The SOB truly doesn’t know the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don’t necessarily disagree with Sowell’s take, but I do think that only addresses part of the statement I made regarding Clinton. Regardless of what we think of his personal shortcomings, his work post presidency has been commendable, especially his work with HIV/AIDS and his work with Bob Dole helping 9/11 families. There are other charitable endeavors, but those came to mind first.

It’s hard saying, but I’d venture to guess Trump won’t outpace any former president in post-presidency work. If 2021-January 2025 are any indication, he’ll spend his final days bitching on social media about everyone who doesn’t talk about how awesome he is and hawking garbage products to enrich himself.

I'm all for presidents using their post-presidency to do good things. Although, honestly, I don't think they necessarily need to be charitable. I'm somebody who genuinely believes that running successful businesses that generate lots of profits is a very good thing for society. I'm not all that taken up with altruism -- although I very much support charitable endeavors (and give quite a bit of money and time to some).

But it doesn't really have much to do with what Sowell's saying here. It's a sentiment that is just dripping with cynicism -- but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

For somebody like me, nothing makes me more wary than a politician who comes along and says he's going to use the power of government to cure all that ails us. Because that virtually never ends up being the case with government policy. Our society usually gains more from the retraction of government intervention than the expansion of it.

However, even politicians who pledge to help society by reducing, rather than growing, government are more interested in their own election than they are in solving any of our problems.

 

[Ohio Guy]

I'm all for presidents using their post-presidency to do good things. Although, honestly, I don't think they necessarily need to be charitable. I'm somebody who genuinely believes that running successful businesses that generate lots of profits is a very good thing for society. I'm not all that taken up with altruism -- although I very much support charitable endeavors (and give quite a bit of money and time to some).

But it doesn't really have much to do with what Sowell's saying here. It's a sentiment that is just dripping with cynicism -- but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

For somebody like me, nothing makes me more wary than a politician who comes along and says he's going to use the power of government to cure all that ails us. Because that virtually never ends up being the case with government policy. Our society usually gains more from the retraction of government intervention than the expansion of it.

However, even politicians who pledge to help society by reducing, rather than growing, government are more interested in their own election than they are in solving any of our problems.

Where we sharply disagree here is a realistic expectation of former presidents. While I have no problem with them making money post presidency - I’d guess all of them in recent decades have made many millions on book deals and speaking engagements alone - they still hold enormous influence and ability to impact a lot of people’s lives. I think most of them embrace that opportunity/responsibility.

I think that unique position should come with an expectation to use it for good. If Trump lives for any amount of time post presidency, I’d be surprised to see him use his bully pulpit for anything other than to sell Trump branded shit and get him access to WWE and MMA fights. And to tell us all how awesome he was/is. I feel like recent history backs this up, but maybe I’m wrong.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Where we sharply disagree here is a realistic expectation of former presidents. While I have no problem with them making money post presidency - I’d guess all of them in recent decades have made many millions on book deals and speaking engagements alone - they still hold enormous influence and ability to impact a lot of people’s lives. I think most of them embrace that opportunity/responsibility.

I think that unique position should come with an expectation to use it for good. If Trump lives for any amount of time post presidency, I’d be surprised to see him use his bully pulpit for anything other than to sell Trump branded shit and get him access to WWE and MMA fights. And to tell us all how awesome he was/is. I feel like recent history backs this up, but maybe I’m wrong.

I get what you’re saying.

My only point is that the good things people can do for society isn’t limited to anything charitable. That’s not to disparage charitable endeavors. Because there are many good things that couldn’t be done without acts of charity.

What I’m saying is that I can’t think of too many individuals who have positively impacted my life (and most Americans) than people like Sam Walton, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs….or, say, Willis Carrier, Henry Ford.

In other words, benefitting society doesn’t have to involve charity. In fact, it usually makes the person creating the benefit quite wealthy in the process.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Each of us is the only person with a window into our own hearts, so I'm (earnestly) going to say this impersonally and as a general thing. In other words, I'm perfectly fine to take you at your word with this.

But, in general, I'm pretty convinced that most people who supported Clinton through all of that didn't so much disbelieve those "murmurs" as devalue them respective to other priorities. In other words, I believe they were doing what I copped to doing in the post you were responding to: they put a higher value on the prospect of him being in office, as opposed to the alternatives, than they did on his character defects.

There are some, like you, who supported him when he was active but have come to think poorly of him today. There are others who supported him and still revere him. But taking any sort of position on him today related to his character is easy to do. He's out of the arena. He's yesterday's news. He's not running for anything -- he's not put up against an alternative.

Donald Trump is the man I've long thought him to be. I had a good understanding of his character when he was just a tacky "billionaire" character on Letterman and elsewhere in media. And that same understanding was in place in 2016 and is still in place today. He's a narcissistic lecher and a complete huckster. At no point since I've known his name would I trust him around a daughter or my wife. As a contractor, at no point would I want to do business with him.

I voted for Donald Trump in spite of all this. I won't sit here and try to say that I just didn't believe what was being said about him (although I would say that there's a great deal of hyperbole about him, separate and distinct from his debauched character, too). Not only did I believe it, I had known about it for a long time.

I voted for him because I believed the benefits of having him in office, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, outweighed all that.

Even though I despise Trump, I fully respect this opinion and post

 

[UncleMark]

If Trump lives for any amount of time post presidency, I’d be surprised to see him use his bully pulpit for anything other than to sell Trump branded shit and get him access to WWE and MMA fights. And to tell us all how awesome he was/is.

Damn. I was looking forward to visiting his presidential library.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Damn. I was looking forward to visiting his presidential library.

Be the most interesting greatest one ever. All full of classified docs and shit.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Damn. I was looking forward to visiting his presidential library.

 

[UncleMark]

Be the most interesting greatest one ever. All full of classified docs and shit.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Red binder’s our nuclear program details