*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[BananaStand]

It's Trumps campaign team. So, no, he's not irrelevant.

Again, there is nothing in either of those stories that implicates Trump or anyone on his campaign. Whatever this firm was doing, they could have been doing it for Trump, for Hillary, or a dishtowel. It doesn't matter.

This is like saying a restaurant was caught serving illegal shark fin meat, and Trump ate there once.

Who cares??

I can't recall anyone making excuses for Hilary.

Completely implausible

If you want me to go there: if Trump wants to impress me he'd hold his promise to put Hilary in jail and put Bill on trial for war crimes while he's at it. But that's completely irrelevant to this issue.

I take it you're still butt-hurt about Bernie?

[oskar]

I take it you're still butt-hurt about Bernie?

I was debating whether I should correct you or not because you have tried to paint me as a Hilary boy in like 12 separate posts. The honest truth is: I could not give a fuck. I live 4000 miles across the ocean in a small shithole country. For my entertainment value Trump is the best candidate, so that works out.

[Poopadoop]

I was debating whether I should correct you or not because you have tried to paint me as a Hilary boy in like 12 separate posts.

It's part of that identity politics he's so much against unless it makes for a convenient means of labeling an interlocutor. Anyone who doesn't like Trump must therefore like anyone who's not Trump.

For my entertainment value Trump is the best candidate, so that works out.

I felt that too for a while, but now I find he's getting boring and his unpredictability is getting predictable. I'm just waiting now for the meltdown that one side or the other will have when he's either impeached or gets elected for a second term.

[Poopadoop]

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

[OngBonga]

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

Does this really concern you? I give zero fucks.

[Poopadoop]

Does this really concern you? I give zero fucks.

It would concern me if I were American fuck yeah.

You want Theresa May's daughter going on diplomatic missions after she fires her Min. foreign affairs?

[OngBonga]

It would concern me if I were American fuck yeah.

You want Theresa May's daughter going on diplomatic missions after she fires her Min. foreign affairs?

Have you seen who our Foreign Secretary is?

[BananaStand]

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

Earlier today you rejoiced at the discovery of an 'ignore' function. And now here you are, begging for my attention.

I'll feed you baby bird.....

but first....what is the agenda of this meeting that Ivanka will be attending? Do you know?

[wufwugy]

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

I've seen Pakman lead people astray by using his economics degree as an authority while claiming an economics truth that ain't an economics truth. So I don't take his word on anything.

[wufwugy]

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

From a strategic perspective, that might be really smart. I'd be even more impressed if Ivanka could (legally) be in talks with Kim. She's for sure the hottest chick he would have ever experienced in those kinds of settings and it would make him more agreeable. Far more agreeable.

[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]

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]

Now nepotism is your ENTIRE argument.

I guess you need to read this again:

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.

Also maybe take the hint this time and let someone else respond.