I Didn't Make it to Clooney's Shindig for Obama Yesterday

[tinselwolverine]

I wasn't invited, and I wouldn't have the 35 or 40 Gs or whatever it was to drop on it if I had been.

Also I'm not a registered Democrat (not registered to any party, major or 3rd party).

Just in case any of youse guys was wonderin.'

 

[byco42]

When's Romney's Hollywood fundraiser scheduled?

 

[Michchamp]

When's Romney's Hollywood fundraiser scheduled?

LOL, does Utah have a film industry?

either way, he doesn't need one; already had a number of events like this: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ma...-home-everyone-should-live-like-this-20120502

the papa john's guy is small potatoes compared to the Wall Street guys...

 

[cheeno]

LOL, does Utah have a film industry?

either way, he doesn't need one; already had a number of events like this: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ma...-home-everyone-should-live-like-this-20120502

the papa john's guy is small potatoes compared to the Wall Street guys...

You mean Obama's biggest donors?

 

[redandguilty]

You mean Obama's biggest donors?

Everybody's biggest donors. I've said it before, but after the last Presidential election I went through the list of biggest corporate donors and picked out the banking firms. All but one fell somewhere between 50/50 to about 60/40 McMain/Obama support (a couple leaned even further in McCain's direction.) The one exception was the biggest donor of them all: Goldman Sachs; 60/40 in favor of Obama.

 

[cheeno]

Everybody's biggest donors. I've said it before, but after the last Presidential election I went through the list of biggest corporate donors and picked out the banking firms. All but one fell somewhere between 50/50 to about 60/40 McMain/Obama support (a couple leaned even further in McCain's direction.) The one exception was the biggest donor of them all: Goldman Sachs; 60/40 in favor of Obama.

Yeah, I knew that. When michchamp brought up "Wall Street guys" I didn't know if he was speaking in general terms or if he was directing that specifically at Romney. I wanted to clarify that Obama (and Romney) are funded by Wall Street guys.

 

[byco42]

Just look at the overlap of the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs personnel, and we see plutocracy as a snapshot. Or is it now neptuneocracy?

 

[redandguilty]

Just look at the overlap of the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs personnel, and we see plutocracy as a snapshot. Or is it now neptuneocracy?

...and the Fed Reserve. Say what you will about Greenspan, but I don't have the impression that he was in anyone's back pocket. The clear cut checks and balances we have for making, interpreting, and enforcing laws would be good to have for monetary policy and financial regulation.

 

[Michchamp]

Just look at the overlap of the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs personnel, and we see plutocracy as a snapshot. Or is it now neptuneocracy?

it was the same thing with the prior administration.

 

[Michchamp]

You mean Obama's biggest donors?

true; I believe Romney has been leading in terms of raking in Wall Street cash this go-around, but in 2008, the Dems were the beneficiaries.

explains why they did nothing to Wall Street under Obama.

 

[redandguilty]

it was the same thing with the prior administration.

To a large degree (and maybe this isn't fair - I don't know) I blame Karl Rove. This idea that nothing is off limits and you want someone sympathetic to your party in every position in every organization and everything is a battle to achieve that...I see that as something he started.

 

[Michchamp]

...and the Fed Reserve. Say what you will about Greenspan, but I don't have the impression that he was in anyone's back pocket. The clear cut checks and balances we have for making, interpreting, and enforcing laws would be good to have for monetary policy and financial regulation.

maybe not, but he was only around because his personal philosophy was such that he was exactly the guy wall street wanted: he'd do NOTHING while they raked it in, even while unstable asset bubbles were about to burst, all the while publicly stating that all was fine, the Fed did not need to do anything, and no problems were foreseeable.

 

[Michchamp]

To a large degree (and maybe this isn't fair - I don't know) I blame Karl Rove. This idea that nothing is off limits and you want someone sympathetic to your party in every position in every organization and everything is a battle to achieve that...I see that as something he started.

actually... go back to Bill Clinton. See, e.g. the presence of Bob Rubin and Larry Summers in his administration. note where they both came from.

then when OWS starts up, protesting this corruption UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, blast them as a bunch of know-nothing hippies, and unemployed liberal losers... then marvel at how your understanding of the world is a tangled web of nonsense, created by subtle PR campaigns, aimed at confusing the public and preventing any sort of real reform...

(that last paragraph was not addressed at anyone in particular, just a rhetorical flourish)

 

[redandguilty]

maybe not, but he was only around because his personal philosophy was such that he was exactly the guy wall street wanted: he'd do NOTHING while they raked it in, even while unstable asset bubbles were about to burst, all the while publicly stating that all was fine, the Fed did not need to do anything, and no problems were foreseeable.

I get that, but I'm in a place where I think nonpartianship is my single issue. I even like characters like Ron Paul and Kucinich, not because I think they have the asnwers to everything, but because I don't think partisanship drives their every word.

 

[cheeno]

I get that, but I'm in a place where I think nonpartianship is my single issue. I even like characters like Ron Paul and Kucinich, not because I think they have the asnwers to everything, but because I don't think partisanship drives their every word.

I'm on board.

 

[redandguilty]

actually... go back to Bill Clinton. See, e.g. the presence of Bob Rubin and Larry Summers in his administration. note where they both came from.

then when OWS starts up, protesting this corruption UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, blast them as a bunch of know-nothing hippies, and unemployed liberal losers... then marvel at how your understanding of the world is a tangled web of nonsense, created by subtle PR campaigns, aimed at confusing the public and preventing any sort of real reform...

(that last paragraph was not addressed at anyone in particular, just a rhetorical flourish)

I might have mentioned this, if not I figure you'd get a kick out of it. My Goldman Sachs friend definitely falls into the camp that would believe that they're doing God's work. He wanted to work for Goldman in college specifically because they were different and recognized the importance of ethical behavior on their long term existence. So naturally, I made a poster that said this was all his fault, went down to the Occupy Durham protests, took a picture, and sent it to him.

 

[byco42]

it was the same thing with the prior administration.

Not mentioning that does not mean I am implying this is a novel situation. The same boots who caused the Bush-administration mess are working for Obama now. Which is why a scoff at the criticism that Obama heaps on it.

Elections have been purchased for generations.

 

[redandguilty]

actually... go back to Bill Clinton. See, e.g. the presence of Bob Rubin and Larry Summers in his administration. note where they both came from.

then when OWS starts up, protesting this corruption UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, blast them as a bunch of know-nothing hippies, and unemployed liberal losers... then marvel at how your understanding of the world is a tangled web of nonsense, created by subtle PR campaigns, aimed at confusing the public and preventing any sort of real reform...

(that last paragraph was not addressed at anyone in particular, just a rhetorical flourish)

There might be an argument for it starting with Clinton. But it seems like I once saw something about the blocking of judicial nominations taking off under Clinton too.

 

[redandguilty]

Not mentioning that does not mean I am implying this is a novel situation. The same boots who caused the Bush-administration mess are working for Obama now. Which is why a scoff at the criticism that Obama heaps on it.

Elections have been purchased for generations.

...and Cheney criticized Obama for following a troop drawdown schedule in Iraq that he actually had proposed himself. It's all a crock. I feel like we're taking sides between the Blue Knight and the Red Knight at Medieval Times.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Obama will still get the majority of his money from individual donors giving $500 or less. Romeny will get the vast majority of his money from large donors or have it spent on his behalf by SUPER PACs.