|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Neither of them are sec. state. Both of them are involved in the gov't though obviously. The idea that in general the president decides who is qualified to work in the WH is based on the presumption the president is competent to judge who is qualified to serve, which presumably most are. But, when one chooses two relatives both in their 30s with no experience in gov't to 'advise' him, that doesn't raise suspicions?
Sure, I can get on board with raised suspicions.
It's probably worth pointing out that Trump ran, in part, on a ticket of "not an entrenched political crony." As such, I'm not surprised that he would favoring appointments of non-politicians to key positions. That much seems like something I should have predicted if I'd thought about it.
I can also say that for my own 2 cents as someone whom is not fascinated by the inner workings of either business or international politics, that they seem to be integrally similar in ambition. I.e., to secure the best possible negotiations for your side without screwing over the other side so hard that you screwed yourself on future negotiations.
At least, I'm not seeing anything that suggests that being a solid businessman necessarily means that you cannot be a good politician.
(To be fair, I don't see any evidence that Jared or Ivanka is a solid businessperson, either... not that I've looked.)
I'm sure that anyone who's spent that much time near Trump has learned negotiation tactics. It's a near certainty that he's the kind to brag about his successes in private company, and that his daughter has been there to hear him sing the praises of his most successful deals. Say what you like about Ivanka, she's no idiot. Furthermore, there's a slant if not a full bend toward sociopathy in the family. I don't mean that as any attack, just that the most successful CEO's tend to be on the spectrum. The statement from Ivanka's book that the perception of what you're doing is more important than the actuality of what you're doing is one piece of a puzzle that leads me to put her somewhere on the "diminished empathy" spectrum. A modicum of lacking empathy for your adversaries is of benefit in these kinds of negotiations (international), I bet. You don't want some bleeding heart Polyanna pushover negotiating for your side, but you don't want someone who's cruelly ignorant of the cost to the other side, either.
(I'm no expert at any of this stuff, so grain of salt.)
All in all... while I don't see any political bonafides indicating that Ivanka is qualified, I see plenty of circumstantial stuff that suggests she's no spring chicken, and nothing at all that indicates she's unqualified. (I know even less about Jared, so can't really speak to his role in this.)
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Does it matter whether it makes an existing conflict worse? I guess not.
Of course that matters. Either it's a non-sequitur, or it's not.
If you're saying this is the source of the conflict of interest, then that's one thing, but you're not saying that (I think.)
Up to now, you've only been saying it's a conflict of interest, and not a further conflict of interest on top of the already known conflicts of interest.
If you're now saying it makes the preexisting conflict worse, then that's a new assertion on your part, and please elaborate on how this exacerbates the preexisting conflicts.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you're willing to accept a conflict then you may as well go all the way and make Trump's cousin the "unofficial" liaison to China.
What I'm willing to accept isn't relevant to the conversation. My opinions are unstated, because I know they are irrelevant to affecting change in this arena.
...?
If that was a round-about way of asking what I'm willing to accept here, then my answer is that this whole thing is bad news (but not for rational reasons, just because it feels dangerous to set the precedent). However, that's not worth discussion, because as I'm trying to make clear, I do not have well-informed positions on these issues, which is my motivation to understand your positions.
Try not to conflate my questioning why you believe something as criticism of that belief. I barely care about any of these issues. What I care about is understanding what your positions are.
I am not empowered make anyone Trump's liaison to China. Nor do I know anything about said cousin or their qualifications. I only feel that setting the precedent for this kind of appointments makes political dynasties more likely, which is antithetical to the American dream.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not really a big part of the argument since they aren't breaking any laws. The bigger issues are qualifications and conflicts of interests. Basically, they are skirting the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.
I get that. I only included that link because it surprised me how the law defines nepotism.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Even just based on any reasonable definition of qualified, neither of them can cut it. But when posts are being filled by guys from Fox News, maybe it all just seems normal now and people find it easy to accept, I don't know.
I'm not sure there is an objectively reasonable definition of "qualified" in this regard.
I suppose there's an argument that there is nothing which could reasonable qualify anyone to serve as SS other than to have done it. I personally believe that's true for POTUS, and I don't feel any discomfort with asserting the same for any high-level gov't position which has top security clearance as a part of the job. You simply can't know what you're getting into until you have that security clearance.
Respectfully, I don't care about what anyone but you thinks or accepts in this conversation. I consider you to be an intelligent person, and your passion to share your thoughts on this subject opens a door for me to understand how and why you are so passionate about this and whether or not I follow your reasons.
|
Reply With Quote
