Obama to net $400K for Wall Street speech

ttystikk · Apr 26, 2017

UncleBuck said:
the burden of proof is on you to prove the illegality, otherwise it is not a bribe.

there is no burden of proof on me until you do that.

don't blur the definitions of words. idiots do that.

This comment was made at the beginning of the thread in response to corporations 'donating' large sums to both candidates and the whole bribery conversation about Obama's speaking fees broke out in the interim.

I stand by the former, not the latter.

Making a bribe legal doesn't change it. Only idiots think that spending millions on campaigns doesn't get the donor special consideration.

SneekyNinja · Apr 26, 2017

UncleBuck said:
the burden of proof is on you to prove the illegality, otherwise it is not a bribe.

there is no burden of proof on me until you do that.

don't blur the definitions of words. idiots do that.

The financial institution totally don't sell tickets to the dinners the speakers perform at or anything.

The regressive left fails to understand it's profitable for everyone involved
...so they make it happen.

UncleBuck · Apr 26, 2017

ttystikk said:
This comment was made at the beginning of the thread in response to corporations 'donating' large sums to both candidates and the whole bribery conversation about Obama's speaking fees broke out in the interim.

I stand by the former, not the latter.

Making a bribe legal doesn't change it. Only idiots think that spending millions on campaigns doesn't get the donor special consideration.

get used to the fact that well educated employees of CORPORATIONS! BIG CORPORATIONS! BAD CORPORATIONS! who live in diverse cities will donate millions and millions of dollars to democratic candidates. that does not mean that democrats are the party trying to loosen regulations on them. the opposite is true.

it's only a bribe if it's illegal or dishonest. there are millions of employees of BIG BAD CORPORATIONS who donates hundreds of millions of dollars to democrats every cycle. they do it not because they are ELITISTS! with big bad salaries, but because they belive in a leftist or even moderately left view. does not make them ESTABLISHMENT! at all.

and idiots are starting threads about president obama getting paid for a speech while the state department is using taxpayer dollars to promote mar-a-lago on a government website. whoever started this thread is a fucking idiot.

ttystikk · Apr 26, 2017

UncleBuck said:
get used to the fact that well educated employees of CORPORATIONS! BIG CORPORATIONS! BAD CORPORATIONS! who live in diverse cities will donate millions and millions of dollars to democratic candidates. that does not mean that democrats are the party trying to loosen regulations on them. the opposite is true.

it's only a bribe if it's illegal or dishonest. there are millions of employees of BIG BAD CORPORATIONS who donates hundreds of millions of dollars to democrats every cycle. they do it not because they are ELITISTS! with big bad salaries, but because they belive in a leftist or even moderately left view. does not make them ESTABLISHMENT! at all.

and idiots are starting threads about president obama getting paid for a speech while the state department is using taxpayer dollars to promote mar-a-lago on a government website. whoever started this thread is a fucking idiot.

Straw man argument? I'm on record as saying I have nothing against corporations, only their ability to shovel cash into our political system.

I agree it must be done systemically.

Bribes are made illegal because of their ability to give special privileges to those who do it.

Legalizing the behavior does not alter its effects, which is to gain special access at the expense of others.

Corporate campaign cash, especially that which need not be disclosed, certainly meets the definition.

SunnyJim · Apr 26, 2017

Unclebaldrick said:
It's not unusual...

Haven't finished reading thread, not sure if this card has been played yet:

Padawanbater2 · Apr 26, 2017

ttystikk said:
Straw man argument? I'm on record as saying I have nothing against corporations, only their ability to shovel cash into our political system.

I agree it must be done systemically.

Bribes are made illegal because of their ability to give special privileges to those who do it.

Legalizing the behavior does not alter its effects, which is to gain special access at the expense of others.

Corporate campaign cash, especially that which need not be disclosed, certainly meets the definition.

So why can't these employees of corporations donate the legal amount like everyone else? Why go through the corporation?

If I give you $100, and Buck gives you $10, whose interests are you more likely to represent?

Buck knows if we reform campaign finance, establishment Democrats like Manchin will lose because they're propped up by corporate money, not their constituents. If we ensure corporations can only legally donate the same amount as individuals, it would remove the incentive for politicians to represent corporations.

Keep in mind, these corporations are entities like Walmart who have a vested interest in a low minimum wage for their workers. ExxonMobil who have a vested interest in injecting doubt into the climate change argument and who are represented in government by people like Lamar Alexander who was the 5th US Secretary of Education and currently chairs the subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, James Inhofe who chairs the Senate Environment Committee. But there's totally no way the money these corporations give to politicians like this influence their votes in government! How preposterous is that! These companies totally spend these completely legal donations because they're just so nice! They totally don't expect anything in return. I mean, that might be both illegal and immoral under an independent review... But not under US law. I mean, has there ever been a law enacted by the US that was immoral? I can't think of one..

Critically politically naive. Nothing more need be said.

Racist!

dagwood45431 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
Why would Cantor pay Obama $400K for a speech?

Publicity/advertising/credibility. Money well spent.

dagwood45431 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
I think it's pretty obvious it's repayment for a service during Obama's administration.

You're reaching for it...

Padawanbater2 · Apr 26, 2017

dagwood45431 said:
Publicity/advertising/credibility. Money well spent.

In other words, they were expecting something in return..

Padawanbater2 · Apr 26, 2017

dagwood45431 said:
You're reaching for it...

I hope you feel the same way when Trump is up to bat next

srh88 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
In other words, they were expecting something in return..

A speech.

UncleBuck · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
In other words, they were expecting something in return..

there is nothing illegal or dishonest about paying for publicity, advertising, or credibility though. hence you have misused simple words yet again because you are a fucking unhinged moron.

dagwood45431 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
In other words, they were expecting something in return..

dagwood45431 said:
Publicity/advertising/credibility.

Why the need for "other words" and what's wrong with expecting publicity/advertising/credibility in return?

Padawanbater2 · Apr 26, 2017

dagwood45431 said:
Why the need for "other words" and what's wrong with expecting publicity/advertising/credibility in return?

How do you know that's why Cantor is willing to pay the $400K price? "publicity/advertising/credibility"?

UncleBuck · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
How do you know that's why Cantor is willing to pay the $400K price? "publicity/advertising/credibility"?

just need to check in and see how your grasp on reality is doing: what basic shape does the earth most resemble?

what should one expect when one orders a "cheese" pizza?

dagwood45431 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
I hope you feel the same way when Trump is up to bat next

Trump is obviously a corrupt shitstain. Accepting speaking fees after he leaves office will not contribute to that one bit.

Padawanbater2 · Apr 26, 2017

dagwood45431 said:
Trump is obviously a corrupt shitstain. Accepting speaking fees after he leaves office will not contribute to that one bit.

Is there any way accepting such an exorbitant price tag to give a speech could legitimately be construed as accepting a bribe?

dagwood45431 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
How do you know that's why Cantor is willing to pay the $400K price? "publicity/advertising/credibility"?

Because that's the type of thing a "mid-level" investment firm would do in an attempt to ascend to "top-level". Occam's Razor rules apply here.

Padawanbater2 · Apr 26, 2017

dagwood45431 said:
Because that's the type of thing a "mid-level" investment firm would do in an attempt to ascend to "top-level". Occam's Razor rules apply here.

Sure, but how can you be sure that's what's happening in this case?

dagwood45431 · Apr 26, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
Sure, but how can you be sure that's what's happening in this case?

I can't be, of course, but it is a very reasonable explanation and much simpler than your unsupported conspiracy theory. You're going to need something far more substantive to get over that Occam's Razor hurdle. So far, you've offered nothing but conjecture.

Obama to net $400K for Wall Street speech

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads