4 ms·

Jimmy Carter did not "sell his family's peanut farm." His mother and brother managed it. In fact, ol' Billy Carter got in a bunch of trouble using it as a sort

Jimmy Carter did not "sell his family's peanut farm." His mother and brother managed it. In fact, ol' Billy Carter got in a bunch of trouble using it as a sort of slush fund when he was hanging out with the Libyans.... but, I suspect that is long before your time.... Nobody sells off nothing merely to take a 4-year gig. At most, they simply let other family members take over the business.

mikeyouse 8y ago
You're right, I had the history wrong -- he put the ownership into blind trust from which his brother was embezzling. In either case, a peanut farm was important enough to avoid impropriety but somehow all these businesses actively putting money into the President's pocket are kosher? What would people have said if all of the sudden the Iranians started buying tons of peanuts exclusively from Carter's farm?
- lurquer 8y ago
  You did have the history wrong. What's more interesting is WHY you believed 'fake news' about Jimmy Carter selling off his family farm. I can't think of ANY President who 'sold off' anything. Kennedy certainly didn't. Neither Bush did. (Indeed, you may wish to compare the frequency of Trump at Mar-a-lago vs. Bush Sr. at Kennebunkport...) Reagan had Rancho del Cielo -- his several hundred acre ranch at which he spent so much time that it was referred to as the "Western Whitehouse." Obama went from $0 to a multimillionaire. The Clintons went from a $0 to several hundred million. (As far as the Clintons... well, if you think the Clinton's didn't benefit from the Clinton Foundation, I guess you've drunk the Kool-Aid... You oughta take some time to see how many millions of dollars in speaking fees, travel, and accommodations the Foundation paid to the three Clintons.) The Bush's were already incredibly wealthy, but probably quadrupled their net worth through their semi-private 'Carlyle Group' investment fund. Your animosity towards Trump leads you to attack the one area where he's head and shoulders above the others: he's going to leave office with a lower net worth.
  - mikeyouse 8y ago
    There are all the obvious corruption problems with post-Presidential activities, and obviously it's a huge source of corrupting influence. The Clintons became obscenely wealthy -- but that had nothing to do with their Foundation (speaking as an expert in nonprofit finance). My only animosity is toward public corruption. The Bushes visiting Kennebunkport was obviously different because other people couldn't pay to access the president at Kennebunkport. The Saudis bought 500 rooms at a hotel that the President personally owns immediately after the inauguration. That's completely different in scale, kind, and timing in terms of the 'normal' corruption and I'm flabbergasted that it doesn't register as such. Phrased another way: What's the method to illicitly influence the Bushes at Kennebunkport? How about the method to influence the Obamas after they've left office? You could absolutely make a case about influencing the Clintons since Hillary obviously wanted to run for President. The story to illicitly influence the current President is very straightforward and keeps happening in the open. Regardless of what happened in the past, shouldn't we try to stop it when it's happening now?

mikeyouse 8y ago

You're right, I had the history wrong -- he put the ownership into blind trust from which his brother was embezzling. In either case, a peanut farm was important enough to avoid impropriety but somehow all these businesses actively putting money into the President's pocket are kosher? What would people have said if all of the sudden the Iranians started buying tons of peanuts exclusively from Carter's farm?

lurquer 8y ago
You did have the history wrong. What's more interesting is WHY you believed 'fake news' about Jimmy Carter selling off his family farm. I can't think of ANY President who 'sold off' anything. Kennedy certainly didn't. Neither Bush did. (Indeed, you may wish to compare the frequency of Trump at Mar-a-lago vs. Bush Sr. at Kennebunkport...) Reagan had Rancho del Cielo -- his several hundred acre ranch at which he spent so much time that it was referred to as the "Western Whitehouse." Obama went from $0 to a multimillionaire. The Clintons went from a $0 to several hundred million. (As far as the Clintons... well, if you think the Clinton's didn't benefit from the Clinton Foundation, I guess you've drunk the Kool-Aid... You oughta take some time to see how many millions of dollars in speaking fees, travel, and accommodations the Foundation paid to the three Clintons.) The Bush's were already incredibly wealthy, but probably quadrupled their net worth through their semi-private 'Carlyle Group' investment fund. Your animosity towards Trump leads you to attack the one area where he's head and shoulders above the others: he's going to leave office with a lower net worth.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  There are all the obvious corruption problems with post-Presidential activities, and obviously it's a huge source of corrupting influence. The Clintons became obscenely wealthy -- but that had nothing to do with their Foundation (speaking as an expert in nonprofit finance). My only animosity is toward public corruption. The Bushes visiting Kennebunkport was obviously different because other people couldn't pay to access the president at Kennebunkport. The Saudis bought 500 rooms at a hotel that the President personally owns immediately after the inauguration. That's completely different in scale, kind, and timing in terms of the 'normal' corruption and I'm flabbergasted that it doesn't register as such. Phrased another way: What's the method to illicitly influence the Bushes at Kennebunkport? How about the method to influence the Obamas after they've left office? You could absolutely make a case about influencing the Clintons since Hillary obviously wanted to run for President. The story to illicitly influence the current President is very straightforward and keeps happening in the open. Regardless of what happened in the past, shouldn't we try to stop it when it's happening now?