@squeakyclean I already provided the evidence. If you think it's all above board and people expect nothing in return, cool. I don't.
I think Obama is clean. He made his money off his story and his charisma.@squeakyclean if you think Obama went from 1 million to 70 because he's a great writer/orator and nobody expects anything in return, I can't help you.
I never said Trump wasn't corrupt. The two things that are different with him is he's bad at it and he does out in the open. He would be wealthier today if he never got into politics invested in a decent Vanguard fund.
Now, the Clintons are a much more interesting story.
I think Obama is clean. He made his money off his story and his charisma.@squeakyclean if you think Obama went from 1 million to 70 because he's a great writer/orator and nobody expects anything in return, I can't help you.
I never said Trump wasn't corrupt. The two things that are different with him is he's bad at it and he does out in the open. He would be wealthier today if he never got into politics invested in a decent Vanguard fund.
Now, the Clintons are a much more interesting story.
Don't say that to loud or you may come up missing for a while.
I think Obama is clean. He made his money off his story and his charisma.@squeakyclean if you think Obama went from 1 million to 70 because he's a great writer/orator and nobody expects anything in return, I can't help you.
I never said Trump wasn't corrupt. The two things that are different with him is he's bad at it and he does out in the open. He would be wealthier today if he never got into politics invested in a decent Vanguard fund.
Now, the Clintons are a much more interesting story.
That's fine. I just disagree. Making 70 million off being folksy is really hard. Seems impossible.
I'll add. UnitedHealth has 10x since ACA and Grok estimates 20-40% of its current value is from ACA (70-140 billion). I think some of that money eventually makes its way to Obama. To be fair, you can make a good argument they owe him the money. He's helped grow the company more than anyone else. Also, this is why governments are terrible for economies. Companies become heavily incentivized to "lobby" politicians to enact laws that's benefits their company. It's easier and a better ROI than organic innovation. And regulations tend to make it more difficult for their competitors as well.
That's fine. I just disagree. Making 70 million off being folksy is really hard. Seems impossible.
I bet if you spent some time looking at the Obamas' book deals, film projects, speaking engagements and what is known publicly about their post presidency investments it's not too hard to get to a net worth of $70 million, probably a lot more.
This article from 2018 says their joint book deals were worth $65 million. It doesn't mention their Netflix deal or the money they've made off Higher Ground Productions, but it's not hard to see them making a good amount on that too. Right now a show they produced and worked with Larry David on is streaming on HBO Max. I'd guess their post presidency earnings are as legit as anyone's at this point.
That's fine. I just disagree. Making 70 million off being folksy is really hard. Seems impossible.
I bet if you spent some time looking at the Obamas' book deals, film projects, speaking engagements and what is known publicly about their post presidency investments it's not too hard to get to a net worth of $70 million, probably a lot more.
This article from 2018 says their joint book deals were worth $65 million. It doesn't mention their Netflix deal or the money they've made off Higher Ground Productions, but it's not hard to see them making a good amount on that too. Right now a show they produced and worked with Larry David on is streaming on HBO Max. I'd guess their post presidency earnings are as legit as anyone's at this point.
I was wondering why the new Larry David show is so much more overtly political than his former projects. Makes sense now.
@squeakyclean I already provided the evidence. If you think it's all above board and people expect nothing in return, cool. I don't.
You’re pulling stuff out of your ass. There’s zero evidence of Obama corruption. Trump, on the other hand, is the dirtiest prez in US history.
Curb Your Enthusiasm wasn’t political? LMAO. Guess you never saw the MAGA hat episode.That's fine. I just disagree. Making 70 million off being folksy is really hard. Seems impossible.
I bet if you spent some time looking at the Obamas' book deals, film projects, speaking engagements and what is known publicly about their post presidency investments it's not too hard to get to a net worth of $70 million, probably a lot more.
This article from 2018 says their joint book deals were worth $65 million. It doesn't mention their Netflix deal or the money they've made off Higher Ground Productions, but it's not hard to see them making a good amount on that too. Right now a show they produced and worked with Larry David on is streaming on HBO Max. I'd guess their post presidency earnings are as legit as anyone's at this point.
I was wondering why the new Larry David show is so much more overtly political than his former projects. Makes sense now.
I was wondering why the new Larry David show is so much more overtly political than his former projects. Makes sense now.
There have been some funny segments in his new show and some that haven't landed well. I thought the one he plays a guy sitting on the bus next to Rosa Parks and eventually annoys her to the point of wanting to go sit in the back of the bus was funny. There are some funny takes on historical moments and there have been some political commentary - especially the skit with Rob Reiner playing George Washington - but I wouldn't say it's head and shoulders more political than Curb Your Enthusiasm. The MAGA hat episode was pretty straight forward in terms of where Larry stands politically.
I was wondering why the new Larry David show is so much more overtly political than his former projects. Makes sense now.
There have been some funny segments in his new show and some that haven't landed well. I thought the one he plays a guy sitting on the bus next to Rosa Parks and eventually annoys her to the point of wanting to go sit in the back of the bus was funny. There are some funny takes on historical moments and there have been some political commentary - especially the skit with Rob Reiner playing George Washington - but I wouldn't say it's head and shoulders more political than Curb Your Enthusiasm. The MAGA hat episode was pretty straight forward in terms of where Larry stands politically.
The MAGA hat bit in Curb was brilliant. The George Washington farewell address sketch was really lazy and just an excuse for an anti-Trump tirade.
The George Washington farewell address sketch was really lazy and just an excuse for an anti-Trump tirade.
I think there is some truth to that, but it landed well according to what I've seen. For the most part, Larry's audience has never really been big fans of Trump, so I agree it was low-hanging fruit.
@hurryinghoosiers go away stupid. Adults are talking.
really? that definitely wouldn't include you. It was moronic when you made that post the first time. But apparently you're too dumb to come up with something new.
@aloha-hoosier here is the question again. You think Obama made all of his money from speaking fees and books and none of the parties expect anything in return?
Obama isn't president any more. What exactly do you think they would expect in return?
Trump got a plane while president from a foreign country. think they don't expect anything in return? It wasn't that long ago that presidents weren't allowed to take bribes...especially from foreigners. MAGA morons look the other way though.
Of course. As I and others have already stated, the guy was already out of office. What they expected in return was profits and probably some publicity. That is not corruption. You don't understand what corruption is?@aloha-hoosier here is the question again. You think Obama made all of his money from speaking fees and books and none of the parties expect anything in return?
No, we disagree on reality. You think reality is Obama 70x his wealth because people just wanted to hear him speak or read about him without strings attached.
I think reality is he 70x his wealth and became one of the wealthiest people on planet earth is because of pay for play....aka corruption.
Now analyze your idol Trump.. see what corruption you can find there.
Btw, Obama isn't president any more. Don't know if you had heard or not. Not sure what you think he can give people.
I can't help it that you don't know what corruption is or WTF you're talking about. Go back to bitcoin, you love that and seem to know something about it, but no one else gives AF.Of course. As I and others have already stated, the guy was already out of office. What they expected in return was profits and probably some publicity. That is not corruption. You don't understand what corruption is?@aloha-hoosier here is the question again. You think Obama made all of his money from speaking fees and books and none of the parties expect anything in return?
No, we disagree on reality. You think reality is Obama 70x his wealth because people just wanted to hear him speak or read about him without strings attached.
I think reality is he 70x his wealth and became one of the wealthiest people on planet earth is because of pay for play....aka corruption.
By the way, this is what CO was alluding to earlier and where you struggle. It's not dumb to think a politician who leaves office and becomes extremely wealthy without producing anything of value (besides books/speaking) might have gained some of that wealth through pay to play bullsh#t.
To be fair, you could be right that Obama made all his wealth fair square without any strings attached and never did any favors for his fans/consumers.
lol so you admit that you know nothing but just making assumptions.
But Trump's corruption is right in front of our eyes and being ignored by his followers.
Methinks you are trying way too hard at a yabbut or distraction from the criminal currently in office.