Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Is anyone going to a Climate March this weekend? I missed the Women's March so I'm excited to go to this one.
-
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.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
I think this thought process is dangerously tribal.
If Obama's doing a thing that's a bad idea then it's a bad idea. The possibility of Republicans criticizing him for that thing doesn't make it suddenly not a bad idea. That's the wrong message to take away from Trump.
Our responsibility is to be a party that cares about good governance and serving America. That doesn't mean letting our guys off with a pass because they're our guys. We should just have really good guys.
So on April 11 Chaffetz receives this letter from the DoD:
A week later he starts doing everything possible to get the fuck out of town ASAP.
The timeline is a little too perfect here.
What ties would chaffetz have to Flynn?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Weren't those last weekend on Earth Day?
At least that's when the March for Science in DC was.
illiniguy05
Member
i'll be there. DC.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
March for Science was a different thing, at least here. We had a March for Science last week here too.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Our responsibility is stopping the Republicans from destroying the healthcare system or reinstituting slavery or setting off Armageddon or whatever crazy terrible thing they get into their heads to do next. If that requires some tribalism, so be it.
I mean obviously the issue is that other people don't think it's a bad idea. Or leads to bad governance. Maybe. Maybe a little. I dunno. I haven't been to one of these speeches but I would probably want my employer to pay To get me access to one. Cuz I think it really is enriching.
Obama should probably donate the money tho.
Abinash117
Member
Well they lost seats while winning the Presidency( how often does that happen?), they never have been in a good position for a long time actually federal government wise. They are very united unless it is against a common enemy, but for a while they have been factionalized making them ineffective governing wise. It just seems everything is catching up to them.
The poster I'm responding to was literally making the argument that it didn't matter whether it was a bad idea or not, people shouldn't criticize it because the Republicans might benefit from it.
The question of whether it is a bad idea is a different topic! One which I've made my argument on already. And it kind of sounds like we agree on it! I think Obama should give the speech, just not keep the money.
Avoiding critiques of our own side does not help us oppose the Republicans or help us maintain political power once we get control back. It makes those things harder.
Poodlestrike
Banned
How so? Do you not think that Republicans being held to a lower standard by their base doesn't improve their media coverage and, correspondingly, chance of winning?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
The masochists' couscous?
BlastProcessing
Member
No ties per se. Chaffetz is responsible to investigating Flynn because he chairs Oversight. Chaffetz doesn't want to investigate his own party so he has been ignoring Flynn's super obvious violations. The DoD forced Chaffetz's hand when they told him that they were going forward with their own investigation.
I think once you tug this Flynn thread a bit, the whole sweater starts to unravel. More and more investigations would pop up that Chaffetz wouldn't be able to ignore. The DoD letter is the Yak fart that starts the avalanche and Chaffetz is desperately trying to get out of the way.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
We're either all going to die in hellfire or Trump is bluffing for no reason whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/jeffmason1/status/857760398166171648
CrimzonSamurai
Member
We'll be fine. South Korea won't.
China's not going to escalate to nuclear attacks on the US over North Korea.
As long as we don't cross the Yalu, anyway.
Should be illegal.
Last year the Republicans demonstrated that their lack of principles or positions beyond unfaltering opposition to everything Democrats do has made their party so weak they lost control of their own presidential primary.
They managed to win anyway through a combination of luck, Democratic malfeasance, and deep willingness on the part of most Americans to condone and normalize white supremacy. Since then they've been completely incapable of advancing any policy goals because their lack of character has left them with no clear goals to advance aside from increased racism. The odds are strong that they will lose much of their political power in the next four years.
This is not what political success looks like. We should not attempt to become them.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm not advocating we abandon our policy positions, if that's the impression you got from my first post. Just stuff like the speech money. The appearance of corruption without the fact of it is just not something we should be pushing our guys around on.
It's possible for us to become way more forgiving of our party's members "scandals" than we are now without totally losing track of who we are.
All the more reason to scrap medicaid.
Pigeon, just want to say I've been agreeing with pretty much all your posts the last few pages.
I've been lurking poliGAF since it was in regular off-topic (I don't think the community tabs even existed yet?) and there were still frequent conservative posters like ToxicAdam. Like middle of 2009.
I've been lurking poliGAF since it was in regular off-topic (I don't think the community tabs even existed yet?) and there were still frequent conservative posters like ToxicAdam. Like middle of 2009.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
As with all things in the law, it depends. Nearly every common-law jurisdiction has some kind of restriction against legal work by former judges but they vary greatly in terms of how far they go. The UK and Canada are generally much more strict than the US, but even then it varies a lot by state/province/etc. CA for example restricts the practice of law by former judges to arbitration/mediation but other states may allow a judge to perform anonymous legal work if they never appear in court or on legal documents. The original tradition was an absolute prohibition though:
There are also the Codes of Ethics/Conduct which former judges are subject to as well, but these tend to be more generically written. So while you may see a specific cooling-off period like "no relationship with any business or organization whose case you presided over for 3 years", it could just be a general reminder that a former judge is still subject to all the rules regarding impropriety and the appearance thereof. Enforcing violations of those kinds is more difficult and the potential punishment is largely professional (fines, suspension, disbarment). Where it gets difficult is when it involves non-legal related work which makes it a lot murkier and dependent on the ethical guidelines. There are a lot of cases where the spirit of the rule is clearly being broken but the judge gets away with it.
What's important about all of this is that it's about aspirational ideals; we want to build the political structure in such a way that we inure it against any potential external influence. Basically we don't want the Office of the President, or Supreme Court justices, to be put into positions or situations which will make their decisions seem less independent, fair, and proper. If a President knows that he can make millions of dollars after office, how might that consciously or unconsciously impact his decision-making during office? If a Supreme Court justice knows that they can be hired by a business they've ruled in favor of after they retire, how will that impact their decision making, both on the merits or otherwise (such as recusal)?
Judges generally have to give up any stock of companies they own if the case involves them or recuse themselves, but if they didn't have to do that it would fundamentally tarnish the process because you'll never be able to know whether the outcome would have been the same or not. Creating a system that reliably creates or allows for the appearance of impropriety is itself a bad thing that should be avoided whenever reasonably possible.
Fenderputty
Banned
The community here is solid, but a ton of old Poligaf posters that are no more are missed on my end. TA and PD are only a few.
He is Barack fucking Obama, the first black President of the United States
There are 6 Billion people in the world.
There's only one Barack Obama. Hence, he gets paid a shit-ton.
Here's the payroll of the Washington Nationals: http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/washington-nationals/payroll/ They get paid a metric ton too per game too. Because there's only one of them.
Are you kidding me?
He's the first ever black president of a prominent western nation. Ever. When he was born the I had a dream speech hadn't happened yet. The montgomery boycott had just ended three years prior. The civil rights act wasn't even a dot on anyone's mind.
He is one of the culmination of the last hundred years of civil rights activism. This doesn't not even get into the fucking mile long list of shit he has achieved as a community organizer, constitutional professor, and(because you seem to have forgotten this)first black major western leader. I would pay him three times that if I had the money.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
All else aside, I actually think he got underpaid. I was expecting a figure closer to $800k at least.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
For takes/commentary or just news?
Jamelle Bouie @jbouie
Catherine Rampell @crampell
Both or either.
17 Celebrities' Club Appearance Fees: Beyoncé, Kim Kardashian, & More 17 Celebrities' Club Appearance Fees: Beyoncé, Kim Kardashian, & More
Kim Kardashian earned $500,000 for a series of Las Vegas club appearances during the week of her 30th birthday, says Glamour.
Christina Aguilera, meanwhile, was paid $1 million for a one-hour Halloween performance in San Diego, per Glamour.
Barack Obama is decidedly more famous than anybody on this list.
And we're sneezing over $400,000? One of the many things that makes this debate silly is that, if Obama wanted, he could be charging even more. 400k is incredibly modest for someone of his stature.
Macho Madness
Member
What's silly is thinking there's nothing wrong with politicians cashing in on their public service
So you have a problem with the book deal, too?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Literally everything a former president does that earns him any income can be seen as "cashing in" on his public service.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
For just news I follow NPR, BBC, etc. I follow a couple NPR journalists too. Dave Weigel is a WaPo journalist I follow who gives opinions but doesn't seem (to me anyways) trying to push an ideology.
For data info/nerdy shit I follow Nate Silver, Harry Enten, and Nate Cohn.
For liberals I follow Matt Yglesias, Jeet Heer, Sarah Kliff, Elizabeth Plank, and Jon Lovett.
For leftists/socialists I follow both of the Bruenigs, Matt Karp, Sarah Jones, Matt Stoller (who isn't really a leftist but chills with this crowd), and Austin Walker (well I followed him for video games but stayed for the socialism). I've added a couple more to this list recently to try and make it more diverse but I'd hesitate to recommend people I haven't been following for long.
Macho Madness
Member
Less so. It's an obscene amount of money but it's hard to argue it's potentially corrupt.
How is it corrupt? The man going to speak on health care, healthcare that literally is named after him
"He could be cashing in way more!" is not really a good defense of cashing in.
Barack Obama isn't in office anymore.What exactly will he corrupt?
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Why are we still discussing this? They are worse things going on out there than what Obama wants to do on his own free time.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Like Trump saying war with north korea is a "major,major possibility"
And wants to renegotiate or terminate 'horrible' trade deal with South Korea, wants it to pay for $1-billion THAAD missile defense
Macho Madness
Member
Yes, there is nothing wrong with giving someone a lot of money to "give a speech" about an issue he still has the potential to effect.
Look, if Obama's speech is "single payer, fellas" then good. But I'm betting we'll never even find that out.
Because people are penny wise, pound foolish.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked