Obama's Big Sellout

[Dari]

This is why, despite my support of the President's election, I've been critical from Day One. With both major parties at the behest of financial speculators, this nation is fucked.

Great read. I have to admit I was ignorant in how much these guys are all tied together. 😳 Why Obama put his trust in the same people involved in the collapse I don't understand. I hope he hitched his wagon to the right horse. :hmm:

He's young. After he leaves the White House, he'll need their support for jobs and anything else that may satisfy his ego.

 

[waggy]

This is why, despite my support of the President's election, I've been critical from Day One. With both major parties at the behest of financial speculators, this nation is fucked.



He's young. After he leaves the White House, he'll need their support for jobs and anything else that may satisfy his ego.

he won't need there support for anything. its not like he is not going to get a paycheck after he leaves the white house.

but yes this is not a R or D thing. though Obama sure has been going worse then people thought. Whey they are surprised if you paid attention to what he said and who he said stuff to/with you would know he is doing everything he said he would.

 

[Dari]

he won't need there support for anything. its not like he is not going to get a paycheck after he leaves the white house.

but yes this is not a R or D thing. though Obama sure has been going worse then people thought. Whey they are surprised if you paid attention to what he said and who he said stuff to/with you would know he is doing everything he said he would.

Well, Clinton did the same thing Obama is doing now and he's doing pretty well for himself (thanks to these Wall Street guys). Compare that to Jimmy Carter and it is obvious that principals take a backseat to self-interest.

 

[Craig234]

Well, Clinton did the same thing Obama is doing now and he's doing pretty well for himself (thanks to these Wall Street guys). Compare that to Jimmy Carter and it is obvious that principals take a backseat to self-interest.

What do you mean Obama is doing pretty well for himself by pandering to the corporatists?

If you mean he's getting their political support, campaign donations expected, ok.

If you are implying he's taking cash for his personal bank account, no.

I agree with your other post that pointed out that the situation that the corporatist cash seems to be overwhelmingly required to get elected, we're in trouble.

That doesn't make everyone who takes it equally bad, but it does compromise them all to some degree.

The solution of course is less about the voters continuing to vote based on the expensive marketing cdampaigns that need that cash but then attack eacxh politician, leading to cynicism abtuo the system.

It's more about making the corporate money not needed to win - whether that's by passing laws banning it, or by voters supporting candidates who don't get the corporate money. It's not easy.

The more voters commit to progressives who are not aligned with the corporatists, the better. But having people who ally with one group of corporatists (Rrepublicans) attack another group who do is a joke.

 

[boomerang]

When you read an article such as this it really starts to hit home that the collapse of this country is just a foregone conclusion. Blame can be spread around dependant upon one's own viewpoint, but at the heart of the problem is the very nature of the human race.

We're hundreds, perhaps thousands of years or more away from altering behaviors that are hard-wired into us. We may never be able to change in ways meaningful enough to even make a difference.

I've been saying this here on and off for several years. Great civilizations have fallen before. There is no reason to think that this one, that is all the majority of us have ever known, will be any different. The thing about greed, graft, corruption and decadence is that as they become more and more a part of a society, by their very nature, their effects start to accelerate.

Our demise is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Although not religious myself, the seven deadly sins come to mind.

 

[Dari]

What do you mean Obama is doing pretty well for himself by pandering to the corporatists?

If you mean he's getting their political support, campaign donations expected, ok.

If you are implying he's taking cash for his personal bank account, no.

I agree with your other post that pointed out that the situation that the corporatist cash seems to be overwhelmingly required to get elected, we're in trouble.

That doesn't make everyone who takes it equally bad, but it does compromise them all to some degree.

The solution of course is less about the voters continuing to vote based on the expensive marketing cdampaigns that need that cash but then attack eacxh politician, leading to cynicism abtuo the system.

It's more about making the corporate money not needed to win - whether that's by passing laws banning it, or by voters supporting candidates who don't get the corporate money. It's not easy.

The more voters commit to progressives who are not aligned with the corporatists, the better. But having people who ally with one group of corporatists (Rrepublicans) attack another group who do is a joke.

Out of office, Clinton has been doing well for himself...

 

[Craig234]

Out of office, Clinton has been doing well for himself...

I don't think the issue is President selling out for post-presidency income, generally. That's looking at the drops of water, not the ocean of corruption while they're in office affecting the corporatocracy.

An exception is the Bush connections (including James Baker and other figures like Tony Blair) to the world's leading arms consortium, the Carlyle Group, but that's not the rule or the main issue.