*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[OngBonga]

mojo can be my science guy.

poop, I'll think of something for you.

[BananaStand]

banana, you want a job as press secretary when I rule the world?

Fine, but only if I can use the word "cunt" publicly, up to five times per week.

[OngBonga]

Fine, but only if I can use the word "cunt" publicly, up to* five times per week.

*at least, and it's mandatory.

[Poopadoop]

My brother the alcoholic can deal with the opioid epidemic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

mojo can be my science guy.

My first project will be to solve the ineffable mystery of why the universe lacks self-rolling spliffs, and self-brewing teas.

Worst case scenario is I find there isn't a white hole anywhere in the known universe which spews out freshly rolled spliffs and freshly brewed teas. In that case, I'll need to work in tandem with the Ministry of Engineering Excellent Shizwaz to corner the market on these things. Matter of fact, it's probably best to work in tandem with them throughout this endeavor.

... and I swear to Snoop Christ Dogg if your mom tries poking her charity nose into this, I'm defecting.

[BananaStand]

I'll need to work in tandem with the Ministry of Engineering Excellent Shizwaz to corner the market on these things.

A government monopoly????

Fuck this game, I'm out!

[OngBonga]

Self rolling spliffs and self brewing teas will make my friend redundant. Self buttering toast... that would be a good place to start.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Self buttering toast... that would be a good place to start.

Exceedingly simple, I think.

[wufwugy]

Liberals: Let's try to change things for the better
Conservatives: Nah, we're good

I agree with this assessment too.

To further understand this I think we have to question the premises. For example, liberalism certainly does try to change things for the better, but that doesn't mean that change that emerges from liberalism is better. Conservatism recognizes this (at least in a way), and so tries to pull back from accidentally messing something up.

Nassim Taleb discusses this type of thing frequently. Traditions often exist because they have fitness. The small-c conservative view emphasizes that, not wanting to make changes that deteriorate fitness.

That doesn't mean the conservative view is always right. But it's damn sure right more often than the liberal view thinks it is, and it would be nice is the liberal view acknowledged that radical change (even change that can seem slow) can be VERY destructive for societies.

[wufwugy]

That's true only if you look at communist regimes. Marx's view of socialism was that when there's enough production and prosperity to comfortably take care of everyone, it is the key to ensure everyone a good life. Of course, this requires there to be enough production and prosperity, and that's why Marx saw capitalism as the necessary step towards socialism. Soviet Union, for example, tried to take a shortcut straight to communism, and with poverty and rampant corruption that didn't end so well. They were all intents and purposes dictatorships, not liberal in any way. The countries that most closely follow social liberalism's principles nowadays are probably the Nordic states, which seem to be doing pretty well in most metrics. I guess in the US the most notable social liberal was FDR with his New Deal.

Unfortunately for Marx, the socialist Utopia deteriorates the production that is already there.

Scandinavia is an interesting case, and it's important to point out that they have some VERY good capitalism. They have some of the best capitalism, like in some ways their state policies are among the best in the world for businesses. Given this and given the ethic of the people and the relative peace, it doesn't surprise me that they do how they do. Granted, I predict that their lack of conservatism will over the long haul cause them real damage and we're already seeing it happen.

[wufwugy]

Is nepotism by default a bad thing?

When government has power over a space, yes. When in the private sector, no. The equivalent of nepotism in the private space is actually pretty good.

Hell, I'm working for my cousin. I got the job because he's my cousin, he offered me the job because I'm his cousin. The work relationship is mutually beneficial, yet the job is the type that would be less beneficial for each of us (and our customers) if we were not cousins.

It's when you have a monopoly on violence that is funded by mandated taxes that this type of thing turns bad.

[wufwugy]

What it generally means though is that the relative is favored over a more competent one, and whether the appointment is made with good intentions or not, it's sure to sow distrust and likely affect the motivation and performance of others.

I agree with this as it applies to the state. Nepotism in the state is basically taking something that there is already high demand for and giving it to a lower qualified person. Yet in the private sector, the demand is not exactly there since each firm loses revenues or goes bankrupt if they don't perform, so a company that hires lower qualified people for nepotism reasons suffers. Perhaps ironically, family and friends are often more productive sources of hires in the private sector since they carry lower risk to revenues for the firm. In government, they're also of lower risk to those with government power, but HIGHER risk to the people who provide revenues for the institution (taxpayers).

[wufwugy]

C'mon Brits....what the fucking hell here???

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...te-to-dog.html

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is nepotism ultimately against the American dream? I.e. does nepotism (not when implemented on small scales, but when endemic) promote dynastic entities, and limit freedom to change one's social status?

[BananaStand]

Is nepotism ultimately against the American dream? I.e. does nepotism (not when implemented on small scales, but when endemic) promote dynastic entities,

There was a Clinton or a Bush on the presidential ticket in every election between 1980 and 2004. If Barack Obama was white, a Clinton would have been on the ticket in 2008. As a consolation prize, a Clinton was named secretary of state for a while, then finally made the ticket again in 2016. If not for an orange-skinned media puppeteer, her opponent in 2016 would have been a Bush.

I see two ways to look at this

First, we could say the answer to your question is "yes", since it seems that family name recognition and family money connections are closely tied to political success. Or, we could say the answer is "no" since there is a generally negative sentiment about government nepotism (there are even laws against it) yet that hasn't prevented the existence of dynastic entities. In other words, if nepotism causes dynasties, then curbing nepotism should stop dynasties. And that does not seem to be the case.

I'm leaning towards "yes".

and limit freedom to change one's social status?

This one is definitely a "no"

I once worked at a company where my boss was the owner's son. You can guess what my prospects were for upward mobility at that company. So I left and found another job. Easy game.

Nepotism would only limit freedoms if jobs were exceedingly scarce. Scarce enough where hiring managers have so few jobs to fill that nepotism governs huge portions of the market. But there are millions and millions of open jobs, and any given hiring manager probably doesn't have more than a dozen qualified relatives.

[wufwugy]

Is nepotism ultimately against the American dream? I.e. does nepotism (not when implemented on small scales, but when endemic) promote dynastic entities, and limit freedom to change one's social status?

I'm not sure. One thing I will note is that the "American dream" includes making things better for your kids and their kids and their kids and so on.

[oskar]

Like in a monarchy?

[wufwugy]

The desire to make things better for your offspring isn't unique.

It is important to note, however, that to have a robust economy, there needs to be enough freedom to help offspring and leave earned gains to offspring. Because, if that freedom goes away, so does a tremendous amount of the desire to produce.

[oskar]

If a line of reasoning can be used to justify anything, it's probably not a very good line of reasoning.

[wufwugy]

Certainly. I'm not using it to justify something so much as saying that a common criticism is unjustified.

[oskar]

It is unjustified to say political offices should be given to the most qualified people rather than relatives of the person in charge of that decision?

[wufwugy]

It is unjustified to say political offices should be given to the most qualified people rather than relatives of the person in charge of that decision?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Hires are along the lines of the perceived "most productive", and that is filtered through lens with a bunch of asymmetric information. This is why employers so often hire people they know. As experience and comfort with somebody increases, the risk (cost) to employing them decreases.

The issue of nepotism is not about nepotism. Nepotism is fantastic in the private sector because of how incentives are structured in that space. Yet it is awful in the public sector also for incentive structure reasons. Even with that in mind, nepotism probably can't be fixed in the public sector by trying to alter nepotism. You can probably only reduce the power of the public sector if you want to reduce the negative impact of nepotism.

[oskar]

[oskar]

... nepotism probably can't be fixed in the public sector by trying to alter nepotism. You can probably only reduce the power of the public sector if you want to reduce the negative impact of nepotism.

That part is gobbledygook. You could have stopped at: Nepotism is bad in the public sector.

[wufwugy]

That part is gobbledygook. You could have stopped at: Nepotism is bad in the public sector.

It is when we investigate why it is bad in the public sector that we derive that trying to fix nepotism directly will likely be just as bad or worse. Nepotism exists because it lowers costs, yet in the public sector it causes some external costs that it doesn't in the private sector. Trying to solve for external costs is really hard without changing the underlying structure. Humans have very little success when trying to solve externalities without changing underlying structure that causes the incentives that cause those externalities.

[Poopadoop]

So are you in favour of Invanka the high level advisor or not?

[wufwugy]

So are you in favour of Invanka the high level advisor or not?

I'm not a micro manager so I don't have an opinion on this specific instance.

[Poopadoop]

High level advisors don't fall under the rubric of micro-managing. I'm not asking if you think Trump's third cousin can work in a post office in North Dakota. Can his daughter serve in any useful capacity in the higher echelon of government that another female model couldn't?

[OngBonga]

Can his daughter serve in any useful capacity in the higher echelon of government that another female model couldn't?

Yes, of course. You think the people of South Korea would be equally as happy to see some random American model as they would be to see Ivanka? She's fantastically qualified for smiling and representing America abroad, she's pretty and she's the President's daugther. She's basically the American equivalent of a princess.

That's a qualification, and an outstanding one at that.

[OngBonga]

Is she was boot ugly, I'd probably cry nepotism.

Or if it were Tony Blair's daughter. I can see why you have a problem with it from that aspect. Just pure default "fuck you".

I get it. I hate Blair. But I don't hate Trump, so I'm not clouded by that hatred.

[wufwugy]

High level advisors don't fall under the rubric of micro-managing. I'm not asking if you think Trump's third cousin can work in a post office in North Dakota. Can his daughter serve in any useful capacity in the higher echelon of government that another female model couldn't?

I'm saying I'm not a micro manager so I don't know. Generally speaking, I trust Trump's judgment more than any politicians, and since I don't have enough information, I put those two together and just trust that he knows what he's doing here. When stepping back and speaking in less concrete terms, I would prefer to reduce the power of government so that nepotism is less of a problem. Also I don't have a solution to the problem of nepotism other than that. Not allowing politicians to engage in nepotism hamstrings them within the domain which they are meant to act.

[Poopadoop]

I'm saying I'm not a micro manager so I don't know. Generally speaking, I trust Trump's judgment more than any politicians, and since I don't have enough information, I put those two together and just trust that he knows what he's doing here. When stepping back and speaking in less concrete terms, I would prefer to reduce the power of government so that nepotism is less of a problem. Also I don't have a solution to the problem of nepotism other than that. Not allowing politicians to engage in nepotism hamstrings them within the domain which they are meant to act.

So in brief, argument from authority.

[wufwugy]

So in brief, argument from authority.

No.

[oskar]

Not allowing politicians to engage in nepotism hamstrings them within the domain which they are meant to act.

Aren't there a lot of laws that hamstring politicians when they are meant to act? Should we really continue to burden our leaders with all those laws?

[wufwugy]

Aren't there a lot of laws that hamstring politicians when they are meant to act? Should we really continue to burden our leaders with all those laws?

The contrast is between what is totally natural and what is not. Nepotism is the way of the world. It is the way normal people do normal things. It is efficient. It is low cost. If you make a law that doesn't allow politicians to use nepotism, you're going to significantly negatively impact the efficiency of government.

Let's address the problem instead. The problem is that unique corruption arises in the public sector because of how the public sector is paid. The solution is to change the way they are paid, which means shifting responsibilities to the private sector.

[Poopadoop]

If you make a law that doesn't allow politicians to use nepotism...

That law is already there.

Now the question becomes if you ignore that law in spirit if not in fact then what other laws are you happy to ignore?

[OngBonga]

Currently arguing with a flattard on youtube.

He tells me I cannot know the world is round without going into space and looking at it. He believes in a creator, so I told him that God told me in a dream how gravity works and how it makes things round.

Check fucking mate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The contrast is between what is totally natural and what is not. Nepotism is the way of the world. It is the way normal people do normal things.

By that rationale, so is the pushback against nepotism.
I.e. it's also perfectly natural and what normal people do to point out that nepotism is bad policy which they disagree with.

I'm surprised that you'd make such an irrational argument, wuf. You used to say this was the only way to argue, but then stopped arguing that way for a while.

EDIT: It's totally unnatural to wear clothes, so what's that point even matter?

[MadMojoMonkey]

That law is already there.

Now the question becomes if you ignore that law in spirit if not in fact then what other laws are you happy to ignore?

By the letter of the constitution, blacks count as 3/5 of a non-black when it comes to census time.
Of course we ignore the letter of that law. It's a stupid law.
What other laws will we ignore?

Speed limits, littering laws, loitering laws, etc. Some states have state lotteries while also having banned gambling in the state.
(At least, some used to do that. I can't be bothered to check the current laws w.r.t. lottos and gambling.)

In summary, we ignore any law that we want to and it's not a slippery anything.

[BananaStand]

it's not a slippery anything.

Bullshit

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/2...rs-gun-control

[Poopadoop]

By the letter of the constitution, blacks count as 3/5 of a non-black when it comes to census time.
Of course we ignore the letter of that law. It's a stupid law.
What other laws will we ignore?

Speed limits, littering laws, loitering laws, etc. Some states have state lotteries while also having banned gambling in the state.
(At least, some used to do that. I can't be bothered to check the current laws w.r.t. lottos and gambling.)

In summary, we ignore any law that we want to and it's not a slippery anything.

All laws are meaningless. Gotcha.

[MadMojoMonkey]

All laws are meaningless. Gotcha.

Reductio ad bananum from you?

[BananaStand]

[Poopadoop]

Reductio ad bananum from you?

Well, no, you basically said if you don't like a law you ignore it (apparently with no consequences?). That sounds to me as if you're saying all laws are meaningless.

[wufwugy]

By that rationale, so is the pushback against nepotism.
I.e. it's also perfectly natural and what normal people do to point out that nepotism is bad policy which they disagree with.

I'm surprised that you'd make such an irrational argument, wuf. You used to say this was the only way to argue, but then stopped arguing that way for a while.

EDIT: It's totally unnatural to wear clothes, so what's that point even matter?

I was explaining why the pushback is not as productive that one might wish.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well, no, you basically said if you don't like a law you ignore it (apparently with no consequences?). That sounds to me as if you're saying all laws are meaningless.

You asked what other laws can be ignored and I gave you a list of common laws which are ignored.

I'm not speaking to individuals acting out against the societal norm. I'm talking about societal norms which are directly in opposition to standing laws.

The statement "some laws are meaningless" is not "all laws are meaningless," so yes, you're still using reductio ad bananum.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was explaining why the pushback is not as productive that one might wish.

...using a tin foil argument.

Calling something natural or normal is no argument for why that thing is good or right.

[Poopadoop]

You asked what other laws can be ignored and I gave you a list of common laws which are ignored.

I'm not speaking to individuals acting out against the societal norm. I'm talking about societal norms which are directly in opposition to standing laws.

The statement "some laws are meaningless" is not "all laws are meaningless," so yes, you're still using reductio ad bananum.

The nepotism law in government is not ignored, except implicitly by Trump. He's not even breaking it because Jarvanka aren't on any official payroll or working in any official capacity.

So what the rest of your post had to do with anything is beyond me.

We can call that 'non sequitur ad Mojo' if you like.

[BananaStand]

The nepotism law in government is not ignored, except implicitly by Trump. He's not even breaking it because Jarvanka aren't on any official payroll or working in any official capacity.

So why do you have such a problem then?

Which is it? Is she working in the higher echelon's of government, doing important things? Or is she "not working any official capacity"

You can't have it both ways.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The nepotism law in government is not ignored, except implicitly by Trump. He's not even breaking it because Jarvanka aren't on any official payroll or working in any official capacity.

So what the rest of your post had to do with anything is beyond me.

We can call that 'non sequitur ad Mojo' if you like.

I answered a direct question of yours, so if there's a non sequitur at play it's the question you posed.

If you're now saying it was off topic, then I agree.

If this point can be ruled out as supporting your greater argument, then what new information do you have to motivate that position?


***
I agree with your first point. The entire conversation about nepotism is a non sequitur as of now. If Trump actually breaks an anti-nepotism law, then the conversation becomes relevant. As of now, it's another witch hunt.

[BananaStand]

I agree with your first point.

He was either being sarcastic or schizophrenic. I'm not sure which yet.

[Poopadoop]

I answered a direct question of yours, so if there's a non sequitur at play it's the question you posed.

If you're now saying it was off topic, then I agree.

If this point can be ruled out as supporting your greater argument, then what new information do you have to motivate that position?


***
I agree with your first point. The entire conversation about nepotism is a non sequitur as of now. If Trump actually breaks an anti-nepotism law, then the conversation becomes relevant. As of now, it's another witch hunt.

It's a problem because not being on the payroll is not stopping Jarvanka from sitting in on high level meetings and talking to high level people. If you need conflict of interest explained in a more detailed way I'm sure someone will be happy to do that. But I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it

[BananaStand]

It's a problem because not being on the payroll is not stopping Jarvanka from sitting in on high level meetings and talking to high level people.

You keep using the term "high level meetings" to describe a party planning session.

Give it up

[Poopadoop]

You keep using the term "high level meetings" to describe a party planning session.

Give it up

Nice reductio ad bananum


Kushner alone has met with several high level officials, and is being investigated by the WH ethics committee.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/p...oge/index.html


Not much different is Ivanka, though she's not under investigation yet.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/p...ngs/index.html

[BananaStand]

Nice reductio ad bananum

Nice Movitus el GoalPostium de Poopitron

Kushner alone has met with several high level officials, and is being investigated by the WH ethics committee.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/p...oge/index.html

Do you just read a CNN headline, get a boner, and then lose all cognitive function? You're acting like a dopey cartoon character who gets dumbstruck when he sees a pretty girl.

Nothing in that article references the Ethics Committee. It also specifically states that Office of Government ethics is NOT doing anything about this.

Not much different is Ivanka, though she's not under investigation yet.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/p...ngs/index.html

Again, did you even read what you linked? What meetings are cited in that article that could be described as "high level"?

Women's economic empowerment is also on the agenda for her meetings

In other words, nothing is on the agenda for her meetings.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's a problem because not being on the payroll is not stopping Jarvanka from sitting in on high level meetings and talking to high level people.

I answered your question, which you have called a non-sequitur, and now you're changing the subject away from ignoring laws to whether or not "it's a problem."

I've made no stipulations over whether or not anything on this topic is a problem, only that the word "nepotism" is being thrown around a bit prematurely.
I didn't ask you if anything is a problem, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this subject.

I'm curious, though.
Neither sitting nor talking are crimes. What is the problem you have?
Conflict of interest? What conflict which is particular to this case? - I mean, the fact that Trump, et al, have held on to their private business holdings is clearly conflict of interest (in my unprofessional opinion, maybe the legalese is more subtle than a kindergarten understanding, though), so I'm not suggesting there is no conflict.
I'm asking that, since we already know about that conflict, how does the current situation add to that conflict?

If you need conflict of interest explained in a more detailed way I'm sure someone will be happy to do that. But I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it

:/
"If I need XXX explained to me." when XXX hasn't even been mentioned in our conversation is rude at best, and hard to not take as you looking for an argument where none exists.

I'm answering your questions. I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me, just telling you what I think.
I.e. I'm not arguing, I'm conversing.

If you want an argument, then probably best to put me on your ignore list, 'cause I'm not here to change anyone's mind but my own.

[BananaStand]

Neither sitting nor talking are crimes. What is the problem you have?

But....but....David Pakman said....

[Poopadoop]

Do you just read a CNN headline, get a boner, and then lose all cognitive function?

Nothing in that article references the Ethics Committee. It also specifically states that Office of Government ethics is NOT doing anything about this.

I guess the obvious conflicts of interest there needs spelling out for guys like you.

Kushner is a "senior advisor" to Trump. He meets with high level bankers. Shortly later, his family business gets loans around $500m. Is it really that difficult to imagine he could be using his position to influence those bankers? Is it that difficult to imagine him saying 'hey I got DJT's ear. If I tell him to pass some law that will make you tons of money he'll do it 'cause he's my father-in-law and what's he gonna do, let me go broke?'

Here's another riddle for you: Why does Kushner not have security clearance, and has had his temporary clearance downgraded? Is it maybe to do with all the shady shit like this bank stuff he's involved in? How about asking the Russian ambassador for a secret back-door channel to the Kremlin - seem fishy to you at all? Meeting the head of a Russian bank that was under sanctions? Not reporting business assets on his clearance form? Not reporting meetings with foreign officials on his clearance form? How about the meetings he's had with foreign officials behind the back of the National Security Advisor? Seem questionable?

Worst case scenario: he's a seething pile of fetid corruption using his position to personal advantage. Best case: he's just stupid and doesn't know any better. Either way, he doesn't belong in the WH. Either that or you just ignore the obvious problem with having the president's son-in-law and 'senior advisor' meet with foreign officials without telling the National Security Advisor, never mind being briefed on what he can and can't reveal to them.

[Poopadoop]

...

I really don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to like to get into 'debates' with people where you pick some pedantic point about something they say and try to make an issue out of it while completely ignoring the bigger message they're trying to get across. Then you get all snarky when they find that annoying. Well sorry I'm not interested in your definition of whatever you fuck you were trying to argue about.

So here you go: people ignore laws they don't like. I agree. Well stated, and completely irrelevant to the bigger question.

[BananaStand]

I guess the obvious conflicts of interest there needs spelling out for guys like you.

If they're so obvious, why do you need to "imagine" them?

Kushner is a "senior advisor" to Trump. He meets with high level bankers. Shortly later, his family business gets loans around $500m.

Correlation is not causation.

Is it really that difficult to imagine he could be using his position to influence those bankers?

Why are we "imagining" things? I thought the conflicts were "obvious"?

Is it that difficult to imagine him saying 'hey I got DJT's ear. If I tell him to pass some law that will make you tons of money he'll do it 'cause he's my father-in-law and what's he gonna do, let me go broke?'

This one actually is difficult to imagine because it would require us to live in a world where Presidents have totalitarian power over law-making.

Here's another riddle for you: Why does Kushner not have security clearance, and has had his temporary clearance downgraded?

My understanding was that it's related to his frequent revisions to his disclosures of foreign contacts.

Is it maybe to do with all the shady shit like this bank stuff he's involved in?

Sounds like more imagination

How about asking the Russian ambassador for a secret back-door channel to the Kremlin - seem fishy to you at all?

Actually no

Meeting the head of a Russian bank that was under sanctions?

Is that a crime?

Not reporting business assets on his clearance form? Not reporting meetings with foreign officials on his clearance form?

Those are probably legit beefs. Though that hardly makes him a 'seething pile of fetid corruption'

How about the meetings he's had with foreign officials behind the back of the National Security Advisor? Seem questionable?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Source? Though I take issue with your use of "behind the back" phrasing. Has it been definitively determined that JK purposefully misrepresented or obfuscated something to the NSA?

Worst case scenario: he's a seething pile of fetid corruption using his position to personal advantage. Best case: he's just stupid and doesn't know any better.

Probably somewhere in between. He probably doesn't know better, but he also seems like the kind of spoiled ass hole who just does what he wants and gets away with it.

Either way, he doesn't belong in the WH.

You said yourself, he doesn't have a job there, and doesn't work in any official capacity. In other words, he has no power. So what he does in the white house really shouldn't bother you.

Either that or you just ignore the obvious problem with having the president's son-in-law and 'senior advisor' meet with foreign officials without telling the National Security Advisor, never mind being briefed on what he can and can't reveal to them.

I'm still not hearing the "obvious" problem. I just hear what you've "imagined"

[Poopadoop]

...

Forget it. Just the fact that you're try to dispute every sentence I wrote tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from (as if I didn't know already).

[MadMojoMonkey]

I really don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to like to get into 'debates' with people where you pick some pedantic point about something they say and try to make an issue out of it while completely ignoring the bigger message they're trying to get across. Then you get all snarky when they find that annoying. Well sorry I'm not interested in your definition of whatever you fuck you were trying to argue about.

I'm trying to learn from what you are telling me, but when the foundation of your point is nonsense, then I see no merit to the greater structure of your point.

Specifically:
You brought up the question of ignoring laws. I pointed out that it doesn't serve your argument because there are many examples of laws which we ignore.
If you think it's a bad point, then I agree, which is why I asked you, in the light of the fact that you've made a bad argument, what good argument would you prefer to make?
You then say sitting and talking cause a conflict of interest, which is a problem.
OK. What is the problem? How does the current sitting and talking exacerbate the already known conflict of interest?


I'm in no way trying to ignore your bigger message. I'm pointing out that the foundations of your big message have rot and decay in them, which undermines the authority of the message.
I'm not debating or arguing with you, I'm trying to understand you, out of respect for your intelligence and the personal search to understand old things in new ways.
I'm not saying a single poor argument means the big picture is bad. I'm just asking you to fill in a good argument where a poor one has been rooted out, otherwise, I cannot see your big picture as coherent.

I'm not saying it's incoherent, I'm saying I do not see the coherence. Whether or not I understand your big picture is all I'm saying, not that my understanding is somehow a mandate on what you should think or how you should behave. You do you. This is neither argument nor debate to me. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind but my own.

So here you go: people ignore laws they don't like. I agree. Well stated, and completely irrelevant to the bigger question.

I feel you've back-slid into talking about individuals ignoring laws rather than societal norms which ignore laws. Am I wrong?

Then are you recanting your statement that nepotism laws exist and ignoring them is bad?
Or are you making a point that it's more than simply ignoring the laws, that there are greater reasons that those particular laws are ignored and that those greater reasons do not apply to this case? (as wuf seems to be arguing. I'm not sure if wuf thinks nepotism is actually the goal or not.)
Or something else?

[BananaStand]

you're try to dispute every sentence I wrote

Untrue. I actually agreed with one of them.

But if reading hurts your brain so much, I'll summarize:

Tell me why you aren't differentiating between something that is "obviously real" and something that you've only thus far imagined?

[Poopadoop]

...

Can you make whatever point you have a bit more digestible please?

[Poopadoop]

But if reading hurts your brain so much

Actually it's reading garbage that hurts my brain. Which is why I'm much happier not reading long posts by you.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Can you make whatever point you have a bit more digestible please?

I'm in no hurry. Read/reply if/when you have the time, but if all you read is the final paragraph, then that's fine.

Summary:
If your point is based on swiss cheese, then me pointing out the holes is perfectly relevant to your big picture.
If you can't explain why the holes in your foundation are not holes, then nothing resting on that foundation is shown to be robust.

[BananaStand]

Actually it's reading garbage that hurts my brain. Which is why I'm much happier not reading long posts by you.

Ok....apprently you have the verbal comprehension of a caveman. So I'll rephrase the question yet again.

Oooga booga....Why Poop say fake thought is real?

[Poopadoop]

I'm in no hurry. Read/reply if/when you have the time, but if all you read is the final paragraph, then that's fine.

Summary:
If your point is based on swiss cheese, then me pointing out the holes is perfectly relevant to your big picture.
If you can't explain why the holes in your foundation are not holes, then nothing resting on that foundation is shown to be robust.

Ok well let me summarize too: The argument is that Jarvanka shouldn't be involved in government because a) they're not qualified; and b) there's conflicts of interest.

Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument.

Edit: please answer me before banana does so I can have an intelligent conversation about it.

[BananaStand]

Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument..

Then why did you start this whole hullaballoo by complaining that Ivanka meeting with some South Korean lady violates anti-nepotism laws?

[Poopadoop]

I posted a video and then I followed it up with this.

No-one prepared to defend the idea of having Ivanka sit in for Tillerson as Sec. State in the meeting with S. Korea?

then this:

Are you going to argue again that no-one but Trump is qualified to decide if Ivanka the fashion designer is qualified to act as Sec. State? Do you not see the absurdity of that argument?

First, she doesn't have security clearance, so she shouldn't even be allowed to be in the room while the meeting is going on.

Second, it doesn't matter what she's actually "doing" (obviously nothing, really), she's taking the place of the Sec. State who got fired. She has no official job in the administration, because it's illegal for her to have one. So it's not her place to be meeting foreign diplomats. And given what's going on in the world do you really suppose it's just meant to be a friendly cup of tea and a catch-up meeting?

Third, she has business interests in S. Korea. How can you trust her to act in the country's best interests?

Fourth, why is she chosen to take over the S.S. role in this case, because there must be experienced diplomats who can take that role right? Or is it a problem maybe that 6/9 of the top jobs in the state department are unfilled right now? So there's basically three people doing the jobs of nine people. So shit, better get my kid with no security clearance, conflicts of interest, and who doesn't actually work in any official capacity to do the job of a top diplomat in a moment of serious tension in the region.

Tell me in what universe this is how to run a government.

It only got into the question of anti-nepotism later on, as per my assertion that that is a relatively minor part of my argument.

[BananaStand]

I posted a video and then I followed it up with this.

Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
No-one prepared to defend the idea of having Ivanka sit in for Tillerson as Sec. State in the meeting with S. Korea?
then this:


Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
Are you going to argue again that no-one but Trump is qualified to decide if Ivanka the fashion designer is qualified to act as Sec. State? Do you not see the absurdity of that argument?

First, she doesn't have security clearance, so she shouldn't even be allowed to be in the room while the meeting is going on.

Second, it doesn't matter what she's actually "doing" (obviously nothing, really), she's taking the place of the Sec. State who got fired. She has no official job in the administration, because it's illegal for her to have one. So it's not her place to be meeting foreign diplomats. And given what's going on in the world do you really suppose it's just meant to be a friendly cup of tea and a catch-up meeting?

Third, she has business interests in S. Korea. How can you trust her to act in the country's best interests?

Fourth, why is she chosen to take over the S.S. role in this case, because there must be experienced diplomats who can take that role right? Or is it a problem maybe that 6/9 of the top jobs in the state department are unfilled right now? So there's basically three people doing the jobs of nine people. So shit, better get my kid with no security clearance, conflicts of interest, and who doesn't actually work in any official capacity to do the job of a top diplomat in a moment of serious tension in the region.

Tell me in what universe this is how to run a government.

It only got into the question of anti-nepotism later on, as per my assertion that that is a relatively minor part of my argument.

Everything bolded is a completely contrived and imagined falsehood. It's a ridiculous and erroneous inference that you made after getting your daily dose of libtardism from a geek demagogue.

Also the entire premise of that geek demagogue's video was to rant about violations of anti-nepotism laws. That complaint is featured prominently in the video.

So don't try and say that you weren't bitching about nepotism from the beginning.

If you want to say you were bitching about nepotism AND an idiotic lie about Ivanka pinch-hitting for Tillerson, then I agree.

[Poopadoop]

Everything bolded is a completely contrived and imagined falsehood. It's a ridiculous and erroneous inference that you made after getting your daily dose of libtardism from a geek demagogue.

Also the entire premise of that geek demagogue's video was to rant about violations of anti-nepotism laws. That complaint is featured prominently in the video.

So don't try and say that you weren't bitching about nepotism from the beginning.

If you want to say you were bitching about nepotism AND an idiotic lie about Ivanka pinch-hitting for Tillerson, then I agree.

Where's the mention of nepotism in any of my first few posts on the matter? I'm complaining about an unqualified person being given a job in the WH.

And we already went over all the stuff you bolded, it's not relevant to the question of what my argument was based on.

[BananaStand]

Where's the mention of nepotism in any of my first few posts on the matter?.

Your VERY FIRST post on the matter was a video where a faggoty demagogue stood on a soapbox in a dark obscure corner of the internet and ranted about NEPOTISM

And let's be honest now.....you're trying to contrive outrage out of the nepotism thing now because you're trying to deflect from your own gullibility over the "sit in for Rex" narrative.

[BananaStand]

It only got into the question of anti-nepotism later on,

Right, AFTER the "Ivanka replaces Rex" argument turned out to be a steaming wet bucket of shit.

as per my assertion that that is a relatively minor part of my argument.

it WAS a relatively minor part of your argument. Then the juvenile, poorly researched, glib, and moronic argument of "Ivanka replaces Rex" got exposed for the biased liberal propaganda that it is.

Now nepotism is your ENTIRE argument.

[Poopadoop]

Your VERY FIRST post on the matter was a video where a faggoty demagogue stood on a soapbox in a dark obscure corner of the internet and ranted about NEPOTISM

And let's be honest now.....you're trying to contrive outrage out of the nepotism thing now because you're trying to deflect from your own gullibility over the "sit in for Rex" narrative.

Funny how it seemed believable given everything else that's gone on though.

In any case, yeah Pakman played fast and loose with the facts there. But his video does not speak for me: I just posted it. You don't get to assume I agree with everything in a video because I post it.