Support NeoGAF

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Obama should apologize and do a shame tour.

Then he should vow to only earn 3/5th as much any previous first black president that changed the shape of healthcare in America.

Then he should donate double as any other democrat and only claim half of it on his taxes

Not enough, he needs to pull his daughter out of college and vow not to let her become influential or the evil Obama dynasty could return

 

[Black_Sun]

I can comprehend everything in your argument. Please don't insult my intelligence like that. I did not question yours. I merely presented a different issue that also needs to be addressed. Your refusal to acknowledge that the problem is exacerbated by he political inaction of many, does not make me stupid. It just means you don't want to accept what I said.

Furthermore, you didn't speak to the fact that many that work in the financial sector are against money in politics. Many that work for corporations are against money in politics. Money in politics doesn't just stop because you wish it away. You actively vote it out. To lose heart in the system is easy. To sit on your ass and complain is easy. To go out and vote for changes takes effort.

Are there active attacks on effort? Sure. There's voter suppression through id laws and intimidation. There are locations with no early voting. There's all sorts of stuff. So how do we tackle that? We get funds. Where are the funds? In communities and companies. Many in the communities don't have funds to spare. We can find ways to get them from companies, but then you're painted as an impure shill. So we are back at square one. The company gives the money to the politician that campaigns to the active voter to whom he or she becomes beholden. All while someone stands on a soapbox and screams how pure they are. They'd never take money from Wall Street

And a lot of people in Big Oil have spoken up about how the country needs to address climate change and yet they still fund Republicans. Show me actions not rhetoric.

Maybe some of them are against money in politics. They're not a monolith but all of them as a whole pump money into the system. How many big banks can you count that don't shove it into the pockets of politicians? It's corrupting.

The best thing to do is to slowly cut off corporate money from the party. Unfortunately, they're not doing that.

 

[Davilmar]

Would never expect this coming from Van Jones.

I'm a bit confused, since I haven't been keeping up with Van Jones. Isn't he just implying that the Obama family are using the money from the book deal to support others? Unless I missed some context, I don't see the problem with the tweet.

 

[Slayven]

Not enough, he needs to pull his daughter out of college and vow not to let her become influential or the evil Obama dynasty could return

malia in college? How dare she try to be somebody

 

[Cybit]

The speaking fees bullshit has been so distasteful.

'Specially because pretty much everyone does it (Laura Bush gets like 50k, ffs). Not sure if GWB did it or he just went to painting, but pretty much every major politician / cabinet official does this after they leave. Dude wants to get paid, let him get paid.

It's like George Lucas level hate after he donated all the money he made from selling Lucasfilm to charity - people still hate 'em and look for ways to try to downplay / mitigate what he did.

For the record, these job programs are proven to be tremendously effective.

Good on Barack and Michelle, and as a Chicago resident, I'm always happy to see cool new stuff pop up.

Nothing stops a bullet like a job. Yep. Ain't that the damn truth.

Nope, the "I am so left I only walk in circles" crowd can't twist this into some holier than thou bullshit

Stealing that quote.

 

[water_wendi]

is there going to be a 20 page thread about this too? or are all the dummies just ignoring this because of a lack of wall st boogeymen

No because theres nothing to argue about here.

 

[Joe]

I'm begging all of you: please stop expecting TV hosts and pundits to offer reasonable or rational commentaries with any sort of consistency.

They're on TV. It's show business. There's writers, directors, producers, a wardrobe department, and a makeup department. They are stars in a pseudo-reality soap opera. Jeff Zucker has explicity stated this.

Assume that their commentary is merely furthering a television storyline arc 100% of the time.

 

[Derwind]

Obama should apologize and do a shame tour.

Then he should vow to only earn 3/5th as much any previous first black president that changed the shape of healthcare in America.

Then he should donate double as any other democrat and only claim half of it on his taxes

But does that address the 400k he took in speaking fees from Wall Street execs?

Not pure enough.

We only drink our Kool-aid from concentrate here...

 

[Black_Sun]

'Specially because pretty much everyone does it (Laura Bush gets like 50k, ffs). Not sure if GWB did it or he just went to painting, but pretty much every major politician / cabinet official does this after they leave. Dude wants to get paid, let him get paid.

It's like George Lucas level hate after he donated all the money he made from selling Lucasfilm to charity - people still hate 'em and look for ways to try to downplay / mitigate what he did.



Nothing stops a bullet like a job. Yep. Ain't that the damn truth.



Stealing that quote.

And people give them shit for it too. This has been a thing since at least Gerald Ford/Jimmy Carter.

 

[tirminyl]

Piece of shit..give more.

I don't know why but this got me good.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

On cnn, Angela Rye is our last hope.

 

[Amir0x]

So embarrassing for those Obama corrupt wall street speaking fees garbage political neophytes and their fisher price punditry.

 

[numble]

'Specially because pretty much everyone does it (Laura Bush gets like 50k, ffs). Not sure if GWB did it or he just went to painting, but pretty much every major politician / cabinet official does this after they leave. Dude wants to get paid, let him get paid.

It's like George Lucas level hate after he donated all the money he made from selling Lucasfilm to charity - people still hate 'em and look for ways to try to downplay / mitigate what he did.



Nothing stops a bullet like a job. Yep. Ain't that the damn truth.



Stealing that quote.

It's not true that every politician does this. It was frowned upon until the last handful of presidents, and even Jimmy Carter refrained from it. Here's an article from 1989 criticizing Reagan and Ford for doing it:
http://people.com/archive/eight-day...2-million-now-thats-reaganomics-vol-32-no-19/

But was it appropriate, critics asked, for a former President to cash in on his White House luster so blatantly? Of the four living ex-Presidents, Jimmy Carter seems to have done the least for financial gain, spending his time instead on church-, housing-and peace-related efforts. Richard Nixon has published seven books, but accepts no honoraria for public appearances. Gerald Ford has turned himself into a one-man industry, producing endorsements, speeches and public appearances and serving on corporate boards; last year alone he earned an estimated $1 million. All that, however, pales next to Reagan’s $2 million single score in Japan. Says Henry F. Graff, a Columbia University professor who specializes in the Presidency: “The founding fathers-Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison—would have been stunned that an occupant of the highest office in this land turned it into bucks.”

 

[shadow_shogun]

​

I'm a bit confused, since I haven't been keeping up with Van Jones. Isn't he just implying that the Obama family are using the money from the book deal to support others? Unless I missed some context, I don't see the problem with the tweet.

On Sunday he stated that Obama should do 'poverty tour' before paid speeches. This tweet is a response to someone asking him if Obama's 20M donation justifies the 400k speech.

 

[kmax]

Eat your crows, people.

You know who you are.

 

[numble]

Eat your crows, people.

You know who you are.

Were there people arguing that Obama would never make any donations?

 

[VendettaRed07]

Eat your crows, people.

You know who you are.

Not really eating crow because I know Obama is a good guy who really cares about people in this country. Not like this is shocking news to me.

Obama does continue to prove that he is the most upstanding President of my lifetime and everyone on here's lifetime. But any questions people were asking about this wasn't an attempt to dispute that.

Asking the question if Presidential speech tours that generate potentially hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of a decade or so is something we should be totally ok with and that nothing under any circumstances wrong could ever result from everyone doing it. And by everyone that means everyone. That is why it isn't an attack on Obama. Do I think Obama is corrupt? No. Do I believe that he has the countries' best intentions at heart? Yes I do.

Do I trust everyone in his position will be? No, I don't actually. It's the same argument against citizen's united. Obama won despite raising money with that rule being in place. Just because you don't believe it influenced him doesn't mean that it's totally fine and no one should have a problem with it because hey Obama raised money with Citizen's United and won, so what's wrong with it?...Is so much money being involved in campaigns and post presidential career's becoming so lucrative is exactly a good trend? It's a relatively new practice and it isn't crazy to ask whether or not it is something we should all be totally fine with everyone doing. Not an attack on him or trying to dismantle his legacy or whatever. If people just want to phrase any slight dissent as some sort of agenda driven attack, then I don't know. Were there people on twitter being shit heads towards him about it? Yeah they were and they need to fuck off. But I don't think arguments people here on gaf at least made were unreasonable or attempting to take a shot at the guy.

 

[kaching]

Were there people arguing that Obama would never make any donations?

There were certainly people dismissing its merit in context. There has been the implication from some that the only thing that mattered was how much money he received and where it came from, not what he would do with it.

 

[SolarPowered]

Obama's a modern day Robin Hood.

Fleecing rich people with absurd speaking fees and using it to help people who need it.

Yep, I love this haha.

 

[numble]

There were certainly people dismissing its merit in context. There has been the implication from some that the only thing that mattered was how much money he received and where it came from, not what he would do with it.

If they didn't care what he would do with it and only the amount and source, how would they eat crow now? Because they now care what he does with it?

 

[Measley]

I wonder how many stories TYT run about this.

My guess? Zilch.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

The idea that philantropy is inherently wrong "cuz capitalism" has simply become a feature and not a bug of the far left. People expecting humility are going to be waiting a long time.

 

[boiled goose]

Your first post in this thread is comparing Obama receiving money from a speech and then putting it into a summer jobs program to help low-income people as the same thing as what the Koch brothers do.

You want me to be 100% honest, when you yourself are using a dishonest argument.

You are still being dishonest. Show me where I said they were the same thing? You are attacking a clear strawman

The only purpose of that example was to show that donating to charity doesn't somehow cancel act problematic actions.

I wonder how many stories TYT run about this.

My guess? Zilch.

To me personally, rich person donates to charity is not really too much of a story...

If Obama agreed to do all paid speeches for charity I would be ok with that and it should be a story (because it would contrast with other politicians)

Obama donates to charity being a story to me reads basically like PR. It's not really news..

 

[Volimar]

Oh man, imagine if he kept doing this after every speaking tour? God I miss Obama.

 

[boiled goose]

Not really eating crow because I know Obama is a good guy who really cares about people in this country. Not like this is shocking news to me.

Obama does continue to prove that he is the most upstanding President of my lifetime and everyone on here's lifetime. But any questions people were asking about this wasn't an attempt to dispute that.

Asking the question if Presidential speech tours that generate potentially hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of a decade or so is something we should be totally ok with and that nothing under any circumstances wrong could ever result from everyone doing it. And by everyone that means everyone. That is why it isn't an attack on Obama. Do I think Obama is corrupt? No. Do I believe that he has the countries' best intentions at heart? Yes I do.

Do I trust everyone in his position will be? No, I don't actually. It's the same argument against citizen's united. Obama won despite raising money with that rule being in place. Just because you don't believe it influenced him doesn't mean that it's totally fine and no one should have a problem with it because hey Obama raised money with Citizen's United and won, so what's wrong with it?...Is so much money being involved in campaigns and post presidential career's becoming so lucrative is exactly a good trend? It's a relatively new practice and it isn't crazy to ask whether or not it is something we should all be totally fine with everyone doing. Not an attack on him or trying to dismantle his legacy or whatever. If people just want to phrase any slight dissent as some sort of agenda driven attack, then I don't know. Were there people on twitter being shit heads towards him about it? Yeah they were and they need to fuck off. But I don't think arguments people here on gaf at least made were unreasonable or attempting to take a shot at the guy.

Sigh. If only people on this forum were as reasonable as you.

So many people are unable to separate themselves from partisan Fanboyism.

 

[rjinaz]

I'm a bit confused, since I haven't been keeping up with Van Jones. Isn't he just implying that the Obama family are using the money from the book deal to support others? Unless I missed some context, I don't see the problem with the tweet.

He's saying no this doesn't change anything because the money is not from a speech since it's too high, it's from the book deal. The guy is just refusing to take the L.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Not really eating crow because I know Obama is a good guy who really cares about people in this country. Not like this is shocking news to me.

Obama does continue to prove that he is the most upstanding President of my lifetime and everyone on here's lifetime. But any questions people were asking about this wasn't an attempt to dispute that.

Asking the question if Presidential speech tours that generate potentially hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of a decade or so is something we should be totally ok with and that nothing under any circumstances wrong could ever result from everyone doing it. And by everyone that means everyone. That is why it isn't an attack on Obama. Do I think Obama is corrupt? No. Do I believe that he has the countries' best intentions at heart? Yes I do.

Do I trust everyone in his position will be? No, I don't actually. It's the same argument against citizen's united. Obama won despite raising money with that rule being in place. Just because you don't believe it influenced him doesn't mean that it's totally fine and no one should have a problem with it because hey Obama raised money with Citizen's United and won, so what's wrong with it?...Is so much money being involved in campaigns and post presidential career's becoming so lucrative is exactly a good trend? It's a relatively new practice and it isn't crazy to ask whether or not it is something we should all be totally fine with everyone doing. Not an attack on him or trying to dismantle his legacy or whatever. If people just want to phrase any slight dissent as some sort of agenda driven attack, then I don't know. Were there people on twitter being shit heads towards him about it? Yeah they were and they need to fuck off. But I don't think arguments people here on gaf at least made were unreasonable or attempting to take a shot at the guy.

Everything but the last sentence is true

Let's be honest, we can all go back and look at that thread

 

[kaching]

If they didn't care what he would do with it and only the amount and source, how would they eat crow now? Because they now care what he does with it?

Well, that's the paradox of their argument. They clearly care what's done with the money being that they were so concerned with Obama receiving it in the first place.

But no, generally I don't expect most people who make arguments where they try to have it both ways to come back and eat crow.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Everything but the last sentence is true

Let's be honest, we can all go back and look at that thread

You are right. I shouldn't say "no one on gaf", was being unreasonable. There was some bullshit driveby's here too.. I was mostly referring to poligafers who went in there, imo, were making good points.

But I get how it looks to people though which is why I'm just in favor of dropping this for now because I'll concede we have more important things to worry about. I think it's a "thing" but not necessarily a thing worth arguing or making anyone upset over at the moment.

 

[OmegaFax]

'Specially because pretty much everyone does it (Laura Bush gets like 50k, ffs). Not sure if GWB did it or he just went to painting, but pretty much every major politician / cabinet official does this after they leave. Dude wants to get paid, let him get paid.

It's like George Lucas level hate after he donated all the money he made from selling Lucasfilm to charity - people still hate 'em and look for ways to try to downplay / mitigate what he did.



Nothing stops a bullet like a job. Yep. Ain't that the damn truth.



Stealing that quote.

Speaking of which, George Lucas tried opening a museum in Chicago but it got scrapped in the middle of last year.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Why does Obama have $2 million dollars to casually give away? I don't. What an asshole.
Flaunting his wealth, and not knowing his place.

 

[numble]

Well, that's the paradox of their argument. They clearly care what's done with the money being that they were so concerned with Obama receiving it in the first place.

But no, generally I don't expect most people who make arguments where they try to have it both ways to come back and eat crow.

I don't follow your argument. If for example, we care about Trump receiving emoluments from foreign governments, and we say it doesn't matter if he spends it for something good, are we trying to have it both ways?

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Why does Obama have $2 million dollars to casually give away? I don't. What an asshole.
Flaunting his wealth, and not knowing his place.

Should a former president even have access to money? How dare they make money off of their persona and experience.

 

[danm999]

Good on him.

Actions speak louder than rhetoric or optics.

 

[kaching]

I don't follow your argument. If for example, we care about Trump receiving emoluments from foreign governments, and we say it doesn't matter if he spends it for something good, are we trying to have it both ways?

If Trump was just a citizen engaging in a private transaction that wasn't covered by the Emoluments Clause, then absolutely. Are these two scenarios really indistinguishable to you?

 

[numble]

If Trump was just a citizen engaging in a private transaction that wasn't covered by the Emoluments Clause, then absolutely. Are these two scenarios really indistinguishable to you?

The point of the comparison was the logic that it is having it both ways. Yes, let's say he is a private citizen being paid by a foreign government. If someone says they object to him receiving Russian money and they don't care what Trump does with it, what are the "both ways" being had here?

 

[Cipherr]

Nope, the "I am so left I only walk in circles" crowd can't twist this into some holier than thou bullshit

Gett'em!

I know they are reading but not posting.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Obama's a modern day Robin Hood.

Fleecing rich people with absurd speaking fees and using it to help people who need it.

Lol give me a break... https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-mitigate-americas-foreclosure-crisis/510485/

 

[Vice]

"I can't help the poor if I'm one of them, so I got rich and gave back. That's a win-win"

 

[kaching]

The point of the comparison was the logic that it is having it both ways. Yes, let's say he is a private citizen being paid by a foreign government. If someone says they object to him receiving Russian money and they don't care what Trump does with it, what are the "both ways" being had here?

Because its an arbitrary cutoff where the person is saying they care about how the money is being used but only conveniently as far as this person receiving it; not at all in terms of what they do with it. So why should they care who receives the money if they don't care what the money gets used for? That's the contrary essence of the argument.

 

[numble]

Because its an arbitrary cutoff where the person is saying they care about how the money is being used but only conveniently as far as this person receiving it; not at all in terms of what they do with it. So why should they care who receives the money if they don't care what the money gets used for? That's the contrary essence of the argument.

If Trump gets paid for a speech on Russian TV the day after he leaves office, should we wait to hold our opinion on the payment until we know what he will use it for?

 

[Trey]

Sigh. If only people on this forum were as reasonable as you.

So many people are unable to separate themselves from partisan Fanboyism.

Nah, don't try to tiptoe back into some semblance of a moderate tone on the back of a fence sitting post. Your very first post in this thread was lampshading Obama donating directly to a youth jobs program by saying "just because he gives to charity, I can't criticize him?" while directly comparing him to the Koch brothers.

Stick to your guns, shorty. At least you'll have your purity, if not a substantial argument against donor money and speaker fees beyond a gut feeling.

 

[cdyhybrid]

If Trump gets paid for a speech on Russian TV the day after he leaves office, should we wait to hold our opinion on the payment until we know what he will use it for?

Sure, as soon as you find me an equivalent amount of evidence that Obama is working for Wall Street.

If you think the price tag for saving the banking industry is $400K you're incredibly naive.

 

[Linkura]

Lol give me a break... https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-mitigate-americas-foreclosure-crisis/510485/

It's a joke?

 

[numble]

Sure, as soon as you find me an equivalent amount of evidence that Obama is working for Wall Street.

If you think the price tag for saving the banking industry is $400K you're incredibly naive.

Where did I say anything about Trump working for Russian TV or Obama working for Wall Street? Straw man much? I am addressing his "both ways" logic. If you want to explain what he means by saying it is having it both ways, please do so instead of making up arguments to attack.