Because lefties like dying on symbolic ant hills.
-
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
Because lefties like dying on symbolic ant hills.
Ok I got you, forgot about "Deep State"
Small non-exhaustive list:
Wokeness
Jamelle Bouie
Tressie McPHD
Karnythia
Taniel
News
Steven Dennis
Dylan Scott
Dave Weigel
Garance Francke-Rute
Binyamin Applebaum
Robert Costa
Neoliberal Shills (i.e. mainstream Democrats or the like)
Matt Yglesias
Josh Barro
Jonathan Chait
Noah Smith
James Fallows
Brian Beutler
Jeet Heer
Conservatives That Can Help Provide Dissenting Opinions to Prevent Epistemic Closure Without Being Inherently Pro-Nazi
David Frum
Jennifer Rubin
Ross Douthat
I provide my own socialism on my Twitter feed so I don't currently have any socialists on it.
What a makes this potentially corrupt? Obama is a former President. He has no more actual influence.
The other thing that rubs me the wrong way about this debate, is that in order for it to make sense, you have to believe that Obama has water-thin principles to start with. That he is so easily corruptible on this subject, that all it would take is one incredibly-modest-for-his-stature speaking fee to have him go against his stated principles and suddenly start shilling for Wall Street. I mean, that would likely be bigger news than the money he was paid
And despite that being far-fetched, if you believe Obama is that weak, why would you care how he makes his money anyway?
How??? He' not in office. The controlling legislative party hates him. There's a growing wing in his own party who burns anyone(including him) that isn't pure. His greatest power is affecting public opinion and since the far left has done nothing but bitch about centrists not being able to control the discourse, they have no room to cry if they fail too.
Stop being scared of an old black man.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
And it's fricking Obama. The worst he can do is be disappointed in you.
If you think Obama doesn't still have full control over the Democratic Party, enough to single-handedly overturn a DNC candidate supported by literally every other leader in the party, you're living in a fantasy.
Obama is still the second most powerful politician in the country. At least.
The far left cannibalizes everyone and anyone because they're too whiny to realize they haven't had a national win since FDR.
Why would party leaders listen to him if it meant losing the election? Really now? Clinton didn't have that power or his wife would've been the 2008 primary winner, not him. Y'all so quick to hold someone or something as omnipotent.
Electric Eye
Banned
So the revised health bill is dead, shelved again. There won't be a vote Saturday. Sad.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
The Freedom Caucus/ Tea Party is a warning for the Democrats. We do not need that version in Congress for the Dems.
I agree.
One of the important failures that gave rise to the Tea Party was the decision by the conservative movement to overlook any and all flaws in their candidates and politicians as long as they were willing to angrily oppose the other party.
We should avoid doing that!
BoogieWoogie
Banned
This is just what's going to happen until the 2018 elections I guess? Constant swinging back to this every week only to puss out at the end because they'll never have the votes?
To be fair Obama is in the Black Fatherhood pantheon. With Uncle Phil, Joe West, and Carl from family matters. How would you feel if they were disappointed in you?
Macho Madness
Member
What does this even mean? Do you not want politicians to reflect your beliefs?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Sure, but why go out of our way to criticize perceived flaws in successful, popular, two-term ex-Presidents when we should be looking ahead?
I mean, like Liberal Icon Tulsi Gabbard.
Not to the point of being unable to work with members of their own caucus. When the differential in policy is marginal at best, and the outcome is similar enough, we should want people who will vote for good policy instead of splitting into whackadoo factions.
Like, the Republican healthcare effort is paralyzed because they can't agree on how to ruin healthcare. We can't get back in and try to fix Obamacare to achieve 100% coverage if 20 of the votes that we need and should have are holding out for single payer.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Even look at them now. There stopping any big legislation from getting out of the House without them making it worse.
There is a Black Fatherhood pantheon?
I mean I would feel scared to hell.
Then we, too, can be completely ineffective with control of the entire government!
Ya no. The Tea Party was more than willing to go after candidates with flaws, but it was flaws about their conservative purity, not moral shit. Their goal was to build up a pure distillation of what they wanted conservatism to be and they succeeded to everyone's detriment.
I don't know what you mean by this.
That is correct. Bill Clinton was not Barack Obama.
I mean, the DNC election just happened. There were plenty of news articles about it. Everybody liked Ellison. Barack didn't. So Barack single-handedly pushed Perez forward and made phone calls until his candidate won. While on vacation.
I'm not saying this is a problem necessarily, but it's dumb to pretend that Obama doesn't still have a ton of influence or that he doesn't use it and intend to keep using it.
The only way around that is to force every politician who leaves public office to be unemployed and poor for the rest of their lives as private citizens.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Luxuries like that done as a "business expense" are generally insanely high, largely because our tax code and general corporate structure hugely encourages it. In the world of "business expenses", that actually seems kinda cheap.
It's one of those things that just seems fundamentally wrong with our economic structure to me, though it's unclear if the alternatives are really any better.
Macho Madness
Member
You can't really say "Obama is worth a lot of money" and "Obama has no influence anymore" at the same time. It doesn't add up.
excelsiorlef
Member
OBAMA LITERALLY GETS TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE FOR HAVING PREVIOUSLY BEEN PRESIDENT.
There's a huge fucking gap here between "you don't need to take half a million dollars for doing nothing when already fabulously wealthy" and "politicians should starve in the street once they leave office." People need to stop pretending that gap doesn't exist because it's embarrassingly facile.
Macho Madness
Member
I think that's fair, and honestly what would probably end up happening. I'm not against negotiation, I just want the negotiation to start at a much better place than it has.
shinra-bansho
Member
Why is it less corrupt. His decisions affected Simon and Schuster or whatever too.
Maybe he's going to use his powers to help the publishing industry.
Maybe he's going to use his powers to help the publishing industry.
I mean it's always some massive boogie man tripping up the far left. I mean some of them are real the Kochs, Fox News, Corps but other times people make stuff up. The DNC prevented Bernie from winning not his ignoring the older black and female vote. The centrists are the reason why Wall Street is rampant when, as elections have shown us, if America actually wanted to get its corporatism fixed more people would be voting in far-left politicos into local/state/federal seats.
So the man who reigned over the economically good nineties, weathered a sex scandal with little issue, left office with a 66% approval rating, and didn't have to deal with half the racist shit Obama dealt with. Is less powerful than the no-name senator was in 2008? Really?
1. Source
2. Is it possible they just changed their minds on him?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I understand most of this, but why is it always the left's responsibility to compromise with the center? Turning people off for being too far left is always a concern but turning off the left for being too close to the center is something that the left also gets shamed for.
Sooooooo what? How are these two things correlated at all? Money doesn't always equal power.
...please don't tell me you think that's a lot of money for someone in his position?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Wait, Trump is planning on leaving NAFTA? WTF? Man, taking a week off from news for vacation puts you so far behind on news in the Trump era.
Anyhow, I agree NAFTA was a mistake, but pulling out of it now just deletes the good we got from it while doing nothing to reverse the destruction that has largely already occurred.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
So you're saying
certain people deserve more money just because of who they are
how will we ever reach a society where everyone is truly equal when we willingly elevate a few to be more privileged
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Because the majority of American voters are center-right or center-left? The primary system makes it easier for fringe candidates to get in, but it is possible to steal votes from more centrist members of the other party.
There's this persistent meme from the far left that there's some huge silent far left majority but there's no evidence that that is true. And even if it were it's going to be the type of people that would have voted Trump or Bernie but never Clinton because of social issues, and if we want to move economic and social issues forward progressive incrementalism is the best option.
I think it's less "who they are" and more "what they've done."
Interestingly, the presidential annuity was established for Harry Truman, who was having legit trouble making ends' meet in the 50s before he managed to write his memoirs. Congress created it as a favor to him.
shinra-bansho
Member
Because it's not always. You just perceive it to be as someone further left and below the drinking age.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
there's a lot of "far left" ideas that are really popular except with politicians and donors
Cutting military spending, for example, is the most popular way of raising revenue with people but the least popular with donors and isn't ever mentioned as an option in the media.
there's a really good soul_creator post (or maybe a few) about how most people's views about right vs center vs left aren't really representative of actual people's
hey now I'm 22
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
No, the liberal version of the Freedom Caucus does not represent my beliefs.
Simple. We won't.
You deserve to be able to live, eat, have a roof over your head. But a world where me and LeBron James get treated the same way in the NBA draft would be truly goddamn awful.
I mean, I was talking about any retiring public official, not just Obama/former presidents. But let my revise then: ex-presidents should not take or raise money at any point, because they're then cashing in on their public service.
(Also, 200k/year is a hell of a lot of money to me, but I have to imagine that for someone with the kind of work Obama is doing -- foundation, library, organizing, campaigning, traveling -- that salary would burn up pretty quickly?)
Next time you're angling for a promotion, I'd recommend not using this as an argument.
Macho Madness
Member
I'm glad you're equipped to handle the status quo.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
I would view being mentally equipped to handle any situation as a virtue, so thanks.
Honestly this shit is so stupid. You don't get to be superior just because you're further to the left than me. That argument doesn't even maintain a baseline level of internal logical consistency.
Why don't you move even further to the left than you are?
A 50% pay cut and you expect him to maintain an office and continue campaigning for the progressive agenda and candidates. He gets $96-150k a year for staff. Enough to hire 1 maybe 2 staffers? Where is he supposed to get the rest of the money?
It is a lot of money according to the actual way the world operates.
As I posted in the other thread, the median American income is $55,000 a year, and about 1% of Americans make $200,000 a year or more.
Obama gets that for doing nothing. (Also, in case people like forgot, he also has a $62 million book deal.)
If you want to convert that to a cash value, it's doable*, but frankly it's also irrelevant. Yes, if you have a guaranteed income higher than most human beings will ever make, you are wealthy. You don't get to say 'well, but I'm not wealthy because I WANT MORE MONEY."
If this is going to turn into one of those discussions about how New Yorkers who make $225,000 are actually poor because it's so expensive to live in Manhattan and own two Beamers, then Bonen is right, we should just eat the rich. I make a lot less than Obama does and I live extremely comfortably in very expensive places. I'm pretty rich. Obama is the same amount of rich as me, plus more, plus also 60 million dollars. He's very fucking rich. Just because you like him doesn't make that not true.
* The risk-free rate today (interest rate on three-month Treasury bills) is 0.82%. Let's call that 1%.
So in order to get a risk-free income of $200,000 a year, you'd need a nest egg of approximately $20 million. That's ignoring inflation -- in TIPS it would presumably be more. Also you probably can't actually just buy a magical fund that just rolls over three-month treasury bills for life. So it would probably cost more.
shinra-bansho
Member
"Deserves" is an emotional judgement. But I mean well yes. In the world we live in certain people, skills, experiences are worth more money.
We can aim to regulate that, curtail that. But the overall premise isn't changing anytime soon.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Sure, but people don't vote on any of those single issues. If I'm a hardcore fiscal conservative I'm answering that question that I want to cut military spending, but if I'm also an evangelical Christian who dislikes gays and abortion and Muslim immigrants I'm still voting Republican. But if I'm for cutting military spending but not gutting the financial sector and either don't care or am fairly liberal on social issues (let's say like, civil unions or some shit like that) then I might vote Dem instead of for the guy who cuts military spending but wants to mandate conversion therapy.
You have the capability of growing the biggest tent with a more center-left approach than a far-left one, at least as a complete package. Not that many voters outside of Evangelicals are single-issue and it's best to have your party ranks have something for everyone instead of that.
I mean, if you're a far-left single issue voter who wants Wall Street burned to the ground but aren't as concerned about racial or gender equality then you've still got the best bet voting (D).
Or y'know buy some quartz at a music festival and vote for Stein.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
not to be too much of a pedant but the 1% is about 450k+ a year
200k/year I think is about the top 5%
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Thus the 200k a year and free secret service for the rest of their lives
I'm not saying in terms of job placements, IE I'm not saying john doe who weights 300 pounds should be considered in the draft the same as lebron james, but this is on someone who has done his service and gets a nice yearly pension afterwards deserving even more.
Like, I get the criticisms of Obama taking Wall Streets money when he has probably more than enough to live a comfy life forever. And in that case, more purity tests are just going to be a thing? "Why should Obama help us out in the DNC when he just takes wall streets filthy money"?
Not saying Optics matter that much but
Optics matter that much. See:Election and all the shit they stuck onto Clinton.
Right. Like, I'd rather choose a world where every family is guaranteed a home and education support instead of a world where one can leverage their societal positions to make millions.
It'll probably be a century before real change happens but well, it's nice to dreap.
The money to pay for President Clinton's staffers does not come from his personal account.
Yes it does. Everything above 96k
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-249.pdf
Travel expenses are also limited to 2 staffers
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked