Support NeoGAF

[Tain]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

contentious subject versus what the vast majority of GAF posters would agree is horrible

 

[titiklabingapat]

contentious subject versus what the vast majority of GAF posters would agree is horrible

This should not be contentious subject is my point. Eating each other instead of falling in line is exactly one of the reasons why we lost in 2016.

 

[K.Jack]

Would love to see how fast some of the holier than thou posters would triple backflip off of their soapboxes, for $400,000 USD.

NO ONE is foolish enough to turn down money like that. Fuck what others think.

 

[Tylercrat]

What in the world...lol. You're missing a lot if you think the economy is centered on rent-seeking.

You think Obama is rent-seeking? How?

 

[jack_package_200]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god. I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying you deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

Careful, they might accuse you of identity politics or whatever moronic buzzwords. Something something neoliberal corporate shill.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Careful, they might accuse you of identity politics or whatever moronic buzzwords. Something something neoliberal corporate shill.

They can all bite me.

 

[NullPointer]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying ya'll deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

If I had to guess I'd say that's because one story is surprising and one isn't.

 

[Not]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying ya'll deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

Yup.

YUP.

 

[avaya]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying ya'll deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

No lies detected.

 

[Trey]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying ya'll deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

To be fair, there's not much for liberals to discuss when it comes to Trump tax cuts. Shit is trash pretty much across the board to the sensibilities of this forum.

The identity and policies of the liberal movement is a great discussion to be had within the party. These discussions are particularly important to this demographic. (Not to say Trump's policies aren't.)

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god. I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying you deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

It's just the way argunents work. When people disagree, their ideas don't battle each other so much as use each other to grow. Some people don't think Obama should be enraging in this sort of activity. Some people do. The back and forth extends the discussion.

By comparison the topic on Trumps FCC gutting net neutrality is bound to have less posts because this forum is basically unanimous in hating their plan. All anyone can really do is go in there and say "down with this sort of thing". What can you really say when everyone is saying that? Maybe someone should post links on who to talk to and lobby to try and stop their plan before it happens.

High post count is a measure of disagreement. Not necessarily interest. Literally every topic everywhere works like this.

Also this thread is 17 pages long. Fight me

 

[titiklabingapat]

Arguing is fine and all but it should be done by now. Focus instead all of our energies into defeating Trump and the Republicans. All this shit stirring, especially from the Bernie camp, is doing nothing but to make his followers, who are a substantial make up of the Democratic party, especially the young ones, disillusioned with the whole thing. Which is the worst thing you can do right now.

Stand up and build up a united front. I don't care if you fake it. That's what the Republicans did and they are winning as a result.

 

[guek]

There used to be honor in the office of Presidency.

*looks at who is power*

 

[Not]

Infighting can get out of control and allow the common threat to go undealt with. Put aside the arguments until there's something not universe-ending that we all need to devote our full attention to, like a rapist racist fascist running our country.

 

[JABEE]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

I'll suffer the most (immigrant, gay, minority) but im pretty close to saying ya'll deserve the next 8 years of Trump because of all this fruitless infighting.

Systemic issues are still a problem, even if Trump is wrong.

I don't have to give Obama a pass because he's not the most corrupt asshole around.

Trump is now the President to compare all liberal Presidents to. We have accepted the slow decline in values. America has accepted corruption, because it is all we know. Prepare for worse, because this is what you accept. Trump is now your ethical barometer.

 

[jakonovski]

This should not be contentious subject is my point. Eating each other instead of falling in line is exactly one of the reasons why we lost in 2016.

Expecting voters to fall in line is probably the number one leading cause of election loss worldwide.

 

[Sir Alemeth]

Nice. Good for him.

 

[KingK]

If this is somehow undermining his credibility in the eyes of some people, that is the fault of those people, who don't know how the world works and don't care to learn, and not him.

People saying "$400k is too much!" are being stupid. If 400k is what the market has decided as a speaking fee for somebody of Obama's stature, then 400k is absolutely appropriate. Arbitrarily putting a price ceiling on Obama's time is pretty dumb, and considering the optics of the situation and the fact that this issue was started as a means for a white man to police a woman's earning potential, the implications are not good.

Maybe you think the people who think this undermines his credibility are stupid. It doesn't matter, they still exist. And that means that this can only hurt whatever political agenda Obama may have in the future, and that of the party he was just leading. And for what? So a guy who already gets a pension and will be making millions from whatever books he writes can get even more money?

He's not in public office anymore, obviously he can do whatever he wants and is free to make as much money as he can if that's his goal. I'm just a little disappointed, because this seems like the opposite of the selfless pragmatism I've come to expect from him.

Thanks for the implication that I'm a sexist and a racist at the end there, btw.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

When are we going to get the transcripts?

 

[PatThePassive]

I forgot the exact number but that's more for a single speech then what he made a year as president.(edit: that's what the yearly salary is for the POTUS, 400K annually)

I'm not going to wade through all the pages of this thread but is this another thread to shit on Obama because Hillary didn't win the election?

Thought those threads died down the month after the election.

 

[Dylan]

Arguing is fine and all but it should be done by now. Focus instead all of our energies into defeating Trump and the Republicans. All this shit stirring, especially from the Bernie camp, is doing nothing but to make his followers, who are a substantial make up of the Democratic party, especially the young ones, disillusioned with the whole thing. Which is the worst thing you can do right now.

That's what the Republicans did and they are winning as a result.

I mean, if the goal of everyone here was to actually do something about anything, then there would be no threads and no posts, because as much as it's fun to debate about this shit, posting on GAF isn't going to change anyone's mind and especially not the world we live in.

 

[Eidan]

Why is everything you say something that should be taken for granted? Should this apply to all politicians? Are you cool with senators or representatives leveraging their office to become lobbyists? People shouldn't enrich themselves off the Presidency. Guys like Truman had to be forced to take money. There used to be honor in the office of Presidency.

I am capable of seeing a difference between becoming a lobbyist and getting paid to do a speech. The inability to see a difference between the two is what is disturbing me.

 

[guek]

considering the optics of the situation and the fact that this issue was started as a means for a white man to police a woman's earning potential, the implications are not good.

How many times must it be pointed out that this is simply not true.

 

[Suikoguy]

Systemic issues are still a problem, even if Trump is wrong.

I don't have to give Obama a pass because he's not the most corrupt asshole around.

Trump is now the President to compare all liberal Presidents to. We have accepted the slow decline in values. America has accepted corruption, because it is all we know. Prepare for worse, because this is what you accept. Trump is now your ethical barometer.

Why not give Obama a pass since he has done nothing to even warrant the suspicion of his policies and plans being effected by getting paid to give a speech?

 

[jakonovski]

Why not give Obama a pass since he has done nothing to even warrant the suspicion of his policies and plans being effected by getting paid to give a speech?

That's the definition of a good old boys' club. Let's give him a pass because he's a good old boy.

 

[mckmas8808]

I believe it would be. Because there's a lot those companies do that does run in direct contrast with the interests of American workers. I don't want to be asking the question after someone's presidency is over and they have those sorts of connections "could they have done something so correct the problematic natures of these big businesses or did they ignore it due to some post presidency plans".

We might actually be seeing stuff like this as well. If we put Obama aside for a second it isn't crazy to imagine people of the likes of Mark Cuban or Mark zuckerberg running and are supported and aided by said large tech companies because of their connections with them.

I think that people, if they actually want this. If they really want to get into public service and become commander and chief need to drop all interests and sever ties with these sorts of big money interests if they want to get in.

I don't necessarily believe that a one off speech with some company is the worst thing and if someone is moving away from influencing the political arena. I don't like the notion that post presidency speech giving or other avenues can potentially become a 200m industry over the course of a decade or something.

That's a purity test. You don't think you are asking too much from a human?

 

[Suikoguy]

That's the definition of a good old boys' club. Let's give him a pass because he's a good old boy.

That makes no sense.

 

[titiklabingapat]

I forgot the exact number but that's more for a single speech then what he made a year as president.(edit: that's what the yearly salary is for the POTUS, 400K annually)

I'm not going to wade through all the pages of this thread but is this another thread to shit on Obama because Hillary didn't win the election?

Thought those threads died down the month after the election.

Then that's on you. I would give Obama the pass since he is or was the leader of the progressive movement, whether you like it or not. Attacking him from the left when I was he is being attacked from the Right just gives thier arguments more ammo. That's one of the ways how Hillary lost.

 

[jakonovski]

That makes no sense.

All that's missing is we're all poors with no power so nobody gives a shit what we think.

 

[titiklabingapat]

That's the definition of a good old boys' club. Let's give him a pass because he's a good old boy.

So fucking what so long as it advances the progressive movement? Call it a glee club, boys club. I don't freaking care so long as it ensures woman rights, minority rights, LGBT rights and immigrant rights. You can even call it the super awesome secret club if you wish.

 

[Byakuya769]

Not to go critical race theory on this, but any black man accumulating wealth in america is a win in my opinion. Not on african americans to toss away wealth because of income inequality concerns.

 

[Mikef2000]

This thread is fucking 33 pages long while the Trump tax cuts is only 4. Fucking liberals. I swear to god.

This is why we Democrats fail. Perfection is always the enemy of good.

Meanwhile the Republicans all get quickly in line behind the most unqualified, ignorant, corrupt, narcisistic egomaniac to ever hold the office.

 

[mckmas8808]

Actually presidents making enormous wealth after their tenure is over is a relatively recent phenomenon.

And sport athletes also didn't use to make 100s of millions of dollars in the past either. The times have changed. And so has celebrity.

 

[Suikoguy]

All that's missing is the we're all poors with no power so nobody gives a shit what we think.

Huh?

What on earth are you rambling about?

The "Good old boys" mantra is someone being given a pass when he does something wrong, typically illegal. Like a judge giving a football player rapist a week in jail since it would ruin him otherwise.

Obama taking money for giving a speech is not wrong, especially when there is no evidence it will change his plans or policies. We have 8 years of him in office to judge him by, why would he suddenly be beholden to money from a speech?

 

[jakonovski]

So fucking what so long as it advances the progressive movement? Call it a glee club, boys club. I don't freaking care so long as it ensures woman rights, minority rights, LGBT rights and immigrant rights.

The I don't care in your post matters just as much as the racist next door, electorally speaking. Which is why it may not actually end up advancing the progressive movement.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Why does he get secret service ... service ? He is most def. not a ordinary citizen.
When he goes to a campus and tells people to vote X he is still having a lot of sway, and he is still political active just not as his dayjob.

He doesn't get secret service protection because he's a public servant, he gets it because the chance of assassination is still high.

 

[Trey]

This is why we Democrats fail. Perfection is always the enemy of good.

Meanwhile the Republicans all get quickly in line behind the most unqualified, ignorant, corrupt, narcisistic egomaniac to ever hold the office.

This is hardly a Democratic issue, if the last 10 years of the Republican Party has taught us anything. The healthcare debate is a snapshot into the dysfunctional infighting of the Republican Party.

 

[guek]

Not to go critical race on this, but any black man accumulating wealth in america is a win in my opinion. Not on african americans to toss away wealth because of income inequality concerns.

 

[PatThePassive]

Then that's on you. I would give Obama the pass since he is or was the leader of the progressive movement, whether you like it or not. Attacking him from the left when I was he is being attacked from the Right just gives thier arguments more ammo. That's one of the ways how Hillary lost.

Are we not in agreement?
I was pointing out he is able to make the same ammount of money a speech as what he was earning over a year as POTUS, I have no problem with that.

The second half was a joke about how Gaf was bending backwards to blame my second favorite president for their candidates failure.

seeing some of the comments after my first comment it looks like this is another stupid thread.

The young black candidate who upset Hillary in 08 and in my opinion a competent POTUS is suddenly one of the "good ol boys" for giving speeches for money after his term?

Weren't both of the recent elections candidates giving speeches before the election for money as well?

 

[IISANDERII]

Why not? It would be one thing if you think it's problematic for a Wall Street firm to donate heavily to a political campaign, but Obama is a private citizen, getting paid to discuss healthcare at a healthcare conference. Why should he not get paid?

To continue the veil that Wallstreet was/is too big to fail.

 

[Rubenov]

Define Wall Street. What is Wall Street exactly and how is at all relevant to what has occurred in this particular situation? You're lumping together thousands upon thousands of companies as some nebulous mass by using that term, as if they're all equally culpable for what occurred and thus that it's equally bad for receiving money from any of them. That's clearly not the case. This money is not coming from "Wall Street" but a very particular company for a very particular purpose. Why is receiving money from that individual company bad in this particular circumstance bad, without resorting to lumping it into the nebulous mass that is Wall Street and trying to act like all big banks or financial institutions are equally culpable for their problems, or that their money is equally tainted because of that label?

That's my particular problem with this--that people just see the words "Wall Street" and all critical thought and nuance seems to completely shut down. Not all companies that can be lumped in as part of Wall Street are bad. Many are, but it's also true that many aren't. Similarly, even among the companies that are considered bad, corrupt, unethical, or what-have-you can still do stuff with their resources on occasion even when they're usually a shitty organization.

Like, for instance, just because it's the kind of thing on my mind at the moment, I definitely have plenty of criticisms of the leadership of the NCAA and feel that they're kind of typically a bleh organization that kind of takes advantage of their athletes in a lot of ways, and their's a lot of room of improvement on that front. But even so them taking a hardline stance against the North Carolina transgender bathroom bill and using their resources to try and fight it was a very good thing. It doesn't take away from the other criticisms I have of them to say that that particular decision was a very good move. I can hold both stances simultaneously. It's easy.

But that type of nuance is what's missing from these discussions. Instead of considering the particular individual organization that gave Obama the payment from the speech and judging whether this individual financial transaction is or is not unethical on its own merits, it just inherently gets lumped in with Wall Street and big banks, and thus it must be corrupt, because Wall Street! Of course it is! No critical thought or nuance needed!

Even though this is a wall of text it deserves quoting, since you're spot on! Hurray for common sense!

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Always impressed by the amount of uninformed people who have never been to these conferences and never in their life will be invited to one of these conferences, fighting over each other to stand on their soapboxes and explain how these conferences "really work" and is "really talked about".

But whatever, rabble rabble black people aren't allowed to make money, obama is the devil, it was all a lie, he's secretly always been in bed with wall street. Rabble rabble everything to do with "finance" is now wall street rabble rabble they buy and sell human souls to make their billions rabble rabble.

It's times like this when I become less and less confused about how Trump was elected.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I love Obama but he was soft on these institutions while in power and now he does this. And we know what Hillarys reputation is on this issue. These are two of the biggest faces of the modern moderate Democrat and those optics are not good.

What does that mean about Obama? Nothing really. Just fuel to the fire about where he ultimately stood in regards to these institutions. It doesn't mean he was a terrible president. But specifically on this issue ( and its a big one) I don't see how his reputation and legacy isn't written in stone. His history is his history.

I don't see it as a betrayal of the party. I do think the spiritual successor of Clinton and Obama will face a primary loss to the progressive alternative largely because of these optics though.

 

[Gattsu25]

http://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/be/36/be3663efef4ecaba05ce9d337c0b56a1.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
Despite many presidential candidates and former presidents doing this, the only two that have drew heavy outrage are the female and black ones...

[quote="dramatis, post: 234751954"]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 [I]and[/I] 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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.[/QUOTE]


[IMG]http://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/be/36/be3663efef4ecaba05ce9d337c0b56a1.png

 

[JABEE]

Always impressed by the amount of uninformed people who have never been to these conferences and never in their life will be invited to one of these conferences, fighting over each other to stand on their soapboxes and explain how these conferences "really work" and is "really talked about".

But whatever, rabble rabble black people aren't allowed to make money, obama is the devil, it was all a lie, he's secretly always been in bed with wall street. Rabble rabble everything to do with "finance" is now wall street rabble rabble they buy and sell human souls to make their billions rabble rabble.

It's times like this when I become less and less confused about how Trump was elected.

People willing to give a pass to these kinds of ethical problems are why people like Donald Trump stood a chance to be elected.

We have lowered the standard for what we hold a President accountable for. The bar has been collectively lowered by the force of tribalism.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

That's a purity test. You don't think you are asking too much from a human?

In all seriousness, this is the absolute wrong approach to take. Forget about purity tests for a minute, what they're essentially saying is you can never talk, interact, or be associated in any way no matter how circumstantial to something I don't like. They have been branded as evil, will always be evil, and you're stupid if you don't think that. You shouldn't engage them to try to educate them, argue your viewpoint or anything else that might actually benefit people but rather you should be vindictive, openly hostile, and dismiss all attempts of communication because otherwise all the years you tried to help other people are meaningless and I always knew deep down you were a liar and a snake. It's amazing the amount of open hostility for Obama expressing his opinions and trying to influence people who most likely disagree with him.

 

[Gattsu25]

People willing to give a pass to these kinds of ethical problems are why people like Donald Trump stood a chance to be elected.

We have lowered the standard for what we hold a President accountable for. The bar has been collectively lowered by the force of tribalism.

Trump got elected because "he tells it like it is" despite his supporters openly admitting that they don't believe everything he says about policy.

It was plain as day for minorities in America what they meant when they referred to Trump telling it like it was and it was because spoke on their wavelength in terms of race and open discrimination.

Stop ignoring the evidence right in front of your eyes and conjuring up some theory without veracity. Studies show that Trump support can be reasonably predicted by racist views. Trump got elected because people wanted someone as racist as them in the whitehouse. He spoke directly to them.

 

[guek]

Despite many presidential candidates and former presidents doing this, the only two that have drew heavy outrage are the female and black ones...

For the last time, this is not true -_-;;

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

People willing to give a pass to these kinds of ethical problems are why people like Donald Trump stood a chance to be elected.

We have lowered the standard for what we hold a President accountable for. The bar has been collectively lowered by the force of tribalism.

Talking to people who disagree with you is an "ethical problem"? You're going to have to unpack this more than just throwing stones.

 

[EatinOlives]

Arguing is fine and all but it should be done by now. Focus instead all of our energies into defeating Trump and the Republicans. All this shit stirring, especially from the Bernie camp, is doing nothing but to make his followers, who are a substantial make up of the Democratic party, especially the young ones, disillusioned with the whole thing. Which is the worst thing you can do right now.

Stand up and build up a united front. I don't care if you fake it. That's what the Republicans did and they are winning as a result.

Amen. I have no idea why some on the left reserve their strongest words and most fervent arguments for those of their own party. Save it for the people in power today that are actually doing real damage.