(05-20-2020 07:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

Stacey Abrams: magna *** laude at Spelman, JD from Yale, Masters from UT's LBJ School of Public Affairs, worked as a tax attorney, helped to start-up two companies, elected to Georgia state legislature

Jared Kushner: dad bought his way into Harvard after unremarkable high school career per his teachers/counselors, JD/MBA from NYU, joined family real estate company

What exactly in their backgrounds makes you think Jared Kushner is "much more capable" than Stacey Abrams?

(05-20-2020 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

Stacey Abrams: magna *** laude at Spelman, JD from Yale, Masters from UT's LBJ School of Public Affairs, worked as a tax attorney, helped to start-up two companies, elected to Georgia state legislature

Jared Kushner: dad bought his way into Harvard after unremarkable high school career per his teachers/counselors, JD/MBA from NYU, joined family real estate company

What exactly in their backgrounds makes you think Jared Kushner is "much more capable" than Stacey Abrams?

What he has done with that inferior education, vs. what she has done with hers. I am especially unimpressed with the Public Affairs master. I know which one I would hire to work for me.

Amazing the assumptions that some leftists have.

But I am glad you are here. What are the qualifications for whatever it is that that the son/daughter/son-in-law do in the government? Lad is hiding out.

(05-20-2020 10:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

Stacey Abrams: magna *** laude at Spelman, JD from Yale, Masters from UT's LBJ School of Public Affairs, worked as a tax attorney, helped to start-up two companies, elected to Georgia state legislature

Jared Kushner: dad bought his way into Harvard after unremarkable high school career per his teachers/counselors, JD/MBA from NYU, joined family real estate company

What exactly in their backgrounds makes you think Jared Kushner is "much more capable" than Stacey Abrams?

What he has done with that inferior education, vs. what she has done with hers. I am especially unimpressed with the Public Affairs master. I know which one I would hire to work for me.

What has he done exactly? Please fill me in as to what you see in him that makes you comfortable with his position of playing such a key role in this administration? I'm still not understanding how you can put these two backgrounds side-by-side and say that the one is "much more capable" than the other.

Quote:Amazing the assumptions that some leftists have.

What assumption did I make?

(05-20-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 10:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The son and the daughter (and son-in-law) all seem very capable. Much more capable than, say, Stacey Abrams. What are the requirements for their positions?

Stacey Abrams: magna *** laude at Spelman, JD from Yale, Masters from UT's LBJ School of Public Affairs, worked as a tax attorney, helped to start-up two companies, elected to Georgia state legislature

Jared Kushner: dad bought his way into Harvard after unremarkable high school career per his teachers/counselors, JD/MBA from NYU, joined family real estate company

What exactly in their backgrounds makes you think Jared Kushner is "much more capable" than Stacey Abrams?

What he has done with that inferior education, vs. what she has done with hers. I am especially unimpressed with the Public Affairs master. I know which one I would hire to work for me.

What has he done exactly? Please fill me in as to what you see in him that makes you comfortable with his position of playing such a key role in this administration? I'm still not understanding how you can put these two backgrounds side-by-side and say that the one is "much more capable" than the other.

Quote:Amazing the assumptions that some leftists have.

What assumption did I make?

When can ever get a lib to tell me what the qualifications are for the positions held by the son, daughter, and son-in-law? I knew Lad was just blowing hot air when he said they were unqualified. He doesn't know if they are qualified or not, sine he has no idea of what qualified means in that context. He just thinks that way because they are related to Trump. Maybe he heard another lib say so.

93, the assumptions is varied. One is that a certain list of degrees makes one qualified. Another assumption is that going into a family business makes one inferior. I, for one, and I presume many of my brethren, am less impressed with pieces of paper and more impressed with actions and results. But anyone can do well in school if they do the work, and anyone can "help" start businesses (I have done so on several occasions). Must have been literally thousands of people elected to the Georgia House over the years. AFAIAC, she is just another losing candidate, a one trick pony blaming voter repression for her failure to win. My sister has PHD and 2 masters, speaks five languages, and has international business experience. My son graduated summa *** laude. I do not consider either to be White House material. Heck, I would not go into business with either one. management is not their forte.

Somebody who excelled in the rough and tumble world of big business deserves a look. Maybe he is unqualified, but not by reason of his dad getting him into prestigious school. I guess the assumption is that he would have nothing at all if his dad didn't hand it to him. I find that to be a terrible assumption.

What are your objections to Ivanka and Trump Jr.? Ivanka in particular seems well qualified. maybe she should be the first female President and not Stacey.

(05-20-2020 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I, for one, and I presume many of my brethren, am less impressed with pieces of paper and more impressed with actions and results. But anyone can do well in school if they do the work, and anyone can "help" start businesses (I have done so on several occasions). Must have been literally thousands of people elected to the Georgia House over the years. AFAIAC, she is just another losing candidate, a one trick pony blaming voter repression for her failure to win. My sister has PHD and 2 masters, speaks five languages, and has international business experience. My son graduated summa *** laude. I do not consider either to be White House material. Heck, I would not go into business with either one. management is not their forte.
Somebody who excelled in the rough and tumble world of big business deserves a look. Maybe he is unqualified, but not by reason of his dad getting him into prestigious school. I guess the assumption is that he would have nothing at all if his dad didn't hand it to him. I find that to be a terrible assumption.

+3. Absolutely, positively 100% agree.

OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

I had opinions on Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric long before anyone here most likely due to my shameful viewing of The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice (not shameful because the shows featured the Trump clans, but shameful because it was considered pretty low-scale reality TV even back in the early 2010's). Ivanka and even Don Jr. always seemed to come off better in the show even than their dad, because they seemed to be able to make meaningful decisions and statements, and offer valuable insight to the show's contestants. Eric Trump was never in the same category in my view. From the first time I saw him, he always came across as a significantly less impressive speaker and public figure.

Since 2016, Don Jr. has come across much more negatively in my eyes for a number of reasons. I still like Ivanka the most of any Trump (including Melania). Jared Kushner is somewhere in the middle of my rankings.

I also don't get (a) the Democrat's infatuation of Stacey Abrams and (b) the folks here incredible negative views of her. I don't think she's done enough in the grand scale of things to merit either type of response.

(05-21-2020 02:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 11:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I, for one, and I presume many of my brethren, am less impressed with pieces of paper and more impressed with actions and results. But anyone can do well in school if they do the work, and anyone can "help" start businesses (I have done so on several occasions). Must have been literally thousands of people elected to the Georgia House over the years. AFAIAC, she is just another losing candidate, a one trick pony blaming voter repression for her failure to win. My sister has PHD and 2 masters, speaks five languages, and has international business experience. My son graduated summa *** laude. I do not consider either to be White House material. Heck, I would not go into business with either one. management is not their forte.
Somebody who excelled in the rough and tumble world of big business deserves a look. Maybe he is unqualified, but not by reason of his dad getting him into prestigious school. I guess the assumption is that he would have nothing at all if his dad didn't hand it to him. I find that to be a terrible assumption.

+3. Absolutely, positively 100% agree.

The issue is that nothing in Kushner’s resume makes it clear that he is much more capable than Abrams. They both have similar educational backgrounds. Professionally, Kushner worked in a large commercial real estate firm while Abrams worked in law and started two small companies. Hard to compare the two, but I don’t think either is a clear favorite for “more capable.” Abrams was elected to a public position, which Kushner wasn’t, and that is certainly an impressive feat, regardless of OO’s incorrect denigration. Abrams lost the bid for governor, after being selected as her party’s nominee. Thousands of people do not share that same position.

There is not sufficient evidence to so plainly state that one is more capable than the other, despite OO’s emphatic statement.

And to people deserving a look because they’ve been in “big business,” that makes sense. But tell me, what makes Kushner stand out compared to anyone at a similar or higher role in other commercial real estate firms? I’ll tell you what it is - his personal, familial relationship to Trump. You’re ok with nepotism, it’s as simple as that.

(05-21-2020 06:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I had opinions on Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric long before anyone here most likely due to my shameful viewing of The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice (not shameful because the shows featured the Trump clans, but shameful because it was considered pretty low-scale reality TV even back in the early 2010's). Ivanka and even Don Jr. always seemed to come off better in the show even than their dad, because they seemed to be able to make meaningful decisions and statements, and offer valuable insight to the show's contestants. Eric Trump was never in the same category in my view. From the first time I saw him, he always came across as a significantly less impressive speaker and public figure.

Since 2016, Don Jr. has come across much more negatively in my eyes for a number of reasons. I still like Ivanka the most of any Trump (including Melania). Jared Kushner is somewhere in the middle of my rankings.

I also don't get (a) the Democrat's infatuation of Stacey Abrams and (b) the folks here incredible negative views of her. I don't think she's done enough in the grand scale of things to merit either type of response.

Preach that last point.

I think it looks like I support her because I’m pushing back against these incredibly negative views. But I don’t know nearly enough about a Georgian legislature to know how impressive/unimpressive she is, and I guarantee you that no one denigrating her knows enough to do that, as well.

(05-21-2020 06:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I also don't get (a) the Democrat's infatuation of Stacey Abrams and (b) the folks here incredible negative views of her. I don't think she's done enough in the grand scale of things to merit either type of response.

You sort of answered at least one of your questions. The negative views of her are because she hasn't done enough in the grand scale of things. That, plus the fact that she has expressed a number of views on issues that are quite repugnant to many of us. She is basically a female Obama with even more radical views and even less experience.

As for the other, she is black and female, and in today's identity politics version on the democrats, that makes her a superstar. If only she were a lesbian, that would be the trifecta.

(05-21-2020 06:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I also don't get (a) the Democrat's infatuation of Stacey Abrams and (b) the folks here incredible negative views of her. I don't think she's done enough in the grand scale of things to merit either type of response.

You sort of answered at least one of your questions. The negative views of her are because she hasn't done enough in the grand scale of things. That, plus the fact that she has expressed a number of views on issues that are quite repugnant to many of us. She is basically a female Obama with even more radical views and even less experience.

Wait... I thought you guys said that she is a one-issue politician? Is fighting voter suppression repugnant to you?

Quote:As for the other, she is black and female, and in today's identity politics version on the democrats, that makes her a superstar. If only she were a lesbian, that would be the trifecta.

Weren't you the one that for months (if not years) said "done deal... Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee" because she checks the boxes for identity politics? And then we ended up with two elderly white men?

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Yeah... I hated that decision too at the time.

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Tanq, didn't you just throw a fit about a supposed what-aboutism?

(05-21-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Tanq, didn't you just throw a fit about a supposed what-aboutism?

Funny, I am answering the comment about qualifications --- the answer is :checks notes: Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... (with an example to boot). Or did you mean your comment about 'qualifications' and 'nepotism' as merely a rhetorical snort? Perhaps you forgot what your comment on the Presidential choice was, even after less than 3 posts?

I was noting that Hillary's background in obstruction, land development, S&L issues, and prowess in cattle futures trading really did not add to her resume for that position (actually the types of activities really arent germane to a whole host of any other political positions, mind you). I guess you did not note that difference, so I have provided the sentence above to make it crystal clear.

But, one cannot fault Bill for that decision, it was his to make and his to make on the trust that he has in the recipient of that largesse. And I do not fault Bill for that decision.

93, I hear your response. But, for better or for worse, those decisions are the President's to make. Both that of Bill and that of Orange Man. I see that you understood the direction of my comment a tad better than lad did.

By the way, as for the nepotism, there are some interesting Office of Legal Counsel opinions on that, as well as a court case that deals with that at an appellate level (the Clinton scenario above, in fact). The issue isnt as clear cut as you make it out to be.

(05-21-2020 09:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Yeah... I hated that decision too at the time.

I'm pleased that a world-class model such as yourself is that discerning and involved with national politics. Shame on 'Zoolander' for creating that horrible view of your profession....

Nobody asked me, but 93... Clearly the 1 issue has been articulated as 'race'.

As for Kushner and Ivanka, clearly their best qualification is that they have the trust of their boss, who is now the President. When you work in a what is essentially a large family business like that and you don't really have big a desire to become CEO of GE or President on your mind, you often have all sorts of experience that isn't on your resume... you didn't have the title... there wasn't a committee etc... you were just tasked by your boss who is now the President with getting 'important' things done.... and they're continuing to do that now. What about Michelle Obama's career 'obviously' suggests she would be a good VP, yet there she is in the conversation. I'm quite sure that What about Stacey Abrams? Neither have run large multi-national businesses, none have significant political experience.

The comparison would be Hunter in Ukraine. Nothing in his resume suggested he would be qualified to be on the board of an oil company... and while Joe Biden certainly might trust him a lot... why would a Ukrainian oil company?

When you're running for an office, you need to be able to convince the voting public that you have the skills and experience to do the job. That would be the problem for people like Abrams. Michelle is such a 'star' that she wouldn't need it to motivate the left... but would she 'sell' to swing voters without a strong resume? If you're not running for office but instead are being 'selected', then you only need to convince your hiring manager that you have the skills and qualifications for the job. Of course the public, especially the opposition public will want to scrutinize such selections and draw conclusions about it... but its really a lot of sound and fury.

Kushner and Ivanka had 'big' jobs in the Trump organization... It shouldn't surprise anyone that they STILL have 'big' jobs in the Trump organization. Just because someone is your child doesn't mean that they have no skills. If they weren't working for him here, they'd likely be running Trump... and because of their close working relationship... I think that would cause/be a bigger stink than this. (not that there would be any 'meat' to those claims.... just it is what it is). Damned (by his detractors) no matter what he does.

(05-21-2020 09:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nobody asked me, but 93... Clearly the 1 issue has been articulated as 'race'.

I get that... but now #'s is saying that she has been taking positions on multiple positions that are repugnant to him.

(05-21-2020 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Tanq, didn't you just throw a fit about a supposed what-aboutism?

Funny, I am answering the comment about qualifications --- the answer is :checks notes: Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... (with an example to boot). Or did you mean your comment about 'qualifications' and 'nepotism' as merely a rhetorical snort? Perhaps you forgot what your comment on the Presidential choice was, even after less than 3 posts?

I was noting that Hillary's background in obstruction, land development, S&L issues, and prowess in cattle futures trading really did not add to her resume for that position (actually the types of activities really arent germane to a whole host of any other political positions, mind you). I guess you did not note that difference, so I have provided the sentence above to make it crystal clear.

But, one cannot fault Bill for that decision, it was his to make and his to make on the trust that he has in the recipient of that largesse. And I do not fault Bill for that decision.

93, I hear your response. But, for better or for worse, those decisions are the President's to make. Both that of Bill and that of Orange Man. I see that you understood the direction of my comment a tad better than lad did.

By the way, as for the nepotism, there are some interesting Office of Legal Counsel opinions on that, as well as a court case that deals with that at an appellate level (the Clinton scenario above, in fact). The issue isnt as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I agree that the issue of nepotism as it pertains to the POTUS is not clear cut. It is much more clear cut for non-POTUS officials, per my understanding of the laws.

But the issue not being clear is not grounds to grant immunity to the decision to appoint people solely because of their familial connection. And I would definitely put that on the list of "non-squeaky clean things" Trump has done, but it's certainly not a clear cut impeachable offense on its own.

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, you’ve made this semantic argument again about the term “qualified” to avoid the entire point of the argument. So how about this, Ivanka and Kushner don’t have the background or experience to be serving the POTUS and United States in the roles they fill.

What about Kushner’s background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to POTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to lead: emergency response supply chain, Middle East peace, industry innovation, the opioid crisis response, and criminal justice reform.

So I won’t use the word qualified, instead I will change it to lacks the experience, education, background, or training to be an obvious candidate for the job - outside of his close personal connection to Trump. It sounds like you’re fine and peachy with clear-cut nepotism, which hasn’t been cool since JFK (we put in anti-nepotism laws because of JFK, by the way).

Because it is whom the President trusts to do that job.... much like when Bill Clinton selected his wife to lead the task force in an official capacity to overhaul healthcare. And if you are not aware, that was when Hillary was nothing more than the President's wife, land developer, S&L scion, and cattle futures genius. Apparently just following her first stint in the fine art of records destruction and concealment.

Being the governor's or president's or ex-president's wife seems to have been her most important qualification for just about every job she's ever had -- which is why it has been laughable to hear her and others complain that she was held back because of her sex. As far as we know, being female is an absolute pre-requisite to being Mrs. Bill Clinton.