4 ms·

The fact that all a POTUS does after presidency is enrich oneself, it's quite clear where the motives are. The moment when POTUS is unable to profit off of his

The fact that all a POTUS does after presidency is enrich oneself, it's quite clear where the motives are. The moment when POTUS is unable to profit off of his presidency is the moment where these things wouldn't happen. POTUS becoming a multimillionaire after presidency is just a sad display of moral corruption. Edit: Not talking about Trump, just in general about POTUS. It's my impression that in the last 50 years all of them benefited from the public, exerting their influence after losing the binds of the POTUS position to enrich themselves. Shows quite a lack of moral character in all of them.

mattst88 6y ago
Have you heard of Jimmy Carter?
- rchaud 6y ago
  Would this be an example of the exception proving the rule? It still seems like an accident of history that Americans sent Jimmy Carter to the highest office in the land. For as much as they claim to want a regular Joe/Joe-ette as President (the mirage of the unpretentious 'I can have a beer with him' candidate) they seem to vote for people that are the polar opposite.
  - rat87 6y ago
    Truman is an even better example Before they passed a presidential pension bill Truman was basically broke, living of his army pension
spiderfarmer 6y ago
He was very clear about this goal even before his campaign in 2016. In 2000 Donald Trump told Fortune magazine, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Thankfully, he end up being the first presidential candidate bankrupted by the position. The dude's primary asset, his brand, is not completely toxic and can no longer be used to prop up his other failed ventures. And the only bankers wiling to finance him will the the predatory ones, who will all extract every penny left then leave him with nothing.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    I’m not so sure about that. With his crazy following if he creates his own online presence, à la infowars, he can make a lot of money.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    That kind of remains to be seen there's a lot of people out there that are still very on board with Trump, it may not be a luxury lifestyle brand much going forward but it'll almost definitely still be a brand.
  - CountSessine 6y ago
    If there’s anything that Trump is actually good at, other than carnival barking, it’s shielding assets and wealth from bankruptcy, and remaining rich after “insolvency”. Don’t expect him to show up homeless on Venice Beach any time soon.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    > is [now] completely toxic and can no longer be used to prop up his other failed ventures You are underestimating something. I remember how Bush was literally Hitler and Cheney was an impossibly evil name. But now Bush is a lovable cook, Biden admin was taking with Dick Cheney about foreign affairs and Liz Cheney was just celebrated by the left/media for dumping on Trump. Trump brand won’t be what it was, but it’s something different now. I think the political left did themselves a great disservice by not giving in to election fraud investigations, when people were asking for signature matching, observer access, proving compliance with Article2, scanned ballot uploads, whatever else was reasonable and we should expect our election system to provide without question. Even the most rabid TrumpHater5000 should have supported that because it would have proved he was wrong. Now in some people’s eyes we will never truly know. For practically half the country Biden has an asterix by his name. That doesn’t seem like a great start and it didn’t actually tarnish Trump Brand except to the people who hated him already including the establishment GOP. His approval among supporters is not lower since Jan 6th, as difficult as it may be to understand.
kyleblarson 6y ago
He was already a billionaire before he got elected. What I find particularly disgusting is how lifelong politicians with relatively meager (compared with the private sector) salaries can become so wealthy while in office. But yes the revolving door is a thing and it should be addressed. Yellen earned over 7 mil in speaking fees in the last two years. It is impossible that that will not have any influence over her decisions when she's back at the Fed.
- rchaud 6y ago
  Pretty much every major figure in the Fed (and minor figures too) has come straight from from Goldman or JPMorgan or some other major bank. It's called a 'revolving door' for a reason.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Larrikin 6y ago
  There's no evidence, besides self reporting to tabloids and magazines, Trump ever came close to being a billionaire.
tomComb 6y ago
If they get rich by selling books and speeches I have no problem with that, and am surprised by the number that do. People might not like that, but it isn't corruption. If, on the other hand, a president makes his presidency about doing favours for the rich and powerful then he won't have to write books and speeches afterwards.
- knuthsat 6y ago
  I have a problem with that. It shows moral corruption. It's not corruption in the legal sense but outlines the issue of why the pardons do not make sense. ex-POTUS is still an influential individual and is just profiting after the binds of the position are lifted. I think it would be a pretty nice decree to disallow the president to become extremely wealthy X years after presidency. Let the influence slowly fade and let's see if POTUS as an individual, after being elected to do public good, can produce some value outside of benefiting from being elected.
  - mlazos 6y ago
    Honestly most former presidents do “good work” in this sense. The power is gone so now there’s less outside influence. This law seems arbitrary and has no purpose, there’s like 4-5 former presidents alive at a time? This “problem” is at the bottom of my list of problems that need solving.
    - knuthsat 6y ago
      Well, if a law was put I'd definitely include all of the public servants in executive positions, which includes congress, mayors and alike. It's going to be a much different crop of people wanting to work for the public, because eventually, now, they all become "consultants" for companies dealing with the public sectors, and enrich themselves.
xpe 6y ago
The argument that "all Presidents have imperfect morals" is obvious and uninteresting. The quality of "moral character" varies tremendously among people.
- knuthsat 6y ago
  Should have worded is as "lack in moral character"

mattst88 6y ago

Have you heard of Jimmy Carter?

rchaud 6y ago
Would this be an example of the exception proving the rule? It still seems like an accident of history that Americans sent Jimmy Carter to the highest office in the land. For as much as they claim to want a regular Joe/Joe-ette as President (the mirage of the unpretentious 'I can have a beer with him' candidate) they seem to vote for people that are the polar opposite.
- rat87 6y ago
  Truman is an even better example Before they passed a presidential pension bill Truman was basically broke, living of his army pension

spiderfarmer 6y ago

He was very clear about this goal even before his campaign in 2016. In 2000 Donald Trump told Fortune magazine, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

mywittyname 6y ago
Thankfully, he end up being the first presidential candidate bankrupted by the position. The dude's primary asset, his brand, is not completely toxic and can no longer be used to prop up his other failed ventures. And the only bankers wiling to finance him will the the predatory ones, who will all extract every penny left then leave him with nothing.
- dgellow 6y ago
  I’m not so sure about that. With his crazy following if he creates his own online presence, à la infowars, he can make a lot of money.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  That kind of remains to be seen there's a lot of people out there that are still very on board with Trump, it may not be a luxury lifestyle brand much going forward but it'll almost definitely still be a brand.
- CountSessine 6y ago
  If there’s anything that Trump is actually good at, other than carnival barking, it’s shielding assets and wealth from bankruptcy, and remaining rich after “insolvency”. Don’t expect him to show up homeless on Venice Beach any time soon.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > is [now] completely toxic and can no longer be used to prop up his other failed ventures You are underestimating something. I remember how Bush was literally Hitler and Cheney was an impossibly evil name. But now Bush is a lovable cook, Biden admin was taking with Dick Cheney about foreign affairs and Liz Cheney was just celebrated by the left/media for dumping on Trump. Trump brand won’t be what it was, but it’s something different now. I think the political left did themselves a great disservice by not giving in to election fraud investigations, when people were asking for signature matching, observer access, proving compliance with Article2, scanned ballot uploads, whatever else was reasonable and we should expect our election system to provide without question. Even the most rabid TrumpHater5000 should have supported that because it would have proved he was wrong. Now in some people’s eyes we will never truly know. For practically half the country Biden has an asterix by his name. That doesn’t seem like a great start and it didn’t actually tarnish Trump Brand except to the people who hated him already including the establishment GOP. His approval among supporters is not lower since Jan 6th, as difficult as it may be to understand.

kyleblarson 6y ago

He was already a billionaire before he got elected. What I find particularly disgusting is how lifelong politicians with relatively meager (compared with the private sector) salaries can become so wealthy while in office. But yes the revolving door is a thing and it should be addressed. Yellen earned over 7 mil in speaking fees in the last two years. It is impossible that that will not have any influence over her decisions when she's back at the Fed.

rchaud 6y ago
Pretty much every major figure in the Fed (and minor figures too) has come straight from from Goldman or JPMorgan or some other major bank. It's called a 'revolving door' for a reason.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Larrikin 6y ago
There's no evidence, besides self reporting to tabloids and magazines, Trump ever came close to being a billionaire.

tomComb 6y ago

If they get rich by selling books and speeches I have no problem with that, and am surprised by the number that do. People might not like that, but it isn't corruption. If, on the other hand, a president makes his presidency about doing favours for the rich and powerful then he won't have to write books and speeches afterwards.

knuthsat 6y ago
I have a problem with that. It shows moral corruption. It's not corruption in the legal sense but outlines the issue of why the pardons do not make sense. ex-POTUS is still an influential individual and is just profiting after the binds of the position are lifted. I think it would be a pretty nice decree to disallow the president to become extremely wealthy X years after presidency. Let the influence slowly fade and let's see if POTUS as an individual, after being elected to do public good, can produce some value outside of benefiting from being elected.
- mlazos 6y ago
  Honestly most former presidents do “good work” in this sense. The power is gone so now there’s less outside influence. This law seems arbitrary and has no purpose, there’s like 4-5 former presidents alive at a time? This “problem” is at the bottom of my list of problems that need solving.
  - knuthsat 6y ago
    Well, if a law was put I'd definitely include all of the public servants in executive positions, which includes congress, mayors and alike. It's going to be a much different crop of people wanting to work for the public, because eventually, now, they all become "consultants" for companies dealing with the public sectors, and enrich themselves.

xpe 6y ago

The argument that "all Presidents have imperfect morals" is obvious and uninteresting. The quality of "moral character" varies tremendously among people.

knuthsat 6y ago
Should have worded is as "lack in moral character"