(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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.

lad, it doesnt even make the junior B-team in terms of 'non-squeaky clean things'. But keep flailing at that air guitar solo.

(05-21-2020 09:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

Kushner has never had a single job in the Trump organization. He worked in the family business - Kushner Companies, which is a commercial real estate firm - and purchased the New York Observer.

(05-21-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

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

lad, it doesnt even make the junior B-team in terms of 'non-squeaky clean things'. But keep flailing at that air guitar solo.

Well that's a fun takeaway from my initial point that potential ongoing impeachment investigations may be warranted given how swampy the Trump admin has been.

(05-21-2020 09:58 AM)georgewebb 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.

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.

She was held back because of her 'sex'. Bill was chasing every piece of tail he could lay eyes on. She was definitely held back because of her sex.

(05-21-2020 10:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

lad, it doesnt even make the junior B-team in terms of 'non-squeaky clean things'. But keep flailing at that air guitar solo.

Well that's a fun takeaway from my initial point that potential ongoing impeachment investigations may be warranted given how swampy the Trump admin has been.

I would surmise from your perspective that impeachment investigations may be warranted simply because Orange Man holds the office, to be blunt.

Your list was a grab-bag carnival level list of items that you threw against the wall, hoping one might be 'sticky'. They really aren't. But that really didnt deter your list in the slightest. And here you are, yet again, trying to race up to that wall and reattach the Kushner angle as 'smarmy' after it crashed like Von Richtoffen. It is both cute, and funny to watch.

But, as I noted before, keep playing that air guitar solo.

(05-21-2020 10:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 10:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

lad, it doesnt even make the junior B-team in terms of 'non-squeaky clean things'. But keep flailing at that air guitar solo.

Well that's a fun takeaway from my initial point that potential ongoing impeachment investigations may be warranted given how swampy the Trump admin has been.

I would surmise from your perspective that impeachment investigations may be warranted simply because Orange Man holds the office, to be blunt.

Your list was a grab-bag carnival level list of items that you threw against the wall, hoping one might be 'sticky'. They really aren't. But that really didnt deter your list in the slightest. And here you are, yet again, trying to race up to that wall and reattach the Kushner angle as 'smarmy' after it crashed like Von Richtoffen. It is both cute, and funny to watch.

But, as I noted before, keep playing that air guitar solo.

You would surmise wrong. If Trump was just making helping to pass legislation I disagreed with, without coming close to crossing legal and ethical norms, there'd be no reason to think impeachment was legitimately on the table.

You can throw your typical tantrum that tries to minimize a valid point by framing it as an extreme with lots of flowery language and analogies, but the point still stands that Trump has engaged in repeated legally and ethically questionable behavior while in office.

(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).

What about Hunter Biden's background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to VPOTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to hold a million dollar a year job for a oil company in Ukraine?

I don't mind nepotism when the relative is capable. I think what you and many of the other lefties think of as nepotism is some useless twerp sitting in a big office throwing darts while drawing down a big salary for nothing. Robert Kennedy turned out to be a pretty good AG, and Henry Ford II was no slouch at running Ford.

I think President Trump, like President Kennedy, turned to capable people they already knew from their inner circles. If it is all about nepotism where is Stephanie's job? I think ll three are pretty capable.

Since you changed the terminology, so will I. What is the necessary experience, education, background, and training for the jobs that the son, daughter, and son-in-law were selected to fill. You can include the later assigned duties you list if you will, but I am more interested in as of the time they were selected to advise POTUS.

Changing the word does not change the question. Nor does it change your accusation. Defend your words.

(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.

\Well said. I never watched either show.

(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.

As long as you agree that Stacey Abrams is not qualified either, I can live with that.

But if you are going to insist that Abrams is somehow more qualified than Ivanka or Jared Kushner, then I have a problem.

(05-21-2020 06:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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.

See, you think he was brought in just because he was related to Trump. I think Trump brought him in because he had experience with him and knew him to be a sharp individual. Like I said, I am OK with nepotism if the individuals brought in are capable. Not OK when they are not. I think we have had 3+ years to vet the capability of Kushner.

Let's turn slightly from the Abrams/Kushner argument which will never be settled, and go to this: What make you think Kushner should NOT be in his position, other than the fact he is married to Ivanka?

(05-21-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl 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).

What about Hunter Biden's background or experience makes you think that, had he not been related to VPOTUS, that he would have been picked out of the crowd to hold a million dollar a year job for a oil company in Ukraine?

Big difference in the public/private sector regarding legality. Ethically, just as bad.

Quote:I don't mind nepotism when the relative is capable. I think what you and many of the other lefties think of as nepotism is some useless twerp sitting in a big office throwing darts while drawing down a big salary for nothing. Robert Kennedy turned out to be a pretty good AG, and Henry Ford II was no slouch at running Ford.

I think President Trump, like President Kennedy, turned to capable people they already knew from their inner circles. If it is all about nepotism where is Stephanie's job? I think ll three are pretty capable.

And yes, if the person is capable, then it really isn't nepotism. Kushner has not proven to be capable in his efforts/work.

Quote:Since you changed the terminology, so will I. What is the necessary experience, education, background, and training for the jobs that the son, daughter, and son-in-law were selected to fill. You can include the later assigned duties you list if you will, but I am more interested in as of the time they were selected to advise POTUS.

Changing the word does not change the question. Nor does it change your accusation. Defend your words.

Changing the terminology mattered since you latched onto it so quickly. Speaking of Kushner, background in foreign policy (Middle Eastern, ideally) and emergency response, manufacturing, medicine, or epidemiology should be required for someone spearheading Middle Eastern foreign policy and coronavirus response. If there was some sort of mortgage crisis, Kushner would be have the sort of background that is appropriate for someone leading a charge to tackle the problem.

(05-21-2020 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 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.

As long as you agree that Stacey Abrams is not qualified either, I can live with that.

But if you are going to insist that Abrams is somehow more qualified than Ivanka or Jared Kushner, then I have a problem.

Based on my knowledge of Abrams, which is limited, she would not be qualified to lead Coronavirus response or Middle Eastern policy.

VP? Plenty qualified given her experience in politics (plus it is an elected position).

(05-21-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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?

No, that was me. And I never said the Republicans would choose a black woman.

But now, it seems, we are going through it again for VP. The choices are:

1) black female
2) white female
3) other female

(05-21-2020 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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.

I am flattered that you confuse me with Numbers. I am the one talking about Abrams a s one trick pony.

(05-21-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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?

Nope, that was not me. I really wish you'd pay attention to what I write instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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 [b] 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.

I would think any hiring of a relative, to be an offense or any kind, would turn on the motivation. Is it to hire a capable person, or to funnel money to a family member? Hiring a family member in and of itself should not be the problem. JMHO.

(05-21-2020 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

(05-21-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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 [b] 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.

I would think any hiring of a relative, to be an offense or any kind, would turn on the motivation. Is it to hire a capable person, or to funnel money to a family member? Hiring a family member in and of itself should not be the problem. JMHO.

The thing with government, is the more room for potential abuse of tax payer dollars, the more likely it is to occur. That's why we have a less nimble system.

Quote:Federal law, at 5 U.S.C. § 3110, generally prohibits a federal official, including a Member of Congress, from appointing, promoting, or recommending for appointment or promotion any “relative” of the official to any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control. The statute defines a relative, for these purposes, as "an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister."

The law bans the employment only of these specifically named relatives.15 It does not prohibit a Member from employing two individuals who are related to each other but not to the Member. In addition, the 107th Congress amended the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23, clause 8©(1)) to prohibit a Member from retaining a spouse in a paid position, and to prohibit a House employee from accepting compensation for work on a committee on which the spouse serves as a member.16

https://ethics.house.gov/staff-rights-an...s/nepotism

(05-21-2020 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Speaking of Kushner, background in foreign policy (Middle Eastern, ideally) and emergency response, manufacturing, medicine, or epidemiology should be required for someone spearheading Middle Eastern foreign policy and coronavirus response. If there was some sort of mortgage crisis, Kushner would be have the sort of background that is appropriate for someone leading a charge to tackle the problem.

Once again, I will point out that these assignments were given to him later, not at the time he was "hired". So the resumes at that point were for a general advisory position.

Just because somebody is related does not mean they are incapable. Is Chelsea Clinton in her positions at the Clinton Charities solely because of her parentage, or is she actually doing s good job?

History is rife with with princes who were bad choices to be King, and also princes who were very good Kings. Just being a prince or just marrying the princess does not mean you are a total waste of space.

(05-21-2020 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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?

Nope, that was not me. I really wish you'd pay attention to what I write instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

Sorry. I thought that was you but it was a long time ago. TBH you and OO seem to be in lock-step on most issues so sometimes it's hard to differentiate. I should have gone back to the old posts to have been certain, though.

For my penance, here is an image that should bring you great joy.

(05-21-2020 12:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry. I thought that was you but it was a long time ago. TBH you and OO seem to be in lock-step on most issues so sometimes it's hard to differentiate. I should have gone back to the old posts to have been certain, though.

I am honored that you put OO and me in the same place. I guess we are both more pragmatic than ideological and we have seen that "progressive" (IMO euphemistic for socialist/communist) ideas don't work.

Quote:For my penance, here is an image that should bring you great joy.

Not really.