Printable View
So if it sows mistrust, in a democratic nation it is a HUGE gamble. So you'd have to have some pretty high confidence that the relative is up to the job, or at the very least be ruthless enough to weild the axe if needs be.
Trust is a BIG issue for a leader.
Is it illegal? I don't imagine Trump is appointing his relatives in flagrant breach of law.
The last case of nepotism I can think of involving a president was when Kennedy made his brother Attorney General. Thing is, RFK was a lawyer, a senator and had a lot of experience in government. And people still (rightly) questioned it at the time. If RFK had been a male model I'm sure it would have a) never happened; and b) been completely denounced as bullshit.
I don't need a list. It's pretty obvious that if you're giving important jobs to people who are less competent than others, then the results won't be so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
However, if trust is the key aspect of the job, then that's the measure of competency... how much do I trust you?
Has he given Ivanka a job that is beyond her competency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Or just not give a shit because you're a narcissist and think you can do whatever you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ya, I think the chance of Trump firing his daughter is next to nil.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nepotism has its flaws, obviously, and some heavy ones. I would be very cautious of someone who was hiring family to do the actually running of government. But going to Asia to talk to people? What level of "competency" does one need? It's for Donald to decide what qualities will be most appreciated by the hosts.
I'm not a narcissist. You're shit at psychoanalysing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well since she doesn't actually have a "job" there, then obviously not. The question is on what basis is she attending official meetings then?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
reductio ad bananum.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was referring to Trump here bud.
ha well that makes me shit at reading context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So... how is this nepotism? Maybe she's there as a representative of the President, and her hosts are more than happy to welcome her.Quote:
Well since she doesn't actually have a "job" there, then obviously not. The question is on what basis is she attending official meetings then?
You just answered your own question.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But if we're talking about competency, who is more competent, other than the President himself, to represent the President? His daughter is perfect if the only task is to represent the President. She's there for the cameras, to shake hands with people and say how lovely their country is. She's not there to negotiate the release of American hostages, or to lobby for military action. At least I would hope not. That would be a problem, obviously. But smiling and say hello in their language? What do you think she's doing there?
Well first, she's representing the country, not the president. And by having her represent the country the message being sent is that nepotism is a-ok with this govt, that they can't be bothered or are incapable of finding an experienced diplomat to do what is clearly a diplomat's job, and that they don't think enough of your country to find one. It's at best inappropriate and at worst insulting to S. Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Moreover, it's symptomatic of a larger problem. By all accounts, Jarvanka have been involved in plenty of high level meetings for which neither has the proper security clearance, nor any real justification for being there. Just saying 'i trust them not to use this inside knowledge of how the government works for their own personal gain' doesn't cut it.
Either they have jobs there (which is illegal) and have been properly vetted for (which they haven't, or at least not enough to pass the security clearances), or they shouldn't be there. It's really that simple. This is the top echelon of the US government, it's not take your daughter to work day at Maccy D's.
I just don't understand why the standards that any other world leader would be held up to somehow seem to get excused away by some people when it comes to Trump.
Give it up Ong. You're trying to argue with someone in the throws of a toddler-like tantrum. In fact, I'm naming this phenomenon: Tantrumium et Poopicus
The whole impetus behind this complaint was the erroneous premise that Ivanka was pinch-hitting for Tillerson. That's what that incompetent nincompoop David Pakman presented as "the problem". At best, it's disingenuous click-bait. At worst, it's the rantings of a hopelessly uninformed and misguided cut-rate demagogue.
Can you just admit that much Poop? This meeting was set weeks ago, when Rex still had a job. Please tell me that you understand that Ivanka is not acting in place of the secretary of state. She is not substituting or pinch-hitting for Tillerson in any diplomatic capacity. That was the whole premise if your original outrage, and the main complaint in the Pakman video. Do we all agree now that it was bogus?
If not, fuck you. But if so, then WHY are you continuing to beat this drum about Ivanka?? She's not doing anything wrong. She's not doing anything for which she does not have a security clearance. She's not working in any official capacity. She's not benefiting from nepotism.
She's helping out her dad.
Look, I realize that you thought Pakman was on to something and you got excited. I realize that if it were true that there was a diplomatic meeting that required the Secretary of State, but instead Ivanka would be taking Rex's place, that's bad. You would have been SOOOO right to be outraged and infuriated. You could have credibly scoffed at the stupidity of it all.
However...that's not what's happening. Not even close. That narrative is an invention of the imagination of a cut-rate, no-talent, youtube demagogue.
Now that narrative has been debunked, you're STILL trying to manufacture outrage out of this situation, and it's kinda sad.
Honestly, if this is the biggest complaint you have about Trump right now....then he's probably having a pretty good week.
Actually I'd like to hear Ong's thoughts, not the thoughts of a toxic idiot. But thanks anyways.
I get it. Talking to me causes you to have painful cognitive dissonanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Then why do you watch Pakman videos?Quote:
not the thoughts of a toxic idiot
C'mon Brits....what the fucking hell here???
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...te-to-dog.html
fyp.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Also the fact that I wasn't asking you so told you to fuck off. I know it's hard for you to fathom that not everyone is as fascinated in your opinions as you are, but it's true.
Tantrumium et PoopicusQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
WAAAAAHHHHH, MY FAVORITE YOUTUBE DEMAGOGUE FOOLED ME. NOW I CAN'T SHIT ON TRUMP AS MUCH AS I WANT TO WAAAAAHHHH
"Originally Posted by BananaStand"
Fake news. Nanners hasn't posted in the past 2 days, and it's been amazing.
:p
At this point, if you don't have him on your ignore list, you tacitly admit that you are choosing to expose yourself to his vitriol.
Might as well accept that you're fascinated by his opinions, too.
Pretty sure this is a guilty pleasure of at least 2/3 of people here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
For the other 1/3, it's just a pleasure.
But telling him to fuck off is fun.
Not reading any post of his longer than a sentence is also fun.
You can have the best of both worlds.
LOL, and MMM thinks I am the source of vitriol and toxicity.....hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Poor baby, such a victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Go cry on your howitzer, snowflake.
Lol, I'm not complaining. This is not the occasion to dust off my howitzer. I just think mental gymnastics that you guys use to fool yourselves are pretty funny to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, it's the fact that you cry when you get some of it back.
That's what's funny.
Identifying hypocrisy is not the same is "crying".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If I was really butt-hurt by any of the complaints about me, why would I still be here?
I think it's fun to educate you snowflake libtards. It's really fun to pummel you with facts and logic that destroys your misguided ideological demagoguery.
And the real fun comes when you throw spastic tantrums to defend your fading positions. For example...this Ivanka stuff. Pakman lied to you, and rather than be upset at him...you decided to try and find a new reason why he could be right.
Honestly Poop, don't ever leave. Because the amusement at your stubborn insistence to remain misguided really makes my day sometimes.
tl;dr
LiarQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Funny how that little chestnut always seems to pop up when facts and logic pin you into a corner.
all you have to do, little snowflake, is admit that Pakman is full of shit, and just this once, you fell for it. Be glad that you were corrected here, in this obscure corner of the internet, before you went out in public and made a total fool of yourself.
Now say "thank you for setting me straight Mr. Banana" and we can all move on.
You're right. I read everything you say with abject fascination.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That point you made about astrology not being real science and therefore liberals are wrong about everything was spot on.
Well played sir.
Finally some truthQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't recall mentioning anything about astrology. I probably said psychology isn't real science. You misunderstood.Quote:
That point you made about astrology not being real science and therefore liberals are wrong about everything was spot on
I knowQuote:
Well played sir.
Maybe it's because some people find it refreshing to do things a different way. Maybe it comes across as more human, more sincere. "I'm sorry I can't personally come to South Korea, I'm a busy man, but please, meet my lovely daughter." South Korea will be delighted to host the President's daughter, more so that some boring politician. Don't pretend it's insulting to SK, not unless you can actually show me them complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
So I'm assuming you antinepotists oppose family businesses?
You're playing the wrong game Ong. your response there presumes that Poop's original premise -- that Trump is held to a different standard -- is true.
It isn't.
Well first, they're not going to complain publicly because that's not how diplomacy is done.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Second, you can try to spin it into something positive all you want, it's still nepotism.
Why would they care if it's a mom and pop store that hires their kid as stock boy? That's on a completely different level than a government that affects everyone's lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can't have it both ways.
Either
1. She is working for the US gov't and thus violating anti-nepotism laws.
or
2. She isn't working for the US gov't and shouldn't be meeting foreign diplomats or attending high level meetings that require security clearance she doesn't have.
You take your pick. I'm going with 2.
And by the way, how S. Korea or any other country might feel about it is irrelevant. It's US law that they work under in the US gov't.
Not trying to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not that.Quote:
Either
1. She is working for the US gov't and thus violating anti-nepotism laws
RightQuote:
2. She isn't working for the US gov't
She's not allowed to have friends?Quote:
and shouldn't be meeting foreign diplomats
It's not a "high level" meeting. How many strawmen are you gonna cram into this post??Quote:
or attending high level meetings
The meeting obviously doesn't require security clearance. That's just another strawman you invented for seemingly no other reason than to protect your pristine perception of Pakman.Quote:
that require security clearance she doesn't have.
So we're agreed then....it's not nepotism?Quote:
You take your pick. I'm going with 2.
It's still nepotism. Maybe I'm better at stocking shelves, and want that job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Right then you should complain to the labour board (or UK equivalent). But if you're not after that stock boy job you probably don't give a shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'd totally be a nepotist if I were in charge. I'd surround myself with trusted people... family and friends. Anyone else is an outsider and potentially a double agent working for the Russians.
Yeah, I'd be all like 'yeah my Uncle Joe the butcher would make an awesome head of the CIA...oh wait, no he wouldn't.'
Every single time I've voted, I've written-in my brother for county sherriff
My friend is an accountant and I think she might even have Jew in her, she can be Chancellor of the Exchequer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Foreign secretary can be my friend Abbi because she can speak French and is very racist.
My cousin speaks German, so that's that ambassador sorted. My brother likes football, he can be Sports Minister, and if we haven't got one of those, I'll create the post for him.
My Mother can be Charity Minister, which is probably another post I'll have to invent, but who's going to argue with that one?
And Craig Murray can be my Scottish Minister, because obviously I trust him.
My best mate can be my deputy. And by deputy I mean the guy who rolls my spliffs and makes my tea. That's the most important job of them all. That's definitely not going to an outsider.
banana, you want a job as press secretary when I rule the world?
mojo can be my science guy.
poop, I'll think of something for you.
Fine, but only if I can use the word "cunt" publicly, up to five times per week.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
*at least, and it's mandatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My brother the alcoholic can deal with the opioid epidemic.
My first project will be to solve the ineffable mystery of why the universe lacks self-rolling spliffs, and self-brewing teas.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
A government monopoly????Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Fuck this game, I'm out!
Self rolling spliffs and self brewing teas will make my friend redundant. Self buttering toast... that would be a good place to start.
Exceedingly simple, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pu...inklestein.jpg
I agree with this assessment too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.
Unfortunately for Marx, the socialist Utopia deteriorates the production that is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
http://i.magaimg.net/img/2wwh.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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".
This one is definitely a "no"Quote:
and limit freedom to change one's social status?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Like in a monarchy?
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.
If a line of reasoning can be used to justify anything, it's probably not a very good line of reasoning.
Certainly. I'm not using it to justify something so much as saying that a common criticism is unjustified.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
That part is gobbledygook. You could have stopped at: Nepotism is bad in the public sector.Quote:
... 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.Quote:
Can his daughter serve in any useful capacity in the higher echelon of government that another female model couldn't?
That's a qualification, and an outstanding one at that.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So in brief, argument from authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
That law is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Now the question becomes if you ignore that law in spirit if not in fact then what other laws are you happy to ignore?
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.
By that rationale, so is the pushback against nepotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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?
By the letter of the constitution, blacks count as 3/5 of a non-black when it comes to census time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
BullshitQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/2...rs-gun-control
All laws are meaningless. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Reductio ad bananum from you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I was explaining why the pushback is not as productive that one might wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You asked what other laws can be ignored and I gave you a list of common laws which are ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
...using a tin foil argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Calling something natural or normal is no argument for why that thing is good or right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
So why do you have such a problem then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
I answered a direct question of yours, so if there's a non sequitur at play it's the question you posed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.