument that we pay Obama not to make the speeches although that is not what the pension is for (hence why no strings are attached) but the cost of doing the same for ALL sentaors would be astronomical.
 
K

Kin5290

Member
JABEE said:
That's for you to decide. The corruption works because there is no direct smoking gun. It's about influence and playing the game. Everyone is cool with this, so I'm just a crazy person shouting at a crowd.
Click to expand...
Prove that there is corruption. Simply accusing a person of being corrupt and then shrugging your shoulders when asked to prove it because "There's no smoking gun!" is a ridiculous one sided standard.

Where is the corruption? Detail it, if you can.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
Ah, so you'd rather crucify him off of bullshit stuff you made up about how he's going to lobby hard for them and completely change his stance because they are paying him to talk about healthcare, the most visible and talked about policy of his presidency. The ignorance of how many elected officials give speeches at "wall street" events also makes the "not just any group" comment pretty amusing.
Click to expand...
With no due respect, you're the absolute last person I would engage in a debate. eg, great start with "crucify him"

I'll wait for someone else with similar viewpoint but a stable disposition to disagree with me. Cheers.
 
C

Crimson_Gold

Member
entremet said:
Liberals can be such hopeless romantics lol.

Pragmatism seems lost on many in our sphere.
Click to expand...

Don't you dare sully romance like that. This is a different thing. It's a naivety based on ideals that just don't make rational sense. The hate for Wall Street takes all reason out of this. Had this been a discussion sponsored by the timber industry or tech industry, people wouldn't be up in arms. It is the banking boogie industry that stirs this foolishness
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Tylercrat said:
You think Obama is rent-seeking? How?
Click to expand...

I was talking about what was at the center of the economy per your quote. The economy doesn't center on generation of social waste and fraud which is a felony in all its forms in case folks forgot...

Point being that's a net cost to society what goes on Wall St in case after case by the most reputable firms. Not a net benefit. And as you can see when people get mad at Obama or investors blow up board meetings at Wells Fargo, folks are sick of the BS. Shame on Pres. Obama for turning his back on the people who voted for him. I know Wall Street helped bankroll his campaign but he should show a bit more gratitude to his supporters for having his back. Even ITT, you can see the main ones probably getting fleeced and losing big are his staunchest defenders.
 
Z

Zaraki_Kenpachi

Member
Socreges said:
With no due respect, you're the absolute last person I would engage in a debate. eg, great start with "crucify him"

I'll wait for someone else with similar viewpoint but a stable disposition to disagree with me. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Love that you continue the personal insults outside of NHL GAF without responding to anything I say. Why reply if nothing else but to shit post and insult another member? Cheers indeed.
 
S

slit

Member
JABEE said:
That's for you to decide. The corruption works because there is no direct smoking gun. It's about influence and playing the game. Everyone is cool with this, so I'm just a crazy person shouting at a crowd.
Click to expand...

So any little innuendo we concoct means Obama can''t do that because it looks bad? The fact that you placed this crucifix to his back means he shouldn't care what it looks like to you or anyone else.
 
W

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Crimson_Gold said:
People are mad about that too. He can't do anything right. Or is he doing things too right...
Click to expand...

Why are people upset over his book deal?

Inuhanyou said:
i havent checked this thread yet, but my guess is there are already a ton of establishment apologist types defending pure pay to play golden parachute corruption as hard as when Hillary was running right?

With people like these on your side, its no wonder money in politics is as prevalent as it is despite a majority of the populace being against such practices. Nobody wants to admit the elephant in the room for fear of 'purity test' accusations and other disingenuous nonsense inside the Washington bubble.

Its even more annoying that Bernie is doing this 'unity tour' with the dems when many of them obviously don't fundamentally agree with his message.

Yes the GOP have to be taken down, but the dems have not yet learned lessons from what destroyed them in the first place and until that happens, its almost not even worth trying to support them.

Fire all the corrupt senators, the Cory Bookers, the Diane Feinstens, the Clintontines like Sheldon Whitehouse who are now tying themselves into pretzels like hypocrites trying act like their corruption doesn't matter because the GOP has worse corruption.

Either you want to fix the fundamental problem or you want to play for a team, be a team player like its a game. Partisan hacks like these know no boundaries.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much where i am at.
 
J

JABEE

Member
Kin5290 said:
Prove that there is corruption. Simply accusing a person of being corrupt and then shrugging your shoulders when asked to prove it because "There's no smoking gun!" is a ridiculous one sided standard.

Where is the corruption? Detail it, if you can.
Click to expand...
Banker man handed former President $400k to give a speech.

Former President's administration didn't press charges against criminals who robbed people and ruined the economy.

I say "Hmmm." Something is wrong here.
 
S

ShironRedshift

Member
Kin5290 said:
Prove that there is corruption. Simply accusing a person of being corrupt and then shrugging your shoulders when asked to prove it because "There's no smoking gun!" is a ridiculous one sided standard.

Where is the corruption? Detail it, if you can.
Click to expand...
Seriously, I mean, if that's the standard, what makes us different from conspiracy theorists? What's the difference between this shit and shit like Pizzagate? You don't get to cast shade on shit like that and then make up your own conspiracies, be asked for proof, and just have that all shirked away. That's what conspiracy theorists do! That's what the Pizzagaters do! If you don't care about evidence at all, but believe something just because you "know" it to be true, then what makes you different from them, since that's exactly what they do. I don't get why the burden of proof for this shit suddenly becomes nonexistent when the topic shifts to anything to do with Wall Street or banks. Just because one's obviously more insane than the other doesn't make the burden of proof suddenly disappear. Drives me bonkers.
 
O

O Canada Our Home and Native Land

Banned
The whole point of having people not enter into conflicts of interest is to prevent any possibility of corruption. Where have all of you been that are cool with corruption during the Trump/Russian ties investigation? There haven't been any crimes revealed in that either. So those are fine now?

I want to point out that I'm okay with Obama being paid for this particular speech at the moment. I'm only pointing out some of the terrible arguments being made here.
 
S

slit

Member
O Canada Our Home and Native Land said:
The whole point of having people not enter into conflicts of interest is to prevent any possibility of corruption. Where have all of you been that are cool with corruption during the Trump/Russian ties investigation? There haven't been any crimes revealed in that either. So those are fine now?

I want to point out that I'm okay with Obama being paid for this particular speech at the moment. I'm only pointing out some of the terrible arguments being made here.
Click to expand...

The FBI is investigating that. It's not even in the same universe as making a friggin speech. If the FBI has evidence Obama is being paid because of favors he performed in the White House then so be it. I have not heard anything like that.
 
J

jack_package_200

Banned
ShironRedshift said:
Seriously, I mean, if that's the standard, what makes us different from conspiracy theorists? What's the difference between this shit and shit like Pizzagate? You don't get to cast shade on shit like that and then make up your own conspiracies, be asked for proof, and just have that all shirked away. That's what conspiracy theorists do! That's what the Pizzagaters do! If you don't care about evidence at all, but believe something just because you "know" it to be true, then what makes you different from them, since that's exactly what they do. I don't get why the burden of proof for this shit suddenly becomes nonexistent when the topic shifts to anything to do with Wall Street or banks. Just because one's obviously more insane than the other doesn't make the burden of proof suddenly disappear. Drives me bonkers.
Click to expand...

You and me both
 
G

Gattsu25

Banned
slit said:
The FBI is investigating that. It's not even in the same universe as making a friggin speech. If the FBI has evidence Obama is being paid because of favors he performed in the White House then so be it. I have not heard anything like that.
Click to expand...

You haven't because it's a fake news accusation.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
From the Business Insider article: (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-wall-street-speaking-fees-2017-4)

The argument against these fees, and against post-office cashouts more broadly, is simple: If public officials are expected to make a lot of money from certain interest groups after they leave office, some voters will reasonably fear that those officials will go easy on those groups while in office, so as not to alienate those groups.

My concern is only in part about "optics." It is also substantive: The expectation of a future payday could weigh, even unconsciously, on the way politicians treat interest groups they may expect to receive payments from in the future. A norm that expects politicians to forswear such payments, even after they leave office, would make those politicians less likely to be swayed by their own financial interests when they make policy.

The appearance of conflict of interest is a particular political danger for liberals, since a promise to protect ordinary people against moneyed interests is at the core of their political appeal. Republicans are forthrightly aligned with big business. Democrats should not vilify business, but they need voters to believe them when they say they will stand up to business interests when doing so serves the public.
Click to expand...

These three paragraphs are the most substantive arguments presented thus far that don't involve silly notions like "he just makes too much money lol"

But ultimately the argument remains unconvincing. It makes the argument that presidents are going to start having a "long-con" of purposefully going easy on Wall Street so that they then get to cash out on that sweet sweet speaking money. But here's the thing: there are countless other avenues through which a federal official, especially POTUS can abuse his power on blatant conflict of interest and line his pockets. People are making substantially more money through much quicker, more effective, and more obscure means than making public speeches and charging money from them. If Obama truly wanted to rake in the dough, $400k a pop per speech is fucking pennies compared to what amounts of money you can shovel to your coffers, not to mention way more effort for a worse result. In other words, this isn't a smoking gun and simply saying it's a smoking gun does not make it one.

The second points gets more general: "Democrats should not vilify business, but they need voters to believe them when they say they will stand up to business interests when doing so serves the public." It makes another assumption: that making money from a speech automatically means that Obama is not or did not stand up to business interests, and that taking these speaking fees somehow means the sanctity of the Democratic party as the "party of the people" has been sullied. The only people that are convinced by this assumption are the people utterly convinced that Wall Street is a band of lepers who should be banished from the country and the entire institution being burned down. Which, I mean, that's certainly a political viewpoint that exists in the country, but far from the norm and yeah, one of the two major parties of the country doesn't subscribe that notion.

It only makes a concession in passing: that the Democrats should not vilify business, but does Barro genuinely believe this? Because if in the same breath you also say "how dare you conduct any kind of business with Wall Street for any amount??", you're not really adhering to the notion that you can't vilify business. If he's making impassioned editorials as to why Obama should avoid Wall Street because even making a single speech for money automatically creates problematic conflict of interests, you can't expect anyone to not attribute your position as "vilifying" Wall Street, because that's exactly what you're doing in practice.
 
K

Kin5290

Member
JABEE said:
Banker man handed former President $400k to give a speech.

Former President's administration didn't press charges against criminals who robbed people and ruined the economy.

I say "Hmmm." Something is wrong here.
Click to expand...
Prove that:

1) There were crimes committed. Being an idiot in the pursuit of profit is not criminal in the United States of America.
2) The laws broken were criminal and not civil.

Once that is established, we can discuss whether or not prosecuting Wall Street executives would have been conducive towards the whole "stabilizing the economy" thing.
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
O Canada Our Home and Native Land said:
The whole point of having people not enter into conflicts of interest is to prevent any possibility of corruption. Where have all of you been that are cool with corruption during the Trump/Russian ties investigation? There haven't been any crimes revealed in that either. So those are fine now?

I want to point out that I'm okay with Obama being paid for this particular speech at the moment. I'm only pointing out some of the terrible arguments being made here.
Click to expand...

Corruption happens in office. Obama is no longer in office.

Obama NEVER had a shred of corruption over his head during his Presidency, despite the GOP going full-out warfare against the black POTUS. He never had conflicts of interest because, just like previous presidents, he was transparent about his financials and investments.

Trump is a completely different monster, and the fact that you don't realize this just shows how bad the false-equivalence bullshit has become.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
ShironRedshift said:
Seriously, I mean, if that's the standard, what makes us different from conspiracy theorists? What's the difference between this shit and shit like Pizzagate? You don't get to cast shade on shit like that and then make up your own conspiracies, be asked for proof, and just have that all shirked away. That's what conspiracy theorists do! That's what the Pizzagaters do! If you don't care about evidence at all, but believe something just because you "know" it to be true, then what makes you different from them, since that's exactly what they do. I don't get why the burden of proof for this shit suddenly becomes nonexistent when the topic shifts to anything to do with Wall Street or banks. Just because one's obviously more insane than the other doesn't make the burden of proof suddenly disappear. Drives me bonkers.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about Citizens United? Is the money really that bad because you can't really prove that it's being used in a quid pro quo relationship here.

There's an inherent conflict of interest when someone in charge of regulation and other policy can expect that once there will be massive sums of money waiting for them when they finish their job. This doesn't mean that Obama is engaged in a quid pro quo relationship where he collaborated during his campaign to become president with the promise that he wouldn't prosecute bankers so that they'd pay him large sums of money. One elected official receiving an extravagantly large gift from someone doesn't mean they're necessarily bought off either. But we establish codes of ethics so that we can remove this situations entirely.
 
J

Jenov

Member
dramatis said:
I've only been skimming most of the discussion.

If I were to be frank, I find it incredibly bitter that last week so many people were eager to absolve Bernie Sanders of his support of an anti-choice candidate, and furthermore bend over backwards to justify the anti-choice candidate as a necessity in a 50-state strategy. The stance of anti-choice is inherently one that increases the inequality of women and strips them of basic human rights, but that apparently is an area in which principles can be bent and warped.

Yet some of these same people would be the first to come out and scream murder when Obama accepts a speaking fee that will likely be funneled into his efforts at redistricting. As if that money wouldn't be a necessity in the grand strategy of 50-state. As if Obama accepting a speaking fee is a moral wrong (but anti-choice is okay!). Compromise with human rights is okay and necessary, but compromise with economic issues is not; the hypocrisy and selfishness of this position is befuddling.

Moreover it feels exhausting that speaking fees weren't problems to be vocal about—until a woman or a black man dared to accept them. The same old tale again.

When it comes to actual policy deliberations and contest of ideas, those topics don't garner half the attention as 'celebrities' do. Inadvertently all the attention placed on Obama accepting this speaking fee just demonstrates celebrity culture and poor decisionmaking based on that culture. Trump is set to unveil his tax plan today and Congress has to pass a budget by Friday. But the topics that garner that most agitation are the ones about Sanders, Hillary, or Obama.
Click to expand...

Quoting for truth.
 
G

Gattsu25

Banned
JABEE said:
Banker man handed former President $400k to give a speech.

Former President's administration didn't press charges against criminals who robbed people and ruined the economy.

I say "Hmmm." Something is wrong here.
Click to expand...

It's literally not even the same investors or banking sectors involved but... sure 🤷
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
How do you feel about Citizens United? Is the money really that bad because you can't really prove that it's being used in a quid pro quo relationship here.

There's an inherent conflict of interest when someone in charge of regulation and other policy can expect that once there will be massive sums of money waiting for them when they finish their job. This doesn't mean that Obama is engaged in a quid pro quo relationship where he collaborated during his campaign to become president with the promise that he wouldn't prosecute bankers so that they'd pay him large sums of money. One elected official receiving an extravagantly large gift from someone doesn't mean they're necessarily bought off either. But we establish codes of ethics so that we can remove this situations entirely.
Click to expand...

So if being paid 400k by Wall Street is an inherent conflict of interest, despite that being in line with the market when it comes to speaking fees, what does that make the 60 million he got for his book deal? Should we assume some conflict of interest there, despite that also being in line with the market price people expected?
 
S

ShironRedshift

Member
JABEE said:
Banker man handed former President $400k to give a speech.

Former President's administration didn't press charges against criminals who robbed people and ruined the economy.

I say "Hmmm." Something is wrong here.
Click to expand...
I just don't understand stupid conspiracy theories like that. They don't make fucking sense at all.

Stop and think for one moment: if they're so corrupt and shit, then why would they bother creating a money-trail at all? Assuming this is true, why even actually give Obama the money at all? All that does is create a paper trail. I mean, what would Obama do when they don't actually end up coughing up the dough at all? Whine about them not fulfilling their end of the deal, and reveal he's corrupt or whatever? Yeah, cause that wouldn't backfire and just look bad on him. Can't complain without putting the spotlight on himself and revealing what's actually going on.

So, that being the case, why would they not, in these shady-backroom deals that apparently happened, just say that they're toooootally good for it and definitely going to pay him through some disguised gig at a later gig, and then just... not actually do it at all? Y'know, so there's not actually a paper trail at all, they get what they want, and Obama wouldn't be able to say anything without incriminating himself? What's the incentive for them to ever actually pay up at all, especially since they're all apparently so inherently shady and corrupt and unethical and would have no problem doing something shady like not actually fulfilling their end-up of a backroom deal. Oh yes, they're shady enough to make a backroom deal in the first place, but not shady enough to ever think about not fulfilling their end of the bargain to make sure they get what they want, not have to actually pay anything after all to get it, make sure there's not actually any money trail at all and get to have the guy keep his mouth shut as well since he wouldn't be able to say anything without making himself look bad.

Why instead is the smart thing to do, to do this all out in the open with easily proven money changing hands, instead of just not fulfilling their ends of the bargain, not having a money trail, and saving the money to boot. I mean, what would Obama even do in that situation if this shit were true? Just undo all the stuff he was apparently bribed to do with this corrupt money, and be a very bad, mean terrible person to them after all? Oh wait, he's not President anymore! He can't do fucking shit! What fucking reason would they have to spend a fucking dime if this shit were true? There's none. Absolutely none, and zero benefit to actually do so. They'd just tell him to go fuck himself--they got their's, up to him to deal with the rest. His fault for being an idiot and trusting that evil, corrupt, and untrustable Wall Street! Oh well!

Conspiracy theories are the dumbest shit, I swear.
 
I

Isaac Otherworld

Member
shinra-bansho said:
I'm pretty sure few Western liberal governments have blanket bans on any employment in the "private market" post electoral career. I'm perfectly open to being proven wrong if this has actual basis.

Because good luck attracting anyone to run for office when you forever restrict their lives afterwards.

Is Australia just a country people throw in because it sounds familiar enough and yet foreign enough.
Click to expand...

The kinds of people who are only interested in politics so they can cash out and get lucrative cushy do nothing jobs out of office are exactly the people you want to discourage from running. Them no longer interested is only a good thing.
 
S

Socreges

Banned
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
Love that you continue the personal insults outside of NHL GAF without responding to anything I say. Why reply if nothing else but to shit post and insult another member? Cheers indeed.
Click to expand...
Sorry you're wounded, but I say "this is concerning" to which you respond, unsolicited, and lead with:

"Ah, so you'd rather crucify him off of bullshit stuff you made up about how he's going to lobby hard for them"

There's just so much wrong here. I want you to understand that I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you, and why.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Isaac Otherworld said:
The kinds of people who are only interested in politics so they can cash out and get lucrative cushy do nothing jobs out of office are exactly the people you want to discourage from running. Them no longer interested is only a good thing.
Click to expand...

If cushy do nothing jobs are a bad thing, can we start by firing all the Marxist and leftist academics with tenure?
 
Z

Zaraki_Kenpachi

Member
Socreges said:
Sorry you're wounded, but I say "this is concerning" to which you respond, unsolicited, and lead with:

"Ah, so you'd rather crucify him off of bullshit stuff you made up about how he's going to lobby hard for them"

There's just so much wrong here. I want you to understand that I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you, and why.
Click to expand...

:lol You have to solicit the poster whether you're allowed to reply to their post on a message board? And please about pretending you were worried about whether I thought you'd respond or not, it was nothing more than you trying to insult me unprovoked like you have multiple times now. Cheers.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
ShironRedshift said:
I just don't understand stupid conspiracy theories like that. They don't make fucking sense at all.

Stop and think for one moment: if they're so corrupt and shit, then why would they bother creating a money-trail at all? Assuming this is true, why even actually give Obama the money at all? All that does is create a paper trail. I mean, what would Obama do when they don't actually end up coughing up the dough at all? Whine about them not fulfilling their end of the deal, and reveal he's corrupt or whatever? Yeah, cause that wouldn't backfire and just look bad on him. Can't complain without putting the spotlight on himself and revealing what's actually going on.

So, that being the case, why would they not, in these shady-backroom deals that apparently happened, just say that they're toooootally good for it and definitely going to pay him through some disguised gig at a later gig, and then just... not actually do it at all? Y'know, so there's not actually a paper trail at all, they get what they want, and Obama wouldn't be able to say anything without incriminating himself? What's the incentive for them to ever actually pay up at all, especially since they're all apparently so inherently shady and corrupt and unethical and would have no problem doing something shady like not actually fulfilling their end-up of a backroom deal. Oh yes, they're shady enough to make a backroom deal in the first place, but not shady enough to ever think about not fulfilling their end of the bargain to make sure they get what they want, not have to actually pay anything after all to get it, make sure there's not actually any money trail at all and get to have the guy keep his mouth shut as well since he wouldn't be able to say anything without making himself look bad.

Why instead is the smart thing to do, to do this all out in the open with easily proven money changing hands, instead of just not fulfilling their ends of the bargain, not having a money trail, and saving the money to boot. I mean, what would Obama even do in that situation if this shit were true? Just undo all the stuff he was apparently bribed to do with this corrupt money, and be a very bad, mean terrible person to them after all? Oh wait, he's not President anymore! He can't do fucking shit! What fucking reason would they have to spend a fucking dime if this shit were true? There's none. Absolutely none, and zero benefit to actually do so. They'd just tell him to go fuck himself--they got their's, up to him to deal with the rest.

Conspiracy theories are the dumbest shit, I swear.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As POTUS there are easier ways to make way money off Wall Street for less publicity, and it certainly doesn't involve as much effort as running a squeaky-clean presidency for 8 years.

And on the other side of the equation, trust me, Wall Street was way, way WAY more avenues through which to throw their money to make their own business interests known and favored. Paying an ex-president whose party is not in the White House and has a minority in both chambers of congress. If there's a Wall Street firm that thinks this is the ticket to illicitly influencing policy then they're really fucking bad at their job lmao
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

POLITICO: Full transcript of Trump’s Wall Street Journal interview from July 25th
2 3 4
152
22K
SomTervo replied
  • Locked
Dem. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Wall Street Reform and Financial Policy
8
1K
sfedai0 replied
  • Locked
New Info: Trump's Ties to Sergei Millian, Russian Intelligence (& Detailed Timeline)
2 3 4
163
53K
NH Apache replied
  • Locked
Obama wrote secret letter to Iran Supreme Leader on fighting ISIS
25
5K
Metallix87 replied
  • Locked
VICE: Tim Geithner and The Con-Artist Wing of the Democratic Party
5
1K
linsivvi replied
Top Bottom