What's Obama running for?Pwns wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oba ... 6d718ab7b9
Any particular reason that I should believe that these speeches (whether given by Obama or Hillary or whoever) are anything other than just a sneaky way to transfer money to candidates? Am I really supposed to believe they paid mid six figures for a speech about health care for a guy that isn't an expert on it?
Just like Eric Holder and his temporary and cushy Wall Street job.
At least Republicans don't pretend to be the party of reigning in Wall Street and the big banks.
King of the worldkalm wrote:What's Obama running for?Pwns wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oba ... 6d718ab7b9
Any particular reason that I should believe that these speeches (whether given by Obama or Hillary or whoever) are anything other than just a sneaky way to transfer money to candidates? Am I really supposed to believe they paid mid six figures for a speech about health care for a guy that isn't an expert on it?
Just like Eric Holder and his temporary and cushy Wall Street job.
At least Republicans don't pretend to be the party of reigning in Wall Street and the big banks.
Republicans pretend to be the party of competition and free markets...
Nothing, but often when services are provided payment comes after the service is given.kalm wrote:
What's Obama running for?
Republicans pretend to be the party of competition and free markets...
Not defending him. I could have written that article as it's pretty much what I've been saying since early 2009. Just didn't get your quid pro quo payment terms connection buy yeah...I suppose it's possible.Pwns wrote:Nothing, but often when services are provided payment comes after the service is given.kalm wrote:
What's Obama running for?
Republicans pretend to be the party of competition and free markets...
Why are you sticking up for Obama, here?
at anyone actually thinking he gives a shit for the common man.
SDHornet wrote:He's gotta cash in for not prosecuting any Wall Streeters following the collapse. Can't blame him for it.
Oh and
These two posts ^^^^^^^^houndawg wrote:SDHornet wrote:He's gotta cash in for not prosecuting any Wall Streeters following the collapse. Can't blame him for it.
Oh and
That's how I'm thinking - unless he comes up with a surprise donation of some kind like donating toward bringing back the trend of bankers falling out of windows that was going around a while back...
.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-2 ... d-everyoneObama’s job was to talk like a marxist, but act like a robber baron. In this regard, his reign has been an unprecedented success.......
Denial is an extremely powerful thing, and tens of millions of Democrats were completely bamboozled by Obama due to their personal obsession with the man. This is precisely why cult of personality worship is so dangerous and counterproductive when it comes to politics. We need to grow up as a culture and start supporting policies over people, logic over emotion. If you become attached to a politician or a political party like a sports team, that individual or institution can very easily manipulate and betray you. We see this over and over again, and until we move to a higher level of understanding about the world around us, we will continue to be victimized by disingenuous, opportunistic shysters.
It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.For virtually his whole Presidency, President Obama operated according to a Hamiltonian worldview in which social justice and concentrated capital went hand-in-hand, where technocracy was seen as superior to democracy.
I always thought of Obama as Wilsonian in his belief in government by elites. But without the white supremacist, eugenicist overlay.kalm wrote:And here's the link to the Stoller piece.
https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/obam ... 301d5c19ee
It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.For virtually his whole Presidency, President Obama operated according to a Hamiltonian worldview in which social justice and concentrated capital went hand-in-hand, where technocracy was seen as superior to democracy.
And then donks followed him up with hillary and the "i'm with her" slogan.kalm wrote:These two posts ^^^^^^^^houndawg wrote:
That's how I'm thinking - unless he comes up with a surprise donation of some kind like donating toward bringing back the trend of bankers falling out of windows that was going around a while back...
.
Here's an excellent piece on the hamiltonian nature of Obushma including some excerpts from a Matt Stoller article which is also quite good.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-2 ... d-everyoneObama’s job was to talk like a marxist, but act like a robber baron. In this regard, his reign has been an unprecedented success.......
Denial is an extremely powerful thing, and tens of millions of Democrats were completely bamboozled by Obama due to their personal obsession with the man. This is precisely why cult of personality worship is so dangerous and counterproductive when it comes to politics. We need to grow up as a culture and start supporting policies over people, logic over emotion. If you become attached to a politician or a political party like a sports team, that individual or institution can very easily manipulate and betray you. We see this over and over again, and until we move to a higher level of understanding about the world around us, we will continue to be victimized by disingenuous, opportunistic shysters.
The Hamiltonian thing is bunk, though, because he operated just like a classic Jeffersonian. He embraced all the things that people criticized Hamilton for (e.g. financial systems, executive power) and castigated the other side as immoral and evil while at the same time claiming to be a true republican (lower case) and a man of the people. That's essentially what Jefferson did in the early days of the Republic - Obama was much more a Jeffersonian and than a Hamilton-like. Again, history fails some people.kalm wrote:And here's the link to the Stoller piece.
https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/obam ... 301d5c19ee
It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.For virtually his whole Presidency, President Obama operated according to a Hamiltonian worldview in which social justice and concentrated capital went hand-in-hand, where technocracy was seen as superior to democracy.
Hamilton wasn't cozy with a strong federalGannonFan wrote:The Hamiltonian thing is bunk, though, because he operated just like a classic Jeffersonian. He embraced all the things that people criticized Hamilton for (e.g. financial systems, executive power) and castigated the other side as immoral and evil while at the same time claiming to be a true republican (lower case) and a man of the people. That's essentially what Jefferson did in the early days of the Republic - Obama was much more a Jeffersonian and than a Hamilton-like. Again, history fails some people.kalm wrote:And here's the link to the Stoller piece.
https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/obam ... 301d5c19ee
It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.
Cozy with and advocated for are different things - besides, it was entrenched wealth (Clinton and Jefferson among others) that opposed Hamilton. Regardless, he didn't throw on sackcloth and try to pass himself off in public as a simple man directly from the people while privately - that was the Jeffersonian tactic that was a pretty significant difference.kalm wrote:Hamilton wasn't cozy with a strong federalGannonFan wrote:
The Hamiltonian thing is bunk, though, because he operated just like a classic Jeffersonian. He embraced all the things that people criticized Hamilton for (e.g. financial systems, executive power) and castigated the other side as immoral and evil while at the same time claiming to be a true republican (lower case) and a man of the people. That's essentially what Jefferson did in the early days of the Republic - Obama was much more a Jeffersonian and than a Hamilton-like. Again, history fails some people.
Government and entrenched wealth?
And don't forget KenwaianJjoey52 wrote:He was neither Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian, Obama was douchebagolian.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Feel free to point out the imperfections, I'll be glad to discuss them with you. I don't see any problem with pursuing historical accuracy - what do you have against historical accuracy??Skjellyfetti wrote:There are common strands with both.
You can't make a historical comparison without gannon jumping on you over any differences (though, he's happy to make his own imperfect historical analogies)
Rhetoric notwithstanding, what about their actions?GannonFan wrote:Cozy with and advocated for are different things - besides, it was entrenched wealth (Clinton and Jefferson among others) that opposed Hamilton. Regardless, he didn't throw on sackcloth and try to pass himself off in public as a simple man directly from the people while privately - that was the Jeffersonian tactic that was a pretty significant difference.kalm wrote:
Hamilton wasn't cozy with a strong federal
Government and entrenched wealth?
Which means that he was Jeffersonian. That's what Jeffersonian was - rhetorically being a man of the people, even denigrating Hamilton, while then at the same time embracing the systems that Hamilton created (e.g. the First National Bank - not the Second, that was a creation of Jefferson's political progeny).kalm wrote:Rhetoric notwithstanding, what about their actions?GannonFan wrote:
Cozy with and advocated for are different things - besides, it was entrenched wealth (Clinton and Jefferson among others) that opposed Hamilton. Regardless, he didn't throw on sackcloth and try to pass himself off in public as a simple man directly from the people while privately - that was the Jeffersonian tactic that was a pretty significant difference.
Isn't that the author's critique? Obama was rhetorically a man of the people but in practice, his policies were Hamiltonian?
