Active Now

Malizz
Shuhak
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Jimmy Carter had to divest himself of his interest in a peanut farm decades ago. Conflict of interest was frowned upon then. Why not now?

Jimmy Carter had to divest himself of his interest in a peanut farm decades ago. Conflict of interest was frowned upon then. Why not now?

Posted - April 27, 2017

Responses


  • 6477
    Idiocy? Gullibility?  Perhaps people have become progressively more stupid and cannot work out why it's important?  Interestingly, not saying I agree or disagree, but our lot are thinking of forbidding a high ranking MP from having other jobs at all..
      April 27, 2017 11:29 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
      I think that's a great idea! If the people pay for a person to do a specific job that should be what the person does and nothing else. Of course any pol who is that dedicated is probably as rare as a Unicorn which is to stay doesn't exist. People have different concerns. Some seem idiotic to me but  then I'm sure mine seem idiotic to them. And so it goes. SIGH. Thank you for your reply Addb and Happy Friday to thee! :)
      April 28, 2017 5:41 AM MDT
    0

  • My gosh Rosie, I for one hope we have changed after 40 years. Like it or not, it's what we evolve into. What is your alternative? I couldn't care less about that peanut farmer. I'd rather spend my time influencing changes for today.  

    [Excerpt] Google

    Cultural relativism is the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the viewpoint of that culture itself.
      April 27, 2017 11:52 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    I saw an interesting "commentary" on cable last night.  Trump has a very low approval rating around the end of his first 100 days.

    The commentator suggested that may not be important because he was judged very low on preparation and quality as a potential president.

    Perhaps those who voted for him figured we needed anybody as long as it was different from what we had.

    (I would feel much better about that judgment if it had been made by people with higher levels of education than those who apparently--- at least according to published correlational analysis) voted for Trump.
      April 27, 2017 12:52 PM MDT
    3

  • 113301
    You know what AMAZES me tom? The number of people so EAGER to defend whatever DOOFUS DONNY does or says! Say one thing about him that isn't a**-kissy and stand back and read what comes from it. He walks on water according to them and they will NOT tolerate anyone pointing out to them that the emperor is naked and and incompetent and evil. Nope. They see him clothed magnificently in all his breathtaking handsomeness! Whatever he says/does is beyond amazing to them. His will be done. They will support him, defend him and by golly attack others on his behalf who dare to disagree. SIGH. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday! :) This post was edited by RosieG at April 28, 2017 10:08 AM MDT
      April 28, 2017 4:30 AM MDT
    1

  • 13251
    OK, but did you know that Trump actually beat Clinton among white folks with college degrees by 49%-45%? Of course, that was smaller than Mitt Romney's 2012 margin among the same group of 56%-42%. It was similar to John McCain's 2008 margin of 51%-47%.*

    * Statistics from Pew Research.
      April 28, 2017 8:07 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    You can make a case for Trump (although perhaps less so now) because his rhetoric hinted that he could perform (good) miracles.  That has proven to not be the case so far.  Now we find that the president's personal integrity and honesty and his personal knowledge of how things like economics and negotiation work with people who have diametrically opposite goals from ours is rather more important than " the art of the deal.)  If he were still in business, he would just walk away and seek better terms from someone else.  That's not an option now. Previously he could simply get what he wanted from a more agreeable adversary. No longer an option---the players in this game are permanent members and it's a zero sum paradigm.  
      April 28, 2017 9:52 AM MDT
    1

  • 13251
    I'm not making a case for anyone. I was just citing some numbers that give the lie to your notion that Trump was elected by some sort of monolithic bloc of uneducated or less-educated voters.
      April 28, 2017 10:49 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    Actually ... the question is misleading or mis-stated.

    Jimmy Carter did not HAVE to divest himself, as the "conflict of interest" rules for Presidents are far less than those for Congress or any other political office.

    Many Presidents made choices regarding "conflicts of interest" that they were not legally obligated to. 
    Yet those choices do not set any precedent for current or future Presidents.

    Given that any decision a President makes would have some impact on virtually every business in the US, it would be silly to demand a President (and his family) sell all their business interests + stocks + bonds.  The best we can ask, is that they do not take a direct hand in running any business while in office.

      April 27, 2017 2:01 PM MDT
    3

  • excellent point .. 
      April 27, 2017 3:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    So the ZILLIONS of conflicts of interest enjoyed by Doofus Donny doesn't bother you?  Okey dokey. Different strokes. I am always amazed at the number of people eager to defend the Doofus no matter how egregious his actions/words are. Who knew? SIGH. Thank you for your reply  WO'R and Happy Friday. It takes all kinds.   :(
      April 28, 2017 4:25 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    I do not defend (or attack) Trump any more than I would any other President.
    Until Congress passes more restrictive "conflict of interest" laws on the President, we are stuck with what we have.
    No use blaming any President for complying with existing laws.

      April 28, 2017 7:54 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    What about the Emoluments clause in the Constitution? The Donald is certainly breaking that, trampling it, pulverizing it. He is getting richer every day in every way at the expense of we the people. Congress doesn't have to pass any conflict of interests laws. Everything Trump does is conflicted/criminal/illegal/self-aggrandizing. What Congress has to do is get off its A** and start investigating all the egregious infractions everyone already knows about. The Senate is dragging its heels. Hopefully the FBI will investigate thoroughly and fairly and in timely fashion and stop this abomination of a prez from raping we the people any longer. He is a very disgusting man who gets away with whatever he wishes because he can. Why? Because partisan politics is so prevalent it prevents Republicans from doing their jobs and serving we the people. When that changes he will be called to account for his deeds and face multiple judges and juries. I'd love to see him go prison.  Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday Walt O'R! :)
      April 29, 2017 4:16 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    Even Constitutional Scholars can't agree whether the "Emoluments clause" is being violated.
    It obviously prohibits receiving GIFTS from a foreign government ... but does it prohibit being paid for doing business?  THAT is what they can't agree on.  And the only way to settle the question would be for a federal court to decide.

    It would be a very interesting case, with wide-ranging implications besides to Donald Trump.
    How many government officials own stock in companies that trade with other nations?  Since we are in a global economy, it's almost impossible not to.  And what about US Treasury bonds - since those are bought by other nations to fund our debt, could we say the entire government is in violation of the clause?

    Yep.  VERY interesting questions, that will likely be debated long after Trump is no longer President.  Unless the Supreme Court weighs in.

      April 30, 2017 10:53 AM MDT
    0

  • 32527
    Carter did NOT divest his ownership of the peanut farm and warehouse. 
    From 1979:
    The peanut warehouse operation, which was begun by Lillian Carter's husband, is now held in a partnership. Roughly, Billy has a 15 percent interest, Jimmy 63 percent, and their mother 22 percent, according to Kirbo.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/02/14/troubled-carter-peanut-warehouse-is-up-for-sale/e1a1e82f-9707-43c7-97cc-c3a0c2713094/?utm_term=.ae023b4ea722
      April 27, 2017 7:54 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Seriously m2c. This is what you got? Nothing about the ZILLIONS of conflicts of interest Doofus Donny and his clan have?  I can't believe it.  Well thanks anyway and Happy Friday. :(
      April 28, 2017 4:22 AM MDT
    0

  • 32527
    It nulifies your point in your question. The question says Carter divested....he did not. And by law no President has to.
      April 28, 2017 4:31 AM MDT
    0