Obamas donate two million

[Chevy]

to summer jobs program..How out of touch of him it should of been 20 million...

Oh and speeches..................

Link to tweet

[Freethinker65]

1. ❤️

[ismnotwasm]

2. K&R

[True Dough]

3. Obama for PRESIDENT!!

[Saviolo]

58. What a shame

Well, Barack Obama can't run again, but I'm liking the looks of this newcomer to the scene:

[True Dough]

69. Republicans

will make immediate demands to see his birth certificate!

[tenorly]

90. Unless he were a Cuban fascist or narco.

Then it's ok.

[Jacquette]

131. Lol STOP!!

Post like these make me wish DU had lol buttons. I almost choked on my chicken sandwich.

[Hekate]

135. We do. Look immediately below the "Reply title" line to the "smilies" button at right

You will find excellent LOLz.

[Jacquette]

197. Lol ok thx

Can you tell I'm a newbie? This is like my 3rd, 4th post but I lurked for ages. Yes, His Orangeness has me shaken.

Thanks!

[Hekate]

206. Welcome to DU

[BlancheSplanchnik]

141. 👍🏾

How I wish!

[DK504]

145. ROFL ... THAT is CLASSIC!!!!!

Guess he needs to do some more speeches.

I miss them, I feel like I am going through a bad break up.

[NastyRiffraff]

154. Wow, look at the contrast

Between the picture of a real president and your sig pic.

[Auntie Bush]

156. I just wish he could run again!!!! NT

[Auntie Bush]

158. I bet even lots of Rethugs would vote fo him...anyone except tRump.

[frazzled]

4. Bingo

I asked in a post the other day how Obama could be criticized for taking a speaking fee when nobody was asking how he was going to use such money.

Now we have a partial answer. And it makes me happy. Because this is MY city, and it benefits all of us when kids, especially the kids living in the areas around the new library, have summer jobs.

[Chevy]

5. Waiting on the announcement

from other said politicians and what they are doing with their book profits.

[NurseJackie]

56. Oh yes... that WILL be interesting, won't it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Yeah, but will he solicit funds to buy himself a picture of himself?

That's the standard by which all charities are judged.

[VigilantG]

7. K & R

As soon as I heard about him excepting the speaking engagement fee for Cantor Fitzgerald, I was happy. Because he deserves to Cantor Fitzgerald does tremendous work philanthropically.

I also figured that he would be using his money for things like this. These are the type of people that should be leading our country.

Not the growing group of deplorables in this Drumpf administration!!!!

[Wellstone ruled]

28. So agree.

Called on Canter Fitz as a Business Customer for 18 years. Never will I speak ill of this Company. We personally donated to many of their Civic Programs,these folks are the real deal.

[brush]

8. Let's see what Warren and Sanders have to say about this.

[HenryWallace]

55. No need to!

They spoke....., public opinion agreed...., he was forced to react!

For God sakes, Ruth Marcus hammered him!


PS: Obama is the greatest President we have had in the last 50 years.

[NurseJackie]

60. LOL

he was forced to react!

[BannonsLiver]

104. I got a kick out of that too!

Some folks live in a dream world/narrative.

[Cha]

175. Here's a book of everything Van Jones has to say about Barack and Michelle's $2 mil

Link to tweet

[HenryWallace]

203. Your probably right.....

But an object examination of the “time-line” isn’t particularly comforting is it?

He is a really smart guy; my guess he will be more sensitive in the future to the ethical perception of his speaking engagements.

But then again I may be wrong; under the skewed logic of this thread, this contribution may have just bought him 10 million of Wall Street fees.

Situational ethics is a dangerous thing! You might want to consult the hundred or so threads on this site regarding “money & politics.”

[NurseJackie]

204. LOL

[Chevy]

64. Forced to react? Public opinion?

Hammered who?

[brush]

65. Huh? Forced to react, my as_. You don't know what his plans were.

Plus he added 1.6 million to the speaking fee to donate.

You don't do that if all you're doing is reacting.

[Jamaal510]

166. +1

People are acting like he's still president and has more campaigning to do.

[mcar]

70. Oh well, if Ruth Marcus "hammered" him...

[SticksnStones]

138. Yeah, a two million dollar donation is a reaction, not something thoughtfully planned.

Sweet holy Hannah ~

[Cha]

171. Ruth Marcus is an Obama hating troll .. I'm sure President

Obama couldn't care less what that idiot wrote.

"forced to react".. that is absolute rubbish.. so you don't have a clue.

[Cha]

176. And, NO.. "public opinion" DID NOT agree with BS and EW

[BannonsLiver]

102. Hopefully they'll take it as their cue to shut their mouths about this particular issue

It's a loser for them both politically.

[Historic NY]

167. How will they react? Perhaps ponying up.

[freddyvh]

9. how much has trump donated?

his presidential salary?
is that all?

[George II]

36. He hasn't even done that yet. He's going to do it at the end of the year, whatever is left.

[calimary]

48. Probably what he usually donates, which as far as I've read and observed, is near zero.

And if he waits till the end of the year to "donate his salary", please remember that he can pocket it every pay-period until the end of the year, and keep all the interest he'll have earned on it.

[csziggy]

52. Dolt45 donated less than $80,000 to the National Park Service

After he backed a budget that would cut 1.5 billion from them.

Trump Donates First-Quarter Salary to National Park Service

By PETER BAKER
APRIL 3, 2017

President Trump, who promised to work for free, donated his salary for the first quarter of the year on Monday to the National Park Service, which, like other government agencies, faces major cuts in the president’s first budget proposal.

At the daily White House briefing, Sean Spicer, the president’s press secretary, presented a check signed by Mr. Trump for $78,333.32 to Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary, who oversees the park service. “I’m thrilled,” Mr. Zinke said.

<SNIP>

But in picking a government agency, Mr. Trump chose one with a large backlog of deferred maintenance that could be deferred even longer under his budget. Mr. Trump proposed a cut of $1.5 billion, or 12 percent, from the Interior Department, which oversees the park service and other agencies. The proposal did not specify how much of that would come out of the park service budget.

He also chose an agency with which he has had a fraught relationship. Mr. Trump was angry when a park service employee using an agency Twitter account reposted information comparing the size of his Inauguration Day crowd unfavorably with that of former President Barack Obama in 2009. Mr. Trump was livid and called the acting director of the park service the day after his inauguration to complain about the post and to ask for further photographic evidence about the size of his crowd.

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/politics/national-park-service-trump-salary.html

[Lyricalinklines]

159. Does he receive a tax credit for that 'donation'? eom

[csziggy]

161. Almost certainly

Anyone can donate money to any part of the federal government and as far as I know it is deductible just as a donation to a non-profit organization would be. Let me check...

Charitable Contributions

Charitable contributions, also known as charitable donations, are gifts made to qualified organizations that have obtained 501(c)(3) tax status, such as educational institutions, religious organizations, government entities, and other charities. Qualified organizations typically receive most of their funding and support from gifts, grants and contributions from the public.

From a tax perspective, charitable contributions are tax-deductible. Taxpayers may lower their yearly taxes by claiming an itemized deduction on their tax return based on the cash or fair market value of the donation, subject to a few limits. Because charitable contributions are tax deductible, taxpayers often increase their charitable donations during the holidays or before the end of the year.

What Constitutes a Charitable Contribution?

Generally speaking, a charitable contribution is anything that may be of value to a qualified charitable organization. This includes money or property in the form of cash, clothing, household items, cars, real estate, securities and other assets or services.

According to the IRS, donations to the following entities are tax-deductible, so long as they do not benefit any specific individual:

Churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and other religious organizations
Federal, state, and local governments, if your contribution is solely for public purpose
Nonprofit schools and hospitals
Public parks and recreation facilities
War veterans groups
Expenses paid for a student living with you, sponsored by a qualified organization
Out-of-pocket expenses when you serve a qualified organization as a volunteer
Salvation Army, Red Cross, CARE, Goodwill Industries, United Way, Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, and many other non-profit organizations.
http://tax.findlaw.com/federal-taxes/charitable-contributions.html

Emphasis added by me.

[Lyricalinklines]

246. Yes. I'm learning my sarcasm doesn't come across here.

Those who make donation(s) can also pay less taxes, I get ito and feel is appropriate. I don't like the appearance of ostentatious display of "gifting" when the giver requests an audience to give. The thief of our nation choose the opportunity to make the moment about him rather than the gift and good things it could do. Just my opinion.

Thanks for your information,csziggy!

[SomethingNew]

236. No, but he would of course get a deduction.

Charitable contributions don't ever make you more money than if you didn't donate.* You just don't pay any taxes on the donated money. You always come out the other side of charitable donations with less money than you would had you kept the money and paid the taxes.

*Unless you donate to your own fake charity. Then you might come out ahead.

[Lyricalinklines]

247. Interesting. If this is so, then why do so many givers claim deductions?

As i mention to the other responder, I'm learning my sarcasm doesn't carry here.

I also see he can take the deduction AND the giver requests a ceremony (or decides to attend a ceremony for the gift) AND that same giver has a pattern of giving to their own charity ....

He makes it all about him. I point this out because I feel the point needs be not lost in his ceremony.

Thanks for your response, SomethingNew!

[jmowreader]

187. It just so happens...

...that $78,333.32 is the exact amount of money it's going to cost the NPS to renovate a block of cells in Alcatraz in preparation for the Trump Administration's arrival.

We will have to feed them, and there are plenty of ways to do it without costing the taxpayer any money. Selling off all the assets of the Trump Organization will, after we refund all the legitimate creditors' mortgage loans and repay all the small businessmen Trump has screwed in his life, buy almost enough food for the first month - if we only feed them rice and beans and let them catch the rats if they want meat, and why not? No, we'll have to do something far more awesome: Allow the visitors to Alcatraz to pay for their care and upkeep. I figure we can charge $10 a head to look at him, $20 to allow guests to yell insults, $50 to spit on him...and for a lucky 120 people a day, $100 will get you a six-pack of Budweiser and five minutes in the cell right above Trump's.

[JCanete]

10. I am glad to hear it. Changes nothing about legitimate concerns about continuing a bad policy

of taking big money in the private sector after regulating it, particularly right after. I've said over and over, I don't think Obama is corrupt, but it just does us no favors when we try to tie it around the GOP's neck when we can't show a 100% contrast on this kind of thing.

[Chevy]

11. You don't think Obama is corrupt??

How nice of you.

[JCanete]

17. what does that mean? I'm saying I have a certain amount of trust in a public figure, which is a rare

thing for me. You want to make that into a negative? Fucking fine.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

164. I guess you're math challeged

THATS 5 TIMES WHAT HE'S GETTING FOR SPEAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JCanete]

168. thanks, that was an important barb. I hope it made your day. nt

[snooper2]

19. concern noted

we'll revisit the issue in thirty years or so

[JCanete]

20. I don't actually know what you're saying here. nt

[Justice]

23. Tom Price is corrupt, working on bills and buying stock in companies accepted by bill --

Obama is not corrupt. Don't need to opinions on that. Thanks.

[JCanete]

27. we still have opinions on that , and that is all yours or mine are. We both agree here, but

certainty like yours has no real place, in my opinion, in the effort to do our due diligence as citizens. I've already said in other threads that my personal opinion is that there may be no other politicians in Washington as literally unimpeachable as Obama, but I will not go as far as to say that it is a fact that he is corrupt in no way. How would I know? How would you know?

[LanternWaste]

244. some opinions are more relevant to a particular topic than others.

It's helps to know that entertain the notion or not, some opinions are more relevant to a particular topic than others. And the greater the irrelevancy, the more curious the actual agenda of the irrelevancy...

[JCanete]

245. can you give me a specific example of irrelevancy here? nt

[Blue_Tires]

25. You concern is noted...

and FWIW, there are so, so many other things to hang around the collective neck of the GOP... Keep your eyes on the prize, chief...

[JCanete]

34. the money is the prize. The money is the thing we need to hammer them with. Otherwise the money

keeps framing the narrative.

[Blue_Tires]

44. Disagree... You don't fight a political war on just one front

Money *could* be an issue, but Americans by and large have not really cared about the Trump Family financial shenanigans either before or after the election...

[JCanete]

57. we need to be able to make suspect any message that is coming from a person who is taking money

from a corporate interests with its own agenda, whether that be a politician or a source of news/"journalism." The money is the prize because the rest is sold to further those interests. The most egregious divisive things are peddled because they are tools towards one end. Yes, there are a lot of things we need to talk about, but we can't do it successfully if we can't deal with the thing that ties them all together.

One of the reasons nobody cares about the Republican shenanigans is because they think, rightly or wrongly that both parties are corrupt, and we haven't done a great job of disabusing them of that notion, so instead, they've chosen their politicians on social issues or safety or talking tough. or on "government sucks and needs to be downsized...vote for me and I'll prove it..."

[brush]

74. Stop with the raising of suspicions. They don't call him "No Drama Obama" for nothing.

Not one scandal in 8 years of office and you come up with this.

[JCanete]

76. ......... I have said, repeatedly, this is not about raising suspicions about Obama from me. It is

about undercutting our ability to attack the GOP on this front. Stop with the strawmanning.

[brush]

84. You're the one who should stop.

He's giving a speech to CF, a firm that contributed 25% of it's profits for 5 year to employee families of those who died on 9/11.

They also paid for 10 years of health care for those families.

The speech is to a health care conference, an issue dear to Obama's heart and he uses the fee, and greatly embellishes it to donate to a great cause for jobs for kids.

This is hardly a "currying up to Wall Street" issue and hardly one to be criticizing a president for who ran a scandal free administration and who is now out of office.

[JCanete]

93. I've told you why its a problem, in spite of all of that. I agree all of that makes it easier to

swallow. If you read my posts, you will note that my criticism is slight, and has to do with the tactical disadvantages of this to the Democratic party. If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't see how you can't at least accept that it comes with some cost.

[Blue_Tires]

75. Until all money is eliminated from politics and we have public-funded elections

This reality is a way of life... Especially after the Citizens United ruling. Things were almost as bad before the ruling, it's just that corporate interests had to be a lot more creative in how they funneled illicit cash to politicians... And like it or not as 'pure' as you may want Dems to be, they are not going to cede full ownership of the corporate money tree orchard to the GOP... That would be suicidal.

I just want to reiterate that a billionaire who never did a hard day's work in his life and literally shits on a golden toilet was able to pass himself off as a working-class hero to hundreds of millions of Americans... So there are a lot more complex issues here at play than the ethics of big money and perceived 'corruption'.

Personally, money is not my biggest issue, and it certainly isn't in my top 5.

[JCanete]

78. but you do see how it literally affects all the others don't you? nt

[Blue_Tires]

105. Okay, I give up, fine, you and BeyondGeography win... I'm done.

Instead of celebrating a generous and much-needed donation I'm caught up in a back-and-forth debating some bullshit minutiae... Cool... Sweet... Whatever.... Obama is a hypocrite, he's corrupt, he's handing elections to the GOP, he's a coward, he's greedy, he's a sellout, he's only interested in smokescreening his corporate speech, $2 million isn't anywhere near enough to atone for his corporate speeches, he's a Wall Street puppet and anything else you two want me to believe, I'll no longer dispute... Whatever goal you're trying to accomplish, well done... That's it, enough...

Now I'll see myself out of this thread before I say something I might slightly regret. I bid you adieu.

[JCanete]

112. I didn't say those things. Why the fuck is it so hard for people, on this side of the aisle no less,

to find any shred of nuance? I thought we were the people who didn't march in lock step. I love Obama. I don't think he's crooked. I've said it over and over and over. I've said to you what my point is. You then got exasperated and rewrote it to be an attack on Obama at his very core. Why not just deal with the issue at hand?

Is it good for politicians to take money in the private sector that they recently regulated? Not, is it good for Obama to do this...I already said I wouldn't go so far, given the trend, to say he should not have....but is it good for anybody to, particularly on our side of politics where we need to fight against corporate interests and get the people to see who's side we're on?

That is all...this is not a referendum on Obama, and I've also said elsewhere that I didn't like Sanders calling the action distasteful. That was far too much negative color for my tastes. It wasn't appropriate.

[lostnfound]

81. What a great way to disempower the left!! Let's make sure they all stay poor and powerless!

And that a man who showed great character, class, grace and dignity in office won't have the money to do things like this:
"donating $2 million to a summer jobs program in the city (of Chicago) to combat violence."

How terrible that he lives in the real world!

[JHan]

86. a million recs!!!!

Yes, let's be poor and not fund the stuff we really care about while the GOP enjoy their orgy of revanchism and cut programs.

Great strategy!

[JCanete]

94. has what we've been doing been working? Really? How many seats have we lost over the years? nt

[JHan]

95. Just say what you want to say

-_-

[JCanete]

99. I did, that this would be pragmatism if it got results. It isn't getting results. We are perpetually

the minority party, and it is worse in the states.

[JHan]

100. So we lost over the years because Obama took a speech fee this year correct?

[JCanete]

103. nope. Are you changing the subject? Weren't you just 1000 reccing somebody who said we shouldn't

Last edited Wed May 3, 2017, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

stop taking campaign donations because that would ruin us?

edit: Note, I point out down-thread that this is a misread of the post

[JHan]

110. The OP is about the Obama's donating 2 million.

You jumped in and decided throw some shade, and cite from Genesis to Revelations, everything you believe was wrong with Obama and you are somehow linking his speaking fee with him being either out of touch, or symptomatic of why Democrats suck right?

I do not care about corporate donations or speaking fees at this point because I know who to blame for the current state of politics. I know which party has zero principles where this is concerned, I am also very much aware of what Obama has said on this topic, both his regret, his nuance about it, and what we need to reverse it - he fucking warned us last year about the SCOTUS decisions and how they imperil our politics and our daily lives. Yet, here you are, casting insinuations. Your outrage is misplaced.

[JCanete]

115. no I'm not casting insinuations. Read my posts. And again, don't pretend your response was about

the OP. Own that you were supporting a post saying we need to take corporate money. You can believe that, and we can debate that, but why are you walking away from that?


Okay, on a reread, I'll leave the above, but I did misread that post you were responding to. He's talking about individual wealth I assume, not campaign money. Unfortunately the question of propriety is a problem. You can see where I stand on Obama in the specific, on this matter in my other posts, but I do not like the way things work here. It would not be hard for a politician to take a bribe like this. It is almost certainly done-NOT BY Obama, I truly don't believe he did it as a quid pro quo, but it does not help us to bludgeon the GOP. That's the only point of my original post, and I'm not sure why its so controversial.

[JHan]

118. I just explained.

what is this obsession?

It's like Corey Booker earlier this year - he gets aggregate donations from the pharma industry and he is TORN DOWN, almost tarred and feathered as a "corporatist".

No, I refuse to demonize a politician simply because they took "corporate money".

And while you fuss about "Corporate money", conservatives are funding their campaigns with dark money. Your outrage is again misplaced.

I support democrats because I know that the campaign finance reform I want implemented is more likely to happen with Democrats than not, it's that clear. All else is noise and an attempt at false equivalency and the same old "both parties are the same" bullshit.

[JCanete]

119. fuck, you haven't read anything I posted. Everything I posted was with the GOP in mind.

I constantly refer to the GOP. I constantly go out of my way to say that I do not think Obama is corrupt or that there is anything underhanded here. Accept my point for what it is, not all this other shit.

PS, I edited my last post because I think I did misread the post you responded to initially.

[JHan]

122. Great, we agree, the enemy is the GOP.

So like me, be happy Obama donated 2 mill, got 400k for a speech, and live your life knowing the real enemy is the GOP.

[JCanete]

123. and that we should be fighting them the best way we can, and not harming ourselves in the effort.

If you want to disagree that this is harmful, that's fine. If I were in an argument with a conservative on this topic and he raised the issue of Clinton or Obama speeches while I was trying to talk about corporate corruption, I would certainly riposte to point out that Obama literally turned around after this speech and gave, 2 million to a good cause. But It would be easier if our guys did things differently.

[JHan]

125. If a conservative raised it they would be on shit and should hush.

They should crawl under a fucking rock is what they should do.

[JCanete]

129. it would be a deflection and an equivalance, because I raised the issue of money in politics.

They can't really say that their guys aren't dirty, they can try to say that the whole system is corrupt, which they have and do.

[JHan]

137. It is a gross assumption to make:

You cannot assume that because someone took money from an industry that automatically makes them corrupt. The perfect scenario here is public funding of elections, we are not there yet.

When you equate Conservatives with Democrats on this, because a few Dem politicians were paid a speaking fee according to their gravitas, reputation or intellect, or accepted "corporate money" ( I often wonder in these discussions if people know FEC law?) you are muddying the waters. It weakens Democrats, despite our position on the corp tax rate, and all other matters where there is risk to average citizens because of corporate hegemony, whether it's regulations/protections, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , the FDA - regulations that protect us on that front, and regulatory reform, will come from Democrats. The conservative track record on this is abysmal thus no equivalency or "maybes" or "Perhaps".

[JCanete]

142. what would stop people from doing so? It's actually a money trail. It really is not the whole story,

I totally agree. But appearance of possible impropriety is not our friend either. They're going to make up stories anyway but at least those are easier to slap down than an actual exchange of cash. And if Sanders doesn't point out his dissatisfaction, when he goes to talk about these issues, he will be labeled a hypocrite....a shill for the Democratic party. I think he went way too far. I find his language about Obama and his speaking arrangement, distasteful, but that's the problem with trying to fight money in politics, and maybe, you know, trying to move the nation towards public funding...one side has to stop relying on that money and start preaching it as gospel, or we aren't going to get there, and one side is going to fight it every step of the way, and use everything in its chamber, and if they can muddy the waters, as you say I'm doing, or Sanders is doing, they will do so. Generally, that's why democrats give tempered lip-service to dealing with money in politics. Generally, that's why you won't often find them trying to bludgeon the hell out of a Republican on their corporate ties.

what about FEC law do you think is important here? If you're saying there is nothing illegal, of course there is nothing illegal. If you're saying that Obama does not appear to be corrupt to you, he does not appear to be corrupt to me either, and I am not trying to sew doubt on that. I think most of us are in agreement on that. In most of my walks of life, I am usually in the position to be defending Obama and trying to explain the delicate challenges he faced as President as I see them, so my criticism here, however mild, of Obama himself, is hardly my favorite past-time. I still do wish he hadn't taken the money, for all the reasons I've stated. I totally understand him doing it, and I don't even necessarily think he SHOULD not have.

[JHan]

150. I'm saying..

that judging ourselves by what they might say about us is folly. They don't give a shit and never have. They don't care what liberals think about their politicians. They have their policies and ideas, and they don't care if a stray dog signs off on them.

"have you now or have you never taken money from a corporate entity?" is a ridiculous type of thinking.....And no politician is perfect, not even Sanders.

After what they put Obama through ( and Clinton) the detractors can doubly go fuck themselves, wish I could be more eloquent about it but I can't. It's so triple palm worthy, my brain is WTFing me as I type.

[JCanete]

87. weird that you have a Bernie logo. He is kind of promoting the idea that we need to stop taking

corporate money.

You would have a case if this was winning us elections. It isn't. It is keeping us in the minority. Occasionally we take the Presidency, and maybe for 2 years we have a majority and can try to do one or two things that our blue dogs let us do. over 1000 seats lost in like 20 years? I'm sorry, if that's your angle, you're not living in the real world.

Centrist dems get funded because corporations DO NOT WANT a socialist. They also get funded because corporations want to show that their less bombastic message stays less bombastic. But then the money funds their opponents and sicks their corporate owned media on the dems, and puts the one they really want in office. This shit aint working out.

[Chevy]

114. You now question another members

motives because they have a logo of Sanders and they don't agree with you? Very ugly.

[JCanete]

116. no, I said it was weird. I wanted to know how the person thought about it. This wasn't casting

aspersions in anyway. Why are you doing that exactly? Or better, why don't you tell me what insinuation I was making exactly, since apparently it was there in my post.

[lostnfound]

217. I'm a realist AND believe in a big tent party

I trust Bernie quite a lot, but Jilll Stein NOT AT ALL.
I consider what a person has done with their lives and the environment they operate in. I don't judge people in a narrow band, but accept that "the line between good and evil crosses every man's heart".

[R B Garr]

101. This angle of yours has been completely overdone for awhile now. Assuming evil

and corruption pertaining to others is in itself evil and corrupt.

[JCanete]

106. thank you R B Garr, I always take the things you say deeply to heart, and since you had so much

insight to add here, I will give it all due gravity.

[R B Garr]

113. You're welcome, JC. Seriously, those talking points have been around since 2015, and

they lost in 2016. So why you keep peddling them is a mystery. Democrats shouldn't disadvantage themselves. What bad advice.

[Cha]

177. You go on and on about nothing.

[JCanete]

178. at least you go on about nothing in less words, so congrats. wtf? if I have nothing that interests

you why are you posting to me?

[Cha]

179. On and on.... and on.. yeah, you're suspicious. BD

[JCanete]

184. Since I really have no idea what you're saying, right back at you. nt

[pnwmom]

26. AFTER is the key word you don't understand. He's not in a position to regulate anything anymore. n/t

[JCanete]

31. wow, that really isn't as convincing as for some reason you think it is. Nobody could make the case,

if they wanted to, that payment was to come after a favor, when, you know, it was legal to receive it. Again, that is not an accusation I am levying at Obama and I don't believe it to be true, and I hope nobody tries to give me shit about "planting seeds of doubt..." I am talking about what can be used against him and can be used against any efforts of ours to paint the GOP as in the pocket of Wall Street or big business. I don't think you actually believe what you just posted is enough daylight between the public sector and the private sector to make it entirely incapable of being below board.

[pnwmom]

46. By the time Obama retired, his RECORD was enough to prove that he didn't get the speech

from Cantor Fitzgerald because he did them any favors.

And that would be the case with any retired President. If something in their record looks suspicious, then have at it. Otherwise, let the retired President make his money like every modern President.

Don't let jealousy and spite cloud judgment.

[JCanete]

66. Thank you, I will continue to not let jealousy or spite cloud my judgement, and we didn't exactly

do to Wall Street or many of the players what we should have. No, no we did not. Hell, most of them made out with even more money after all was said and done.

I already said elsewhere, but I'll say it here, given precedent, I would not go as far as to say our President should not have taken that paid speech, especially given that he is our first black President, and how convenient(as the daily show host said) that we should start now, but should have or not, I wish he had not.

I appreciate very much that that is less than a quarter of what he just donated to what sounds like a very worth-while charity. I respect that very much. I still think we need to change precedent.

[pnwmom]

79. Obama got the stimulus and other positive bills passed,

including saving the auto industry and getting the ACA through. He also got Dodd Frank passed with the help of the Rethugs. They wouldn't have helped him attack Wall Street, and he couldn't have done it without them.

We lost the filibuster-proof Senate when Ted Kennedy died, and we lost the House in 2010. That's why Obama couldn't go after Wall Street.

[JCanete]

83. that's why you have to take that to the people. The bully puplit is powerful. Granted, its not the

only thing that is, and corporate owned media is in its largess, far more powerful in some ways, as far as messaging goes, so I think Obama went the wrong way with his very conciliatory approach with the GOP. That said, as soon as he got into office and stared making these interesting overtures, like appointing Republicans to seats, etc. I thought maybe he had the right of it. The GOP was laying really low for the first month because they weren't sure yet how to attack the first black President, and I thought he was tefloning himself and making it near impossible for the GOP to get rabid, and making it really hard for the GOP to block bipartisan gestures, etc. but hindsight being 20/20, that approach failed.

Turns out he should have been pounding the fuck out of the GOP and going as left as possible, and bringing that message to the people., and forcing the GOP to beg for mercy by signing onto less progressive legislation. Well, now we know.

[pnwmom]

85. Your "should haves" are nothing but wishful thinking. You have no evidence to prove your assertion

that Obama would have accomplished more by turning himself into an attack dog.

[JCanete]

89. I don't have any evidence. You are right. I have evidence of what happened instead. I have evidence

of what happened in 2016. I have evidence that people by and large still don't trust the Democrats.

I'm aware that it was a risky gamble, but if we don't take some risks, we're going to keep letting the corporations set the limits of what is possible.

[pnwmom]

111. People don't trust Democrats because the MSM has taught them not to trust anybody,

and spent the whole 2016 election tarring DT and Hillary with the same brush, pretending that her flaws were equivalent to his.

However, during the primary, the MSM gave DT a boost with very positive coverage.

Both of these articles talk about the Harvard study on the media coverage, but the first article talks about the coverage in the general election, which was almost all negative; and the second talks about DT's coverage during the primaries, which was very positive, and helped him rise.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/12/report-general-election-coverage-overwhelmingly-negative-in-tone-232307

The study, which analyzed news reports on the main newscasts from the major cable and broadcast networks along with major daily newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, slammed the press for what it concluded was the "corrosive effect" of mostly negative news throughout the general election.

“Negative news has partisan consequences,” the study's author, Thomas Patterson, wrote. “Given that journalists bash both sides, it might be thought the impact would be neutral. It’s not … If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today’s news coverage blurs the distinction.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/14/this-harvard-study-is-a-powerful-indictment-of-the-medias-role-in-donald-trumps-rise/?utm_term=.e02a66d832e2

I've written repeatedly — and self-righteously — about my belief that ascribing the rise of Donald Trump in the Republican primary race to media complicity is ridiculous. And I believed every word.

But, a new study by Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University casts serious doubts on my position as it documents not only the outsized coverage Trump received — from TV and digital media — in the early days of his campaign but also how overwhelmingly positive that coverage was.

SNIP

Both candidates received equally negative coverage on coverage related to the candidates’ fitness for office, including stories about their leadership abilities, ethics, policy positions and personal qualities. Coverage for both candidates on those issues ran at about 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive. The press paid more attention to Clinton’s controversies than to Trump’s, and the tone of that coverage, which made up at least 7 percent of all Clinton coverage every week, was more than 90 percent negative.

“The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right,” Patterson wrote. “It’s a version of politics that rewards a particular brand of politics. When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply flawed. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlines, which instead give voice to those who are skilled in the art of destruction.”

Patterson wrote that the negative coverage throughout the general election was beneficial to the right.

[JCanete]

117. oh I know...I'm running out of time here and will read your post later, but yes absolutely, the MSM

is a huge source of the problem, which, go figure is owned by big corporations. A huge source of the problem...the biggest. Well, money is the biggest, which is why we have the MSM doing what it is doing, but our worthless fourth estate is while symptomatic, also the second cause of our dysfunctional government.

[Blue_Tires]

47. We don't need to "paint" the GOP as in the pocket of Wall Street or big business

Because they already are... That is well documented.

What else is well documented is the evidence that openly being in the pocket of Wall Street or big business doesn't repel voters anymore...

[JCanete]

61. Our politicians don't hammer them for it the way they could. Our party's house has too many glass

windows.

It doesn't repel them in particular, when they don't think they have a choice. It's more complicated than that, but I think that's a worth-while jumping off point.

[George II]

37. You seem to have a thing against him.

[JCanete]

41. no George, I do not. I'm proud to have had him as my President. That doesn't mean I have to agree

with every decision he has made, or shouldn't voice my "concerns..." cuz concerns apparently are to be poo-pooed here.

For what reason would you assume I have a thing against him?

[BannonsLiver]

148. Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have bingo. I repeat, we have bingo.

[Tribalceltic]

43. Since your concern is in the same vein as the Russian hackers and trolls..

and similar to the concerns spouted by Bernie, Stein, and Warren, along with the GOP, I shall give it due consideration

[JCanete]

73. totally, color it with everything else under the sun, and don't take the words and work with those.

That is fucking tragic. If my argument is so shitty then you should have no problem dismantling it with facts and logic, but instead, you resort to trying to label my message so that you can say, "thus it should be summarily dismissed."

go on, give it the old college try and debate a fucking thing. I'll be gentle.

[BeyondGeography]

49. 100% correct

This shouldn't be so difficult for people here to grasp, but it obviously is.

[Blue_Tires]

59. It's a bullshit point and completely disregards perspective and scale

But you grind your little axe for as long as you want.

[JCanete]

68. why not respond to my point as a bullshit point. I'm game. What's bullshit about it? nt

[BeyondGeography]

72. It's not "my little axe"; it's about mindlessly handing red meat to our opponents

and losing elections.

[Blue_Tires]

88. I'm hard-pressed to remember any time when

"So-and-so gave a bunch of corporate speeches" was ever made into an election issue, except for 2016... And those red meat attacks didn't originate from the right, they originated from the Sanders left...

So once again for the cheap seats -- Conservatives win races on social issues; economics are usually a sideshow Trump won because he promised to kick all the Mexicans and Muslims out, and he was going to get Black Lives Matter designated as a terrorist group, bring an end to ugly scary things like diversity, etc... I don't know where you live, but in Virginia I promise you the ratio of local/state/congressional candidates that lost because they were labeled as "unfriendly to business" versus those who lost because they were "owned by corporate interests" is probably around 20:1...

[BeyondGeography]

91. So Trump didn't mention the Goldman Sachs speeches a hundred times?

OK.

Please. Who cares who "originated" the attack. It was going to come anyway in the GE. And it was a substantial part of a very effective message:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029008638#post63

[Blue_Tires]

96. I wouldn't know because I never watched him on TV

(Remember the good old days when I told everybody 24/7 not to feed the beast?)

But what I *DO* fucking know is after reading countless "Let's drive out to deep red America and ask Trump voters what they really think!" -stories, I haven't seen GS mentioned once... I only see GS brought up in interviews with Green voters.

[Cha]

172. It's BS and EW who are going to "lose" elections for

"mindlessly" whining about President Obama speaking at Cantor-Fitzgerald in September at their annual Health Conference.

[Skittles]

71. I agree

classic "the end justifies the means"

[TeamPooka]

92. You do realize Obama is not regulating any industries right now? Concerns about corruption should be

directed to the current residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C.

[JCanete]

98. Well shit, you've convinced me that there is no way intelligent people could get that to work.

But again, just because you may not see it elsewhere, I am not saying Obama is corrupt, and far from it. If you want more detailed thoughts on that from me, they are in other posts.

[mopinko]

120. your concern is noted.

nice threadjack ya got there.

[JCanete]

121. People are taking a lot of notes on this board, I commend you. nt

[mopinko]

124. if it walks like a duck......

[JCanete]

126. I'm guessing, its a paid Russian agent who has infiltrated our internets and our minds, making us

note things?

[mopinko]

151. dude, you jacked a thread that had nothing to do w your problem.

a nice, happy thread. something we dont get very often.
and instead of just saying your piece, you have to argue till you are blue in the face here.
wtf is wrong w you? i think you may have taken a wrong turn a year ago when you landed here and started working your little fingers to the bone.

yeah, it seems to walk like a duck.

[JCanete]

182. look up and down around my post. Don't tell me you didn't know where this was going. I'm on a

discussion board.

Also, Don't be such a dick and either have a discussion or bow out. If you don't like what I'm saying you canWhen people responded to me, I responded back. What is weird about that? You are simply butt-hurt because you don't like what I'm saying, but apparently, can't simply argue effectively on the deficits of my argument and prefer the ad-homonyms, which I'm guessing is your comfort zone.

Btw, I've been on DU since Kerry's bid for the White House. It's been my go-to board for year(s). I didn't post in much of that time, but I used to previously back in the W days under different account that I misplaced. No, you don't have me pegged.

[Cha]

194. Bloody well said, Mo

[mopinko]

200. a good one to ignore.

my spidey sense is tingling.

[Cha]

201. I know, right

[mopinko]

202. know the signs, people.

one thing to drop a nasty comment in a feel good thread. another to work it like a hungry stripped works the pole.
and normal people dont rack up that kind of post count in a year.

[JCanete]

208. seriously? You are pulling shit totally out of your ass. Completely. We can go up and down the ops

on these boards to see how many posts people have in threads they start or respond in. There was nothing unusual about me responding to posts to me. You are hilarious, and too damn scared to engage me on anything substantive. You'd rather attack me for apparently, what ? What exactly are you accusing me of? I'm a Russian agitator? I'm a GOP plant? That is some weak ass sauce reflective of just how fragile you feel on the topic at hand. Reasoned people are capable of actually debating me on this topic. We've had good conversations here in this thread. Maybe if you can't hang, you should leave it to them.

[Cha]

193. Yeah, duly noted ad nauseam

[Hekate]

140. I'm sure those city kids getting summer jobs are grateful for your concern. You should write ...

...to Barack and Michelle and demand a detailed plan for everything they are going to do over their lifetimes with the money they will earn -- because mindreading doesn't seem to be working so well for you.

But I understand your concern. Really I do.

[JCanete]

144. maybe if you took the concern on the merits of the concern, and didn't make it about something else

you really would understand my concern...you really would.

[Hekate]

147. Sure

[Cha]

170. President Obama is going to speak at Cantor-Fitzgerald

in September at their annual Health Conference.

It's not "bad policy".

[GulfCoast66]

211. That's interesting , man,

that you have said over and over that President Obama is not corrupt. Where exactly have you made that argument?

Sure as hell not here on DU where claiming that President Obama is corrupt would get a person removed thus eliminating the need for you to say 'over and over, you don't think Obama is corrupt.

Perhaps you are confused which site you signed in to?

Save your Sophist arguments about a corrupt President Obama for your Sophist friends. This member of DU does not want to hear them.

And by the way, we normally refer to the man as President Obama, not Obama, especially when casting aspersions on the man.

Have a nice evening

[JCanete]

213. Point out where I said he was corrupt. I'm repeating it because I don't want people to misunderstand

my problem with it, but you clearly want to misunderstand my problem with it, so have at it, and have a nice evening yourself.

[GulfCoast66]

214. Surprised you came back...your post never stated President Obama was corrupt.

Your post stated, "I've said over and over, I don't think Obama is corrupt". That is your exact quote which I cut and paste. So please inform me, where on DU did you make that statement. Even once, not to mention over and over? This enquiring mind wants to know. Where did you once on DU claim that President Obama was not corrupt? Give me and example and I will quickly apologize. After all, every post we make is ours to cut and paste. Because I cannot remember any argument about President Obama being corrupt that would make it even 5 minutes without being hidden here on DU.

If you can show anything post you have made on DU defending President Obama from corruption I will apologize.

But of course you cannot.

As I said in my last post to you, take your sophism somewhere else. Some place more piney might work for you.

Next time you try to stir thing up on DU, please remember it is President Obama, not Obama. After all the shit he took over the past 8 years he at least deserves that much respect.

You have a nice evening

[JCanete]

215. Here's some of my posts. You have a nice evening.

Here's my first post on the subject in a different thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8988259

Here's me talking about the rationalization for this being okay, and not singling President Obama out in any way:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8989299

Here's an important follow up for context of what my objection is about, and whether I think Obama is any kind of outlier on this issue:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8989299

Here's my take on what Trevor Noah said on the subject, where he also suggested that yes the system needs fixing, before saying "hell no, we aren't starting with the first black President:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8989243

Here are more statements in this thread on this subject, which yes, came after the post you responded to, so feel free to disregard:

1) Me noting that I have an unusual amount of trust in Obama given how I tend to feel about politicians:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9010939

2)Here's me repeating the very first thing I've said about Obama as to whether or not he is corrupt. Note, as I discuss this, I'm not trying to sew doubt, I don't like talking about real people with a religious level of certainty, but I say, because I mean it, that I don't think Obama is corrupt and that he gives me that sense more than just about anybody in Washington.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9011012

[JCanete]

216. by the way, since you're taking so much faux umbrage over how "we" usually refer to President Obama,

maybe in the future, do a quick little search of the very thread you're posting in to see how your very own allies on the subject at hand refer to him. You may just find a lot of shorthand that drops the title, and not wanting to look like a hypocrite who only feels the need to rub that in the face of people who you disagree with, you may wish to leave it off.

[OrwellwasRight]

219. you are right

Don't let the haters get you down. The minute we have to let go of our principles and pretend ex-politicians are perfect is the minute it is pointless to be part of the party. We are allowed to criticize. We are allowed to care.

[Cha]

222. What "haters"? When someone disagrees with you..

you call them "haters".

All you have are insults.

[OrwellwasRight]

226. no one has disagreed with me

but people have been attacking the person I responded to because he had the integrity to say that a $2 mil donation does not cure the existing money in politics problem we have in this country. He's been accused of calling Obama corrupt, which he never did. A barrage of attacks that put words in people's mouths to try to orchestrate others to pile on is hating. If you think I was referring to you, take a look at your own posts. If you think your posts were honest and respectful, then I wasn't talking about you.

[Cha]

229. Oh, that's just a bunch of bulloney.. more whining about

the Obamas.

[OrwellwasRight]

232. What?

You're not even making sense. My post was not about the Obamas nor was it whining. Please quote the passages you are referring to. Plus you might be more convincing if you spelled baloney correctly.

[herding cats]

12. K&R!

They've always been generous with their donations, but this is amazing!

[Kirkwood]

13. Who said Obama is "out of touch"? nt

[calimary]

54. Welcome to DU, Kirkwood!

I've certainly never said that and don't think I can ever see clear to say that.

I love President Obama. He's the only one I can, honesty and in good conscience, refer to as President. That orange guy? Not so much. I can, however address that other guy as Resident since he does, unfortunately, live in OUR White House.

[Cha]

180. Good POINT!

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. More than trump family has combined in their lifetimes donated.

[Orrex]

16. Ain't that the damn truth!

And the "donations" that they've made have been funded by others through the Trump "foundations."

[progressoid]

133. He donated this plaque to a civil war battle that never happened...

...a New York Times report from Tuesday that says Donald Trump's Northern Virginia Trump National Golf Club features a plaque between the 14th and 15th holes honoring a Civil War battle at that precise spot. The inscription, signed by Trump, reads:

“Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!”

Nice sentiment, small problem: there apparently was no such battle.

The Times checked with various historians in the area who had trouble tying the site of Trump's course to any such event...




read more: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/details-details-donald-trump-has-plaque-at-his-golf-course-commemorating-civil-war-battle-that-never-happened

[Orrex]

15. Look at him, putting on airs and donating $2M like he's better than everyone else

Just who the hell does he think he is?

[Kber]

30. Hah!

I see what you did there and you made me COL (Chuckle Out Loud)!

[Cha]

195. Yeah! To help get kids jobs and Off the Streets! Who

the Hell does he think he is?!!

Link to tweet

[Kahuna7]

18. Not at all surprised. nt

[Orsino]

22. That certainly helps me swallow his $400k payouts.

If anyone's gotta take Wall Street's money, it should be a famly that can turn around and do this.

[Blue_Tires]

24. I fucking promise you this will get 0.004% of the leftbro attention of "BUT CORPORATE SPEECHES"!!!!

We're not going to get anywhere until we acknowledge some of the most prominent voices in the leftist punditsphere are actively and intentionally working against us at every turn...

[Cha]

183. Here's a book of everything Van Jones has to say about Barack and Michelle's $2 million

Link to tweet

[Initech]

29. Elitist!!!! He should have donated 16 million!

[Blue_Tires]

50. I swear I just saw that on Twitter --

"Why is he JUST donating $2 million? Why isn't Hillary chipping in with another $2 million?"

[mcar]

32. I await the critics' apologies

[George II]

39. It's going to be a LOOOOONG wait!

[mcar]

62. Yeah. I'm not holding my breath

[sheshe2]

63. Lol

[Cha]

181. Here's a book of everything Van Jones has to say about Barack and Michelle's $2 mil

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

205. Shocked!

I am shocked I tell ya!

[Cha]

210. Yeah, Van Jones the "poverty tour" pundit

policing Pres Obama's paycheck while not too long ago he said the stupid "speech" made trump a president. woo!

[CrispyQ]

33. These stories just make me so sad at what we've lost. -nt

[George II]

35. They continue to impress me. A great couple.

PS - did you forget this after saying it should have been 20 million?

[Bleacher Creature]

38. Exhibit #1 for why people need to STFU about his speeches.

[Chevy]

40. Sure there will be many exhibits to come n/t

[SunSeeker]

42. K & R

[grantcart]

45. I wish they would pay him a million a speech.

[sheshe2]

51. To Potus and Flotus

You are the best of the best.

Thank you for all you have given us.

[Cha]

185. No doubt, she!

[NurseJackie]

53. That's wonderful!

How out of touch of him it should of been 20 million...
Oh and speeches..................

I know, right? Some people! Jesus!

[nolabear]

67. Your serve, Elizabeth.

[melman]

77. Completely irrelevant

I mean what's the point? Because this amount is larger than that amount it makes the other issue go away?


That is seriously childish thinking. It's just ludicrous.

[Chevy]

80. lol

You mad?

[Blue_Tires]

97. And on to the ignore list you go, tough guy...

[Chevy]

108. After all these years

haven't ever used the ignore list will continue to just respond with a simple ------LOL----------

[still_one]

130. I haven't used the ignore either. I like you response

[melman]

157. Wow I'm truly crushed

But not really. Actually I don't give one single fuck.

[Steven Maurer]

188. Just so that you understand that it's YOUR problem

And no one will give any credence to what you think if you just snidely bash Democratic leaders, echoing Republican attacks.

[VOX]

136. The "other issue" is not an issue.

To those who fully comprehend the way the world works.

[Cha]

186. The "childish thinking" is that there is another "issue"..

That was just mindless kneejerking when it was announced President Obama is going to be speaking in September at Cantor-Fitzgerald at their annual Health Conference.

[greatauntoftriplets]

82. A truly great couple.

They're putting the drumpfs to shame.

[lillypaddle]

107. Prime example

that President Obama will do what is "right." I trust him. Completely.

ETA: Suck on that Bernie and Elizabeth

[lame54]

109. Get out your checkbook Elizabeth Warren

[spanone]

127. K&R...

[still_one]

128. No doubt some will bash him for not donating his net worth, and becoming a monk

[ailsagirl]

132. Who's surprised??

I mean really-- those people are selfless

[Hekate]

134. How distasteful!!!11!

I wish the critics on our own side would STFU.

[PragmaticLiberal]

139. There's a part of me that wants to check out "the other site" for their reaction..but nah, I'll pass

[Hekate]

146. No need to check there. It's here in this thread.

[PragmaticLiberal]

149. Unfortunately, you're right.

[sheshe2]

155. Ooooh yes.

Such a nice derailment of The Obama's goodness.

[Nanjeanne]

143. That's great.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

152. K&R nt

[Starry Messenger]

153. I wouldn't care if they used the money for lifetime mani/pedis

but I had a feeling a lot of this speech $ would be going to charity and to projects.

[philly_bob]

160. Was Chevy's OP comment sarcastic? If not, it was stupid and divisive.

Also many comments in this thread seem combative for no clear purpose.

[phleshdef]

162. It's painfully obvious that it's sarcastic

[philly_bob]

165. Thanks, phleshdef. I'm relieved. Sorry, Chevy.

Sometimes I have trouble telling sarcasm from online political speech.

[BlueMTexpat]

191. Surely, THIS comment

must be sarcasm!

[Cha]

196. Hey, sistah!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

163. THAT'S 5 TIMES WHAT HE'S GETTING FOR A SPEAKING FEE!!!!!!!

Five times.

I don't like to type all caps but some here don't get it.

[Cha]

169. Ah, Chevy.. some great news.. Mahalo!

[Lunabell]

173. Works for me!

Take the speaking fees and ca$h in on being president, then turn around and give it to the people. Bold move, Mr. President. I love it. He was always a good man and he continues to be a good man. I miss him terribly.

[loyalsister]

189. Maybe not the best wording

"ca$h in on being president" I have been complaining about 45 doing exactly that. Some have suggested that what he is doing is impeachable. Capitalizing on having previously served as president is not a far leap in reasoning to "cashing in on the presidency" the way 45 is doing.
We really need to be able to criticize 45 and the GOP without coming across as hypocrites.

[Lunabell]

198. I don't have a problem with the Robin Hood scenario

Ca$h in is appropriate. Take their money and do some good.

[loyalsister]

207. What a person does with it does not change the appearance

of exploiting the presidency for financial gain.

[JHan]

218. It's not equivalent to what 45 is doing.

What 45 is doing is unethical, Obama's speech fee is not.

[loyalsister]

223. I didn't say they were exactly the same

Yes, 45 is corrupt Obama is not. It is possible to exploit the presidency for good, but unfortunately that lies in the same realm as exploiting in a way that is corrupt. It looks bad and I am hoping that there is something of substance behind it.

[JHan]

227. I just have a real difficulty with the implications of some of the arguments..

To exploit involves unethical behavior. How far are we going to go where "exploitation" is concerned or is it just who he got the money from? If I take the argument to its logical conclusion, wouldn't selling books and other activities that earn him an income also apply? After all, he gets book deals, in part, because he was President. ..

.. and that affords him privilege - access to platforms, access to networks etc. If he does something good with 400k great, but if he buys 4 boats I'll cheer him on just the same.

I think the message of the speech is important. If he uses his affluence, his intellect, and charisma, to prod Organizations to do better, then that should be the focus - the message.

[loyalsister]

240. Exploit is used most often in that context

But it is actually a neutral word that refers to using something to one's advantage.

[Cha]

174. Goldie Taylor.. Here's a book of everything Van Jones has to say about Barack and Michelle's $2 mil

Link to tweet

[BlueMTexpat]

190. LOL, Cha!

You always find the BEST! Mahalo!

[Cha]

192. That was a Good ONE.. found

on the Obama Diary!

and Aloha to you, Blue!

[ehrnst]

199. The lable of "in touch" will change as the needs of politics do.

Just like with the Clintons - their tax returns show nearly no income from investments, but all from labor, and taxed as such, but Hillary was bestowed the label of "Corporatist Wall Street candidate."

[Heartstrings]

209. Miss those two.....❤️

[tallahasseedem]

212. I think it's awesome that they

can charge that amount for speeches and then turn around and donate it to causes these companies would never touch.

Amazing!!!

[OrwellwasRight]

220. wow.

So do I take all these laudatory comments to mean that the DU position is that this country should rely on the voluntary charity of rich people instead of on collective solutions paid for with taxes we all contribute? As for me, I don't think we should genuflect so much just because a millionaire donates to charity. Poor people do it all the time and are never lauded on this board.

https://www.marketplace.org/2012/12/14/your-money/when-it-comes-charity-poor-give-more

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/21/voluntarysector.fundraising

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/1006/US-poor-and-middle-class-give-more-to-charity-but-wealthy-pull-back

[Cha]

221. Oh BooHoo.. the Obamas Donated $2Million to a

Jobs Program for Chicago youth and you're whining about it.

The Obamas worked hard for their money and you're trying to marginalize them.

[OrwellwasRight]

224. im not trying to marginalze them

I'm trying to marginalize the weirdly worshipful response on this thread. Boo hoo to you!

[Cha]

225. BooHOO.. Yeah Keep Whining about the Obamas.

[OrwellwasRight]

228. please quote where i said anything about the Obamas.

and also where I 'whined'. Oh, that's right, I didn't.

[Cha]

230. Please Proceed..

[OrwellwasRight]

231. what?

That's not a quote from me.

[Cha]

233. Yes, let's keep this Wonderful Gift to the kids in Chicago

from the Obamas KICKED.

[Quayblue]

234. KICKED

because if I had $2 million disposable, I'd do the same for my hometown Detroit.

There are too many kind, hard-working people who deserve so much better than the bullshit that has gone on there. It would be an honor to assist.

[Cha]

235. Mahalo, Quayblue!

[OrwellwasRight]

237. Your posts are not responsive to mine

and don't make much sense. I won't be responding any more since this isn't actually a conversation. Happy Monday.

[Cha]

242. Your posts don't make any sense to me.

[Chevy]

238. How about the fact that certain purists where

slamming him for taking a speaking fee then all of a sudden remain silent when he donates.

[OrwellwasRight]

239. Just because you are pissed off at

"certain purists" -- whoever they are -- and no I don't appreciate the implication -- is no reason to abandon all Democratic principles by fawning over a single donation to charity. The Democratic way is societal solutions to societal problems. Education and training are societal problems. When we go cuckoo bananas over a private charitable donation, it appears we think that it is an acceptable substitute to societal actions. It isn't. Relying on the private charity of the rich to solve societal problems is a conservative solution, not a liberal one. Relying on the goodwill of the rich will leave out in the cold the least popular groups, who are often the most in need of help. The robber barons tried to whitewash their money by giving it to charity. In the end, we still needed government action (and lots of it) to get us through the great Depression. Rich people are not saviors, no matter what party they belong to.

[Chevy]

241. The donation would of barely got a mention

If PBO wasn't dragged by so called allies. Still waiting for the accusers to step up and do their part instead of talk.

[Cha]

243. So called "purists".