Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 10:08:05 GMT -5
Remember those long-ago halcyon days when Trump supporters railed against the idea of family political dynasties? No more Clinton's! No more Bushes! So, this happened: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40541611Imagine if you will Hillary having Chelsea sub for her in an international summit with world leaders -- or even the infinitely better-qualified Bill. It is bad enough that this unqualified sub-par clothing merchant is working in the oval office just because she's Daddy's daughter. But sitting in for the president in a meeting with Putin, Merkel, et al....no. Just no. What the fuck. This is not Take Your Daughter to Work Day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 11:04:24 GMT -5
..and don't even try to say "but RFK and HRC!". I'd actually prefer that POTUSes abide by a strict no nepotism rule, myself. BUT --
1) RFK was confirmed by the Senate, not simply anointed by the POTUS.
2) Both RFK and HRC had the backgrounds, credentials, and education to qualify for their respective roles. Ivanka is a flailing sub-par clothing merchant. RFK had preparation and training and authority to take ownership for their roles. Ivanka was just swapped in, like you might substitute a babysitter.
3) This was an international summit where she was dealing directly with Putin, Merkel and other world leaders, FFS.
4) if you were not happy with HRC and RFK taking this roles, you are going to defend this? Really?
God, how Putin must be laughing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 8, 2017 15:08:04 GMT -5
Sheesh. I was 38 with 15 years of experience before my dad let me prepare his tax return.
SMDH.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 8, 2017 15:22:01 GMT -5
I don't like dynasties or nepotism, so I don't like the idea of Ivanka--or her husband, for that matter--doing things like this. But I didn't like HRC taking the lead--back in the day--on healthcare, participating directly in policy. Sorry, but she didn't have the background or credentials for that.
Of course, there's not much to be done about such things, except at the ballot box.
But I'm perplexed as to why Putin is laughing because of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 16:42:17 GMT -5
Because she, an unelected, unqualified mediocre fashion designer was sitting in the president's place, on a par with the world's leaders at an international summit. If I were Putin, I'd find that pretty laughable. If he required someone to sit in, a high-ranking cabinet member is the appropriate person. ETA: Whether HRC was the best possible person to spearhead the healthcare initiative...maybe not. But it is ridiculous to compare her qualifications with Ivanka's. Moreover, I believe anything Hillary came up with on that front would need to be cleared with Congress, right? Whereas Ivanka was subbing in for the freaking President, dealing with world leaders. At best it was lousy Optimus -cs and completely useless, since she has no authority at all. All that said, though, taking aside, I agree with you that nepotism is a bad idea regardless. I'd like to see firmer rules in place to eliminate it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 8, 2017 17:03:14 GMT -5
I don't think the JFK RFK is valid because RFK was qualified and confirmed by the Senate. I think it was certainly closer to the HRC health care thing, but even that isn't a perfect analogy as she created a policy proposal, but it was defeated if I recall correctly.
Having said that, anything that gets someone else in there instead of Trump has at least some merit. Including Ivanka. Or for that matter a blind rabid dog humping a fire hydrant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 17:06:01 GMT -5
Having said that, anything that gets someone else in there instead of Trump has at least some merit. Including Ivanka. Or for that matter a blind rabid dog humping a fire hydrant. Hmmm. That's not a bad point, Vince. I hadn't looked at it from that perspective. I say we send in haggis . |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 8, 2017 17:08:15 GMT -5
Once he's done with the fire hydrant, fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 17:12:50 GMT -5
Yes. We must have priorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 8, 2017 20:30:48 GMT -5
Because she, an unelected, unqualified mediocre fashion designer was sitting in the president's place, on a par with the world's leaders at an international summit. If I were Putin, I'd find that pretty laughable. If he required someone to sit in, a high-ranking cabinet member is the appropriate person. ETA: Whether HRC was the best possible person to spearhead the healthcare initiative...maybe not. But it is ridiculous to compare her qualifications with Ivanka's. Moreover, I believe anything Hillary came up with on that front would need to be cleared with Congress, right? Whereas Ivanka was subbing in for the freaking President, dealing with world leaders. At best it was lousy Optimus -cs and completely useless, since she has no authority at all. All that said, though, taking aside, I agree with you that nepotism is a bad idea regardless. I'd like to see firmer rules in place to eliminate it. From what I understand, Ivanka was basically playing the role of seat-filler. Completely useless is right. She wasn't making policy. But I still don't know why you're keying in on Putin. It vexes me. And fyi, your womancrush feels differently about this: fortune.com/2017/07/08/angela-merkel-ivanka-trump-g20/I still don't like Trump relying on her and her husband. But I will say that I think the BBC correspondent who was noted in the piece you quoted from is likely full of crap. He probably could recall "no similar precedent" because he wasn't paying attention to such things at all. As Merkel says, Ivanka was a part of the delegation, and when a leader steps away, a member of their delegation steps in for them. According to this, she seemed to have stepped in for him for a specific reason: Meh. As much as I don't like the family stuff, it may be better for everyone that she was there for this portion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 20:55:47 GMT -5
well, as Vince so sagely pointed out, a blind rabid chihuahua humping a fire hydrant would be an improvement over Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Jul 9, 2017 15:22:17 GMT -5
well, as Vince so sagely pointed out, a blind rabid chihuahua humping a fire hydrant would be an improvement over Trump. My vision issues are correctable, and frankly I don't hump fire hydrants unless they are attractive. I may, however, be rabid. still better than Trump. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 15:39:44 GMT -5
well, as Vince so sagely pointed out, a blind rabid chihuahua humping a fire hydrant would be an improvement over Trump. My vision issues are correctable, and frankly I don't hump fire hydrants unless they are attractive. I may, however, be rabid. still better than Trump. That settles is. Haggis 2020! |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 9, 2017 19:35:55 GMT -5
well, as Vince so sagely pointed out, a blind rabid chihuahua humping a fire hydrant would be an improvement over Trump. To be clear, I didn't specify any particular breed of dog. Personally, I'm a fan of boxers and old english bulldogs. I would not want to get on the wrong side of puppies for singling out a single breed. In a addition, I do feel I should clarify my comment. Besides dogs, cats, snails, gerbils, skunks, possums, bears, various bears, spiders, and pretty much all members of the animal kingdom, both vertebrates and invertebrates, single cell organisms, and even several shadow puppets would have a decent shot of being less of an embarrassment. Except wasps. Their just assholes. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 9, 2017 19:37:31 GMT -5
Well, Trump is a WASP. *
* Oh, you were talking about the insect.
|
|
