• 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.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PBY

Banned
kirblar said:
After seeing Obama's upcoming HC Speech come up on Fox News and be used an excuse to bash him with pretty much the same talking points as the far left, that part of this article really resonated. (I'd post it in the dedicated thread if it were on the front page, but I'd rather not dredge that monstrosity up.)

The Far Left Is Still Out Of Touch With Black Voters
Click to expand...

This is a bad article. Paints with a huge broad brush, doesn't attempt to define the "far left", etc. Trash.
 
P

PBY

Banned
B-Dubs said:
If you're going to complain about optics then you have to take complaints about optics seriously.
Click to expand...

I do take those complaints (which is bizarre because i'm a capital L Lib, not a leftist). The article is just really poorly sourced, doesn't make a cohesive argument about who the "Far Left" and overstates their argument.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
B-Dubs said:
You're kinda missing the point. In 2012 these critiques weren't really mainstream. For better or worse they came into the mainstream in the last election and the optics don't look good. This last cycle is the first time a lot of people got exposed to that critique. If you're going to complain about optics, which is what complaining about paid speeches is, then you have to be willing to acknowledge complaints about optics about your complaints about optics. And the optics are that this wasn't really a thing until the woman and the black man started taking advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. There's also the other problem: the optics of one trying to label the people closer to you as both racist and misogynist. Unless you got damn good evidence that that's what a significant amount of them are (at which point one wonders why they aint voting republican)...i'm not sure that's a good idea. Sure will be seen as nothing more than a way to get them to shut the fuck up about their concerns, tho.

The point about TYT is quite valid, fwiw (and also served to teach me that louie never stayed out of the republican party, as he said he would all them years ago). About Bernie...eh, the Left was attacking him as soon as he said he'd run as a democrat.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Coriolanus said:
Fair enough. There's also the other problem: the optics of one trying to label the people closer to you as both racist and misogynist. Unless you got damn good evidence that that's what a significant amount of them are (at which point one wonders why they aint voting republican)...i'm not sure that's a good idea.
Click to expand...

I mean, no one's saying they are racist and misogynist though. You can be a bit blind when it comes to critiques like that and not be a racist or misogynist. That's the whole idea of privilege.

Which is kind of an odd thing for me to be typing considering I can't always see past my own privilege but here we are.

PBY said:
First off, the race point is totally valid. Go back and read my posts during the primary, I definitely agree that certain elements in the DSA/leftist wing ignore POC/womens/non-binary issues wholesale.

Second, the Obama point re race/history of presidents is totally true. I think the counter to that is that I believe there was a sea-change following 2008, and we're still feeling the impact of the financial crisis, to the extent that old norms no longer apply. If the Dems want to be the party of the common worker in America and stand up to institutions like Wall Street, this kind of stuff does matter.

Third, its not a big deal.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Obama, he's speaking at a conference on healthcare that's being thrown by a Wall Street firm. It's an important issue to him and this puts him in a position to make his case to a bunch of people with money and power. He changes five minds in that room and all of a sudden future healthcare reform has 5 new wealthy backers to help get people elected.
 
P

PBY

Banned
First off, the race point is totally valid. Go back and read my posts during the primary, I definitely agree that certain elements in the DSA/leftist wing ignore POC/womens/non-binary issues wholesale.

Second, the Obama point re race/history of presidents is totally true. I think the counter to that is that I believe there was a sea-change following 2008, and we're still feeling the impact of the financial crisis, to the extent that old norms no longer apply. If the Dems want to be the party of the common worker in America and stand up to institutions like Wall Street, this kind of stuff does matter.

Third, its not a big deal.
 
P

PBY

Banned
B-Dubs said:
In fairness to Obama, he's speaking at a conference on healthcare that's being thrown by a Wall Street firm. It's an important issue to him and this puts him in a position to make his case to a bunch of people with money and power. He changes five minds in that room and all of a sudden future healthcare reform has 5 new wealthy backers to help get people elected.
Click to expand...

I'm not a wall street hardliner (I work in finance lol). I'm just considered with the Dems getting better, learning, and winning in the future. It makes sense that he'd do this, and I get why he is - still don't think its a great look.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
1) Racism, Sexism, etc. are spectrum not binary. You can be liberal in a lot of respects but still have serious blind spots with regards to those topics. "Diet Racism" is a term that exists for a reason.

2) The premise is less "far left is so racist/sexist!" but rather their inability to talk to women/PoC which they don't seem to be doing a good job correcting. If they want to get their policy agendas into law, you need Democratic votes. Most Democratic voters are women and PoC. If you can't talk to them, you aren't getting their votes. Screaming "WALL STREET" all the time is going to fall on deaf ears with those groups.

FWIW, I think both sides of the "Obama gets speaking fees - is that ok?" issue have good points. That being said, I know a lot of Black people who are seeing the same optics mentioned in that article and are "suspicious" of the timing.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
PBY said:
I'm not a wall street hardliner (I work in finance lol). I'm just considered with the Dems getting better, learning, and winning in the future. It makes sense that he'd do this, and I get why he is - still don't think its a great look.
Click to expand...

I think part of the issue is how this is being put out there. Had he been the one to make the announcement he'd have led with "healthcare conference" instead of "wall street" and it probably wouldn't have turned into such a big thing. Probably something he's already figured out for the future though.

Dominican Power said:
I wonder if everyone in D.C. irl are dicks like they show depicts.
Click to expand...

Apparently, yes. To a certain degree.
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
Haven't watched in awhile but is Sean Spicer still doing that shit where he calls on Skype people? I remember it stopped when even those folks started turning on him.
 
S

Slayven

Member
kirblar said:
After seeing Obama's upcoming HC Speech come up on Fox News and be used an excuse to bash him with pretty much the same talking points as the far left, that part of this article really resonated. (I'd post it in the dedicated thread if it were on the front page, but I'd rather not dredge that monstrosity up.)

The Far Left Is Still Out Of Touch With Black Voters
Click to expand...

Good article highlighting what I saw yesterday on twitter. Black voices getting hit with "actually it is about wallstreet".
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
BoogieWoogie said:
Haven't watched in awhile but is Sean Spicer still doing that shit where he calls on Skype people? I remember it stopped when even those folks started turning on him.
Click to expand...

I watched a bit of it today and I think he did stop. Then again I turned it off as soon as he started blaming Obama for Flynn.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
I don't think it is far left. More specifically, it is left-wing people whom are more concerned with economic issues( rather I think it is more about expanding welfare and introducing more regulations on Wall street.) .

Far left is a too board of a term for the discussion. I think people( like the guy from the article) aren't getting the terminologies right, since everyone use same terms with different meanings.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
I still vaguely resent people giving Bernie Bros the title of progressive or far left tbh.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's weird to me that people are referring to this critique as coming from the far left at all when the articles I'm seeing are from Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro.

Once again, I feel like there's an effort to marginalize this critique by painting it as a Clinton/Bernie issue. Some things can actually just be a bad idea and not relate to the 2016 campaign. Relatedly, Sanders can just be kind of a hypocrite and The Young Turks can be absolute trash without that really being connected to whether it's a good idea for Obama to do this speech or whether he's absurdly rich or not.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
pigeon said:
I mean, it's weird to me that people are referring to this critique as coming from the far left at all when the articles I'm seeing are from Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro.

Once again, I feel like there's an effort to marginalize this critique by painting it as a Clinton/Bernie issue. Some things can actually just be a bad idea and not relate to the 2016 campaign. Relatedly, Sanders can just be kind of a hypocrite and The Young Turks can be absolute trash without that really being connected to whether it's a good idea for Obama to do this speech or whether he's absurdly rich or not.
Click to expand...

This.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Coriolanus said:
Fair enough. There's also the other problem: the optics of one trying to label the people closer to you as both racist and misogynist. Unless you got damn good evidence that that's what a significant amount of them are (at which point one wonders why they aint voting republican)...i'm not sure that's a good idea. Sure will be seen as nothing more than a way to get them to shut the fuck up about their concerns, tho.
Click to expand...

Eh.

To be honest, if people want to say that I'm being racist for thinking Obama shouldn't do this speech...I guess that's fine with me? I understand where the thought process is coming from. I don't think I'm being racist but obviously I would say that, right. I mostly just think I was wrong not to be mad about it in the past and I fucked up.

Getting offended and defensive about people calling you out is unproductive whether or not you think the specific people doing it are right in this instance. Ultimately you've just got to try to fight for social justice as best you can and let people judge you over the course of your lifetime rather than off of individual moments where you may or may not have agreed.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
pigeon said:
I mean, it's weird to me that people are referring to this critique as coming from the far left at all when the articles I'm seeing are from Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro.

Once again, I feel like there's an effort to marginalize this critique by painting it as a Clinton/Bernie issue. Some things can actually just be a bad idea and not relate to the 2016 campaign. Relatedly, Sanders can just be kind of a hypocrite and The Young Turks can be absolute trash without that really being connected to whether it's a good idea for Obama to do this speech or whether he's absurdly rich or not.
Click to expand...

The timing of the critique isn't that great is the point people are making. Like I said the other day, I generally didn't make this argument before because I knew it wasn't like that with you guys but it's very easy to see how the complaints can be taken this way.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
B-Dubs said:
The timing of the critique isn't that great is the point people are making. Like I said the other day, I generally didn't make this argument before because I knew it wasn't like that with you guys but it's very easy to see how the complaints can be taken this way.
Click to expand...

Sure, I guess. I get what you mean about optics. I don't think my critique here is actually about optics so I am not concerned about the optics of my critique! But I acknowledge the logic of your position as well, especially for people who are primarily concerned about optics.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
pigeon said:
Sure, I guess. I get what you mean about optics. I don't think my critique here is actually about optics so I am not concerned about the optics of my critique! But I acknowledge the logic of your position as well, especially for people who are primarily concerned about optics.
Click to expand...

I mean, you've got a very different critique on this than pretty much everyone else.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Abinash117 said:
I think people( like the guy from the article) aren't getting the terminologies right, since everyone use same terms with different meanings.
Click to expand...

To be blunt, this is deliberate. People use "progressive," "centrist," "neoliberal," "far left," etc. not as meaningful categories but as rhetorical markers for abusing enemies and identifying personal priorities.

It's very annoying! And don't get me started on "leftist" vs "liberal." Motherfuckers forgot about Hobbes.

I am trying to say things like "class-focused" or "race-focused" or "very small group of angry class-only Bernie supporters" instead because they're actually meaningful descriptors that are less likely to rake people into categories they don't identify with at random. I think I mostly got this from reading sphagnum's posts.
 
K

kirblar

Member
pigeon said:
To be blunt, this is deliberate. People use "progressive," "centrist," "neoliberal," "far left," etc. not as meaningful categories but as rhetorical markers for abusing enemies and identifying personal priorities.

It's very annoying! And don't get me started on "leftist" vs "liberal." Motherfuckers forgot about Hobbes.

I am trying to say things like "class-focused" or "race-focused" or "very small group of angry class-only Bernie supporters" instead because they're actually meaningful descriptors that are less likely to rake people into categories they don't identify with at random. I think I mostly got this from reading sphagnum's posts.
Click to expand...
I'd be down with populist left, it'd help make the overlap issues w/ the populist right easier to talk about.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Is the complaint about Obama being paid that

a) he's being influenced
b) he's getting money for little work
c) that the optics are bad

?

If it's b), then what's the cutoff? How much should one get paid for a speaking engagement?

If it's c), what's the moral outrage, and why aren't we even more upset that people thing it's a problem if it isn't?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
Is the complaint about Obama being paid that

a) he's being influenced
b) he's getting money for little work
c) that the optics are bad

?

If it's b), then what's the cutoff? How much should one get paid for a speaking engagement?

If it's c), what's the moral outrage, and why aren't we even more upset that people thing it's a problem if it isn't?
Click to expand...

The complaint is that ethical behavior requires avoiding situations that could lead to undue influence, even if we don't actually believe there is undue influence in this case, because we should have a clear norm in favor of unquestionably ethical choices.

Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.

The amount of money and amount of work are related to the potential for undue influence here.

The Clintons are a good example of the problem here, in that, although in general I don't believe that MOST things the Clintons did were unethical, there are a few things where even I kind of think they're guilty, and it's unquestionable that in general they made no particular effort to make clear to people that their actions were ethical. This is bad for them politically. It's also bad for us politically, both because we become associated with them, and because our ethical positions become tainted by our efforts to defend the Clintons in what is essentially an indefensible position.

Straight up, on ethical issues specifically, nominating Clinton helped normalize Trump. Trump is obviously guilty of many ethical violations. Was it really correct for us to respond by nominating a candidate that could only be described as "probably not guilty of all but a few ethical violations?"*

I am one of the people who spent the last year arguing that it was correct. I thought "HILLARY CLINTON - A CRIMINAL FOR AMERICA" was a funny line!

In retrospect I don't just think I was wrong, I think it was bad for me. I think my moral sense was less effective because of the responsibility I felt to defend a candidate that I believed would be a good president but did not really believe was fundamentally that ethical or interested in being perceived as ethical. I should've had more doubts.

This is me having doubts! Obama should do better. He shouldn't just be ethical -- I trust him to be ethical. He should be extremely visibly and obviously ethical and to the extent that it is possible act to remove any conceivable doubt of his ethical behavior. Not because he's Obama, but because we should have expected the Clintons to do better. Once again, if your pitch is that you're focused on honest governance, you have to be focused on honest governance all the time, not just when you're in office.



* Specifically -- Juanita Broadderick (I believe there's at least probable cause to investigate), and the cattle futures (I straight up believe they're just 100% guilty here and it's actually hard for me to see how people can believe otherwise).
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
B-Dubs said:
And the optics are that this wasn't really a thing until the woman and the black man started taking advantage of it.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone cares about a white woman or a biracial man giving speeches to folks doing the right thing. Moreover, I doubt anyone one cares about elites (who claim they're against the fat cats) talking to firms that inspire and are leaving the world better than they found it.

People get hot and bothered when you're speaking to crowds almost certainly filled with folks that prey on minorities, foreclose on families, and have found their calling peddling snake oil at your expense. Give me a break that the blowback is being driven by sexism and racism...

Critics are the racists and sexists yet the audience of Hillary's Goldman speech (as an example) are the main ones who couldn't care less about the lives of blacks or women in order to make a buck. Zero value. They certainly aren't losing sleep over the optics of anyone harmed by their schemes. The most dangerous racist isn't necessarily the man wearing a hood over his head. It's the man who discriminates against you as he signs you up for a loan with a smile on his face.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
So, c)?

We don't think Obama is doing anything unethical, but it might appear that he is?

I can't get behind that. Not when the reaction is without a hint of investigation or even *asking* him if the money is going to a cause. (And I phrase that a particular way, because the argument that he should have proactively announced that assumes he had any inkling that this was going to go public when it did, when apparently the deal isn't even made yet.)

I feel that at the end of the day, this equates to trying to reason with a mob. Can't be done. Obama had 8 years of scandal-free presidency (it's been a while since that happened!) and one step like this and people pounce.

The message isn't the content of the complaint (being paid a lot) it's the nature of the pounce. That's what that article gets right.

The Democrats are never going to win much of anything again if we're so ready to pounce on some of our best over what is objectively nothing.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
So, c)?

We don't think Obama is doing anything unethical, but it might appear that he is?
Click to expand...

No.

I'm pretty sure I'm extremely explicit in my post that this is not about optics.

Optics and appearances of ethical behavior are not the same thing. Frankly, that confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, is a great example of exactly what I'm concerned about here.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
pigeon said:
No.

I'm pretty sure I'm extremely explicit in my post that this is not about optics.

Optics and appearances of ethical behavior are not the same thing. Frankly, that confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, is a great example of exactly what I'm concerned about here.
Click to expand...

In what way could a post President appear to be doing something unethical? What you describe sounds exactly like optics. The Clinton examples have no bearing, Obama is not a future office seeker.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
This is an amazing bit of reporting that everyone should read.

Buzzfeed: The Convicted Con Artist of Mar-a-lago

Ari Rinkus was convicted of two felonies, owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to his victims, and has a documented habit of lying. But he’s got one big thing going for him: a wife with an important job at Donald Trump’s favorite retreat. And Rinkus is playing that for all it’s worth.
Click to expand...

An admitted fraudster who owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to his victims has had access to President Donald Trump through his wife, who is the guest reception manager of Mar-a-Lago, the Winter White House.

Heather Rinkus is such a familiar figure at Mar-a-Lago that senior administration officials fondly call her the club’s “house mother.” Her husband, Ari, is often on hand, too. There he was in February, waiting to greet President Trump in the special access area on the tarmac of Palm Beach International Airport, a few yards away from Air Force One.

But it wasn’t that long ago that Ari, whose real name is Anthony Donald Rinkus, pleaded guilty in federal court to felony wire fraud for a complex financial con job.

That guilty plea came on the heels of a previous one in state court for conducting a car-theft ring.

In fact, Rinkus was still on probation for his earlier crime when he stood to hear his sentence for the Ponzi scheme. "I can't imagine a worse combination of situations, to be knowing that you just contracted a state felony, that you're on probation for it, and then to step into a whole new fraud," federal Judge Robert Jonker said before he ordered Rinkus to serve three years behind bars.
Click to expand...

The tale of the Rinkus couple — one a repeat felon and the other a Trump employee who interacts regularly with top government officials — raises the curtain on the way Trump’s sprawling business holdings can sweep minor figures into his political orbit. For a man with a serious criminal record, Ari Rinkus has been in remarkably close proximity to the president. He has parlayed that access — and the perception of access — to his own advantage, sources said, while pursuing potentially lucrative government contracts on behalf of a foreign company.
Click to expand...

Earlier this month, Ari Rinkus arrived at Frigate’s — a bar that sits on a canal in North Palm Beach — in a black Chevrolet Suburban. It’s a step down from the Bentley he used to drive, but the new car is part of his “security” job, he told BuzzFeed News. On his collar he wore a pin emblazoned with the Secret Service logo, and Rinkus had a story to go with it.

He recently got pulled over by a young cop, he said. But after he handed over his driver’s license and dared the cop to look him up, the cop returned, apologized, and let him off with just a warning. Rinkus laughed as he finished up the story, and when asked if the cop let him off because he’s affiliated with the Secret Service, he answered, “Yes.”

Pressed for more details on his role in the Secret Service, he said, “I can’t talk about that,” but added that he didn’t just find the pin lying around in the trash.
Click to expand...

Of the people conned through the Atlas Fund, Rinkus owed John Burbine, 51, of Key West, Florida, and his wife Stephanie Bartley the most money: $200,420 in restitution.

Burbine told BuzzFeed News he fell for the scheme because Rinkus “seemed like a normal person.”

"He was good at what he did. He played the part — walked the walk, talked the talk,” Burbine said. “And then he took my money."

Burbine was shocked to learn of Rinkus’s connection to Trump: “What? The president of the United States?”
Click to expand...

Originally from Michigan, where the Rinkuses met and fell in love, and where Ari first went to prison, Heather worked there for the DeVoses’ Amway Hotel Corporation as a front desk supervisor for six years years and later as a nanny, according to her LinkedIn page. When the Rinkuses first moved to the Palm Beach area, two sources said, they brought up the DeVos family name. A spokesman for the family said the DeVoses had no personal relationship with Heather or Ari Rinkus. Betsy DeVos, daughter-in-law of Amway cofounder Richard DeVos, now serves as secretary of education.

In a brief telephone interview, Heather Rinkus kept repeating “I have no information on that” in response to a series of questions, including how long she worked at Mar-a-Lago and whether the Amway Hotel Corporation had helped her land the job. She ended the interview by hanging up.
Click to expand...

In interviews, four people said Ari Rinkus, who was going by “Ari Rink” at the time, pitched them on proposals that would benefit from his wife getting the Mar-a-Lago job and having access to wealthy members — and to Trump. “He kept saying, ‘Once my wife gets that job, I’ll have all the connections for you,’” said one of the sources, a person who has worked closely with Rinkus. All four of the sources requested anonymity because they said they fear Rinkus could hurt their businesses or careers. They all said they had known him for, at minimum, nearly a year.
Click to expand...

And the cherry to top it all off

Then, he offered a deal: If BuzzFeed News would drop this story, he would offer up an exclusive interview with Securablinds executives.
Click to expand...

Ari Rinkus now takes his place beside Carter Page as the two most Coen Brothers-esque motherfuckers in Trumpland.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
So, c)?

We don't think Obama is doing anything unethical, but it might appear that he is?

I can't get behind that. Not when the reaction is without a hint of investigation or even *asking* him if the money is going to a cause. (And I phrase that a particular way, because the argument that he should have proactively announced that assumes he had any inkling that this was going to go public when it did, when apparently the deal isn't even made yet.)

I feel that at the end of the day, this equates to trying to reason with a mob. Can't be done. Obama had 8 years of scandal-free presidency (it's been a while since that happened!) and one step like this and people pounce.

The message isn't the content of the complaint (being paid a lot) it's the nature of the pounce. That's what that article gets right.

The Democrats are never going to win much of anything again if we're so ready to pounce on some of our best over what is objectively nothing.
Click to expand...

What you're missing is that we don't point this out to "pounce" on him; we point this out to fucking make the party better so that we can maybe win?
 
R

RustyNails

Member
That statement from Obama's press guy is the same thing Hillary repeated for million times during the election. It doesn't work. I'm all for Obama making money but my dude stay the fuck away from Wall Street.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
chadskin said:
C-bBWYuXYAAQREo.jpg
Click to expand...
So THIS is why he randomly offered the AP person a coke in the middle of their interview. He was trying to set up his own joke, but instead he just looked like a moron saying that with no context.
 
K

kirblar

Member
PBY said:
What you're missing is that we don't point this out to "pounce" on him; we point this out to fucking make the party better so that we can maybe win?
Click to expand...
And some of us vehemently disagree that bowing to populists actually makes the party better.

You might not mean to be doing it, but when you and Fox News are both attacking him on this, it's a terrible look.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Ignatz Mouse said:
In what way could a post President appear to be doing something unethical?
Click to expand...

Lots of ways. Most obviously, Obama could have deliberately advanced policies favorable to certain companies while in office, building a positive relationship with them that they are paying off now.

As I noted, I don't believe that Obama did do this. I believe that taking buckraking gigs like this, and suggesting that such gigs are acceptable and should be normalized, opens the door to unethical behavior. The reason we don't believe Obama did this is that we trust him, not because he's choosing to behave in such a way as to make it implausible to level this critique at him. Obama should take responsibility for changing this norm in the Democratic party.

Ignatz Mouse said:
What you describe sounds exactly like optics.
Click to expand...

What does optics mean to you?

Do you believe that all questions of appearances are always and forever fundamentally meaningless?

If next year the Democrats want to run a candidate who was found not guilty of murder on a technicality, is that fine with you because he's not guilty so ultimately it's just optics?

When George Washington chose to step down after two terms and take no part in partisan politics going forward, was that a meaningless choice as a founding father because it was just optics?

Do you believe that it is important to have, not just ethical behavior, but ethical rules that ensure that unethical behavior does not become normalized or accepted?

Ignatz Mouse said:
The Clinton examples have no bearing, Obama is not a future office seeker.
Click to expand...

As long as Obama is a powerbroker in the Democratic Party, he is a politician. His likelihood of running for office in future is not relevant to his ability to exert influence, change perceptions and advance policy goals.

kirblar said:
And some of us vehemently disagree that bowing to populists actually makes the party better.
Click to expand...

Ethics should not be a populist issue.

kirblar said:
You might not mean to be doing it, but when you and Fox News are both attacking him on this, it's a terrible look.
Click to expand...

I mean, I don't control what Fox News does. If they're attacking him for it because he's uppity, obviously that's bad and I disavow it. But this really is just a guilt by association argument.
 
P

PBY

Banned
kirblar said:
And some of us vehemently disagree that bowing to populists actually makes the party better.

You might not mean to be doing it, but when you and Fox News are both attacking him on this, it's a terrible look.
Click to expand...

Simple question, yes or no - do you think Obama doing this helps the Democratic party win future elections?
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
PBY said:
Simple question, yes or no - do you think Obama doing this helps the Democratic party win future elections?
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters. I bet in six months Obama's approval ratings will be the same or better than they are now.

Plus, I also don't think it's unethical to take a below market rate as a speaking fees. I mean, I could understand the outrage if Obama was getting a position on the board of Goldman Sachs or something.

Also, by this measure, we can never nominate anybody from the north east ever again, since I guarantee you for instance that Senator Gillibrand has taken more than 400k from employees of the most evil place on the planet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
58K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
2K
stuminus3 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
3K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom