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.
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.
Are you under the impression that the "private market" is comprised only of "lucrative cushy do nothing jobs". Good grief.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.
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.
Also, yeah, this. Why in the ever loving fuck with a President of the United States order his administration to shirk their duties in blind trust that Wall Street would reward him, after he leaves power and loses any ability to penalize Wall Street for not fulfilling their end of the bargain?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.
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.
We wouldn't have to investigate anything if people would stop forming relationships involving money that are potential conflicts of interest. Why isn't it in same universe? The amount of money?
My point being that you come out of no where and escalate within the first sentence of a conversation. eg,: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.
I didn't say anything close to that. You are grossly misinterpreting my words.Are you under the impression that the "private market" is comprised only of "lucrative cushy do nothing jobs". Good grief.
No, it's because there is NOTHING that indicates anything like what happened with Trump/Russia has happened here. All I've heard is a bunch of "That doesn't look right!"
I didn't say anything close to that. You are grossly misinterpreting my words.
Why can't I make the sense excuse for Trump? He hasn't been charged. It's only an investigation, that doesn't mean he will end up being charged.
Rewards for corruption can be given after office. It happens when people leave government agencies such as FDA, FCC, and SEC. Obama didn't have conflict of interest problems because he didn't enter into any relationships that were conflicts of interest.
Why can't I make the sense excuse for Trump? He hasn't been charged. It's only an investigation, that doesn't mean he will end up being charged.
Rewards for corruption can be given after office. It happens when people leave government agencies such as FDA, FCC, and SEC. Obama didn't have conflict of interest problems because he didn't enter into any relationships that were conflicts of interest.
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.
It's already been discusses in here, but the POTUS has their hand in everything while in office. So what exactly can a POTUS do after office that can not be viewed as a conflict of interest, assuming that making any money whatsoever is an immediate sign of such conflicts existing? If he gave a speech at a tech company would people still be so upset? What about an automotive manufacturer, or a Hollywood gala?
Man, the things I would do for $400,000.
I guess it's just a necessary cognitive dissonance when the people you support start doing it. Money in politics is corrupting (which is why we need campaign finance reform, ethics reforms, etc) but it isn't corrupting when our people do it. "We have to take the money because it will give us a chance at winning" makes sense but the argument that follows "but that money doesn't compromise us" does not.I'm struggling to wrap my head around how what (18 months or so ago) I'd have considered to be solidly right-wing positions on money in politics, conflicts of interest, and the revolving door became the center-left party line.
The presidency is not a revolving door! It's a one way street!I'm struggling to wrap my head around how what (18 months or so ago) I'd have considered to be solidly right-wing positions on money in politics, conflicts of interest, and the revolving door became the center-left party line.
It's not cognitive dissonance at all for people to actually examine things on a case by case basis instead of treating the entire world as black and white.I guess it's just a necessary cognitive dissonance when the people you support start doing it. Money in politics is corrupting (which is why we need campaign finance reform, ethics reforms, etc) but it isn't corrupting when our people do it. "We have to take the money because it will give us a chance at winning" makes sense but the argument that follows "but that money doesn't compromise us" does not.
I guess it's just a necessary cognitive dissonance when the people you support start doing it. Money in politics is corrupting (which is why we need campaign finance reform, ethics reforms, etc) but it isn't corrupting when our people do it. "We have to take the money because it will give us a chance at winning" makes sense but the argument that follows "but that money doesn't compromise us" does not.
I'm struggling to wrap my head around how what (18 months or so ago) I'd have considered to be solidly right-wing positions on money in politics, conflicts of interest, and the revolving door became the center-left party line.
This is all part of money in politics. Obama, a politician, is receiving disgusting amounts of money for basically doing nothing. He is doing it for people he was previously in charge of legislating. This is an ethical issue related to the intersection of big money in politics.Wait, I thought we were talking about money outside of politics considering this thread is about someone who is not now or probably ever running for public office again.
While I think paid gigs like this aren't a good look for a president, i don't think it's corrupting depending on just how involved he wants to be with the Democracy party going forward.The presidency is not a revolving door! It's a one way street!
Regulatory capture is an issue. This isn't that!
It's not cognitive dissonance at all for people to actually examine things on a case by case basis instead of treating the entire world as black and white.
Taking my statement of "there is a problem with government officials getting lucrative cushy jobs with industries they were friendly towards. Its probably best to ban them from the private market entirely to stop it." and misconstruing that and claiming I meant "no one in the private market works hard" is such an over the top leap and you know it.You didn't specify anything.
In response to someone asking if a former POTUS should be banned from doing anything to make money, you stated probably yeah. And extended this supposed ban to other elected representatives from entering the private market. Almost verbatim.
As far as actual lobbying goes, restrictions vary by Australian state. There are also restrictions in the US.
This is all part of money in politics. Obama, a politician, is receiving disgusting amounts of money for basically doing nothing. He is doing it for people he was previously in charge of legislating. This is an ethical issue related to the intersection of big money in politics.
And there's that nasty moralizing we keep mysteriously circling back to.This is all part of money in politics. Obama, a politician, is receiving disgusting amounts of money for basically doing nothing. He is doing it for people he was previously in charge of legislating. This is an ethical issue related to the intersection of big money in politics.
This is all part of money in politics. Obama, an ex-politician, is receiving disgusting amounts of money for basically doing nothing. He is doing it for people he was previously in charge of legislating. This is an ethical issue related to the intersection of big money in politics.
I think Obama did a solid job keeping America together, but never had a shred of corruption or conflicts of interest? He accepted money contributions from Wall Street firms from his first election. Even when he had a super majority of Democrats in Congress, he pushed for weak, flimsy regulation on corporations and business that exploited the public and resources, as well as already compromised on ACA when they didn't need to win support from Republicans. Extended Bush's tax cuts on the the rich. A lot of actions that he promised to make bold reforms to.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.
And there's that nasty moralizing we keep mysteriously circling back to.
I mean, Jane Sanders got paid $200k in severance after running a college into the ground. When is Bernie going to give that back?
There is no investigation into Obama unless you are privy to something the rest of us aren't? Trump has former political allies falling by the wayside. You don't see what the difference is?
Then you're implying that Obama was corrupt during his admin because he was going to receive speaking fees after office. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate this is true, and compared to the millions he's making off of his book deal, 400k is a paltry sum to abandon all of his morals.
It's already been discusses in here, but the POTUS has their hand in everything while in office. So what exactly can a POTUS do after office that can not be viewed as a conflict of interest, assuming that making any money whatsoever is an immediate sign of such conflicts existing? If he gave a speech at a tech company would people still be so upset? What about an automotive manufacturer, or a Hollywood gala?
Ugh, stop making this bullshit argument. You do realize that Trump hasn't been found guilty of anything primarily because the people in charge of looking have their heads buried in the sand right? Congress has had multiple chances to look at his taxes, GOP keep voting no. Your argument only has ground to stand on if you can argue that the GOP just didn't do ENOUGH to scrounge up dirt on Obama, and that's a tough argument to make.
I think Obama did a solid job keeping America together, but never had a shred of corruption or conflicts of interest? He accepted money contributions from Wall Street firms from his first election. Even when he had a super majority of Democrats in Congress, he pushed for weak, flimsy regulation on corporations and business that exploited the public and resources, as well as already compromised on ACA when they didn't need to win support from Republicans. Extended Bush's tax cuts on the the rich. A lot of actions that he promised to make bold reforms to.
I wanted to think he was misguided or a little spinless for being soft on money in politics. But if ol Barry is still taking money from Wall Street, while supposedly still the least leader/face of a party that's been recently being offered more money to go against the interest/benefits of their constituents, I would have trouble taking Obama seriously for any rhetoric he'll have in this resistance to Trump. Yes, Trump is undeniably more corrupt and generally a worse person than Obama, but he was no perfect president and his future actions may be counterintuitive in winning his old supporters back to Democrats.
Marginal voter theory. Because they didn't kill the fillibuster like they should have, this gave Baucus, Lieberman, Nelson et al far, FAR more power than to shape the bill than they normally would have because there was no room for defectors.Do people really not recal what happened here?
It wasn't the GOP. It was Joseph Liberman who went independent and then wielded an inordinate amount of power as the clinching senate vote. And all because he was in the pocket of insurance companies all along. Thus killing the public option.
Who is saying repatriations shouldn't happen in here while criticizing Obama for doing this? I fully support repatriations, you're right that we owe black people far more.Man, we can't talk about reparations for slavery but we sure can talk a lot about how the first black American president, as singular as he is, looks bad for getting speaking fees. You would think white people owe black people a hell of a lot more than 400k.
I don't know if that is the case. Yeah those guys didn't help at all but there was this hugely misguided effort to try and write SOMETHING some republicans could vote for. To be fair, since he was just starting out it seemed less misguided at the time.Marginal voter theory. Because they didn't kill the fillibuster like they should have, this gave Baucus, Lieberman, Nelson et al far, FAR more power than to shape the bill than they normally would have because there was no room for defectors.
If you only need 50 to pass, the bill would have come out radically different.
Yes, context is important here. A large number of people on the left (myself included!) chalked up the post-'94 GOP to "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" and thought someone like Obama could work with them.I don't know if that is the case. Yeah those guys didn't help at all but there was this hugely misguided effort to try and write SOMETHING some republicans could vote for. To be fair, since he was just starting out it seemed less misguided at the time.
Your statement about cushy lucrative jobs came subsequent to your desire to apparently ban all public officials from the private sector and response that you would end up with no one wanting to run for office.Taking my statement of "there is a problem with government officials getting lucrative cushy jobs with industries they were friendly towards. Its probably best to ban them from the private market entirely to stop it." and misconstruing that and claiming I meant "no one in the private market works hard" is such an over the top leap and you know it.
Remember when Hillary Clinton was demonized for months for how her paid Wall Street speeches were clearly signs of her corruption...and then it turned out she was using the platform to argue for promoting women in business and dreaming of a single hemisphere market for trade and energy. What a monster.
All of this talk, without the context of who paid him, or what he spoke about, is fucking ridiculous.
WALL STREET in not some singular, villainous entity.
Come on Americans, you can do better than this.
How the OP never got edited with that very information is beyond me.
No one, and yeah I support them as well.Who is saying repatriations shouldn't happen in here while criticizing Obama for doing this? I fully support repatriations, you're right that we owe black people far more.
No one, and yeah I support them as well.
And it's pretty sad people are going to such ridiculous lengths trying to hold people accountable for dumb shit other people have said, or that they are hypocrites because "well they wouldn't have a problem if Bernie did it" rather than respond to well reasoned arguments made here or present any evidence this is just based on some sort of Bernie apologist agenda.
People should be able to have criticism of something they don't like without that sort of personal attack or insinuation that there is an alternative motive going on here
I wonder what the content of these speeches are like. Just basic inspirational crap like you would hear at a college grad ceremony but framed for Wall St types?