jakonovski
Member
It's a .jpg image, it can not be animated no matter what you say.
Save image says what
It's a .jpg image, it can not be animated no matter what you say.
It's a .jpg image, it can not be animated no matter what you say.
It's a .jpg image, it can not be animated no matter what you say.
Is this why we lose? We've decided to demonize raising capitol for causes?
Republicans are building a diesel while we are arguing for water fueled and perpetual motion over hybrids.
Has he chosen a spot for his presidential library? I'm sure its between Chicago and Honolulu
You realize Hillary outspent Trump and she lost?
Is this why we lose? We've decided to demonize raising capitol for causes?
Republicans are building a diesel while we are arguing for water fueled and perpetual motion over hybrids.
The guy got millions in free media. An unprecedented amount actually.
Okay?
Huh?
400k? I spend that much in 15 minutes in Vegas. Bo-o-o-oring.
Resist temptation.Can I be your Vegas friend?
I hate to say it, but that makes him smart. If Hillary had more (any) charisma surely she wouldn't have had to spend as much.
Well I'll give Trump credit: part of his plan was always to take advantage of free media coverage. But the level in which he was successful in this regard was truly jaw dropping. By March 2016 the NYT had estimated that Trump's coverage came close to $2 billion in earned media coverage. It was remarkable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/...mps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0
And I'm sure any one of us can remember multiple occasions when one of the major news networks had their coverage dedicated to an empty Trump campaign podium while another candidate gave a speech at the bottom right hand corner of the screen.
I found myself spending time with people of means law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists, Senator Barack Obama wrote in his book The Audacity of Hope. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale.
He wrote in 2006: I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met. I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the people that Id entered public life to serve.
Is it a betrayal of that sentiment for the former president to have accepted a reported $400,000 to speak to a Wall Street firm? Perhaps not, but it is disheartening that a man whose historic candidacy was premised on a moral examination of politics now joins almost every modern president in cashing in. And it shows surprising tone deafness, more likely to be expected from the billionaires the Obamas have vacationed with these past months than from a president keenly attuned to the worries and resentments of the 99 percent.
...
Indeed, its the example he set that makes it jarring to see him conform to a lamentable post-presidential model created fairly recently, in historical terms. Since Gerald Ford enriched himself with speaking fees and board memberships after leaving office, every former president but Jimmy Carter has supped often at the corporate table. Its not beyond imagining that Mr. Obama could break with a practice whose ills he observed so astutely, and which contributed to the downfall of the Democrat he hoped would cement his legacy. The tens of millions that Hillary Clinton raised from speaking to corporate interests most likely haunts her now or should.
The Obamas are starting a foundation whose work will include training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America, Eric Schultz, an Obama adviser, said in a statement. President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time. Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision, and his record.
But why not elevate a new generation of political leaders and stay true to his values by giving his speech fees to his foundation and other charities focused on those goals?
The Democratic Party badly needs such an example to follow. As the presidential election clarified so painfully, the traditional party of working people has lost touch with them. In a poll released last week, more than two-thirds of voters, including nearly half of Democrats themselves, said the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of the American people. For the first time in memory, Democrats are seen as more out of touch with ordinary Americans than the partys political opponents. Theres little doubt that Democratic leaders unseemly attachment to the partys wealthiest donors contributed to that indictment.
From Mr. Obamas earliest days in government, he wrestled with what it means to be a representative public servant in an era of purchased influence. He didnt always make the right decisions, he acknowledged. Now, as he commits to building future American leaders, we have the audacity to hope hell set a higher standard for past presidents.
The NYT position seems to be that he should announce that this is his intention for speaking fees. From the disclosed Clinton tax returns, we know that less than 10% of their income was donated to charitable causes.He's dropping $2M helping Chicago youth get jobs. He used 9D chess to get Wall Street to help the disadvantaged by proxy.
It's different among black americans I think. We're happy that at least some of us 'made it'. Speaking for myself and from what I've seen, of course.
That's a JPG file, it can't animate. Just your eyes playing tricks =)
I hate this rat faced fuck
HAHAHAHAH
Chaffettz is going to pick a fight with the Master of Constitutional Law?
Suddenly a black man does it and "WOAH, HOLD THE PHONE, GUYS!"
You just described Obama's entire presidency.
Could they really fuck with Obama's pension like that? I can't see them being able to grandfather something like that