Osiris Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 When Trump was elected, I said the United States is going to have it's Morsi moments, meaning we're going to see a lot of things I have typically seen in Middle-Eastern politics. First stop, nepotism and disregard for established laws! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/09/jared-kushner-senior-adviser-donald-trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Oh jeez Osiris. Now you're starting to sound like the rest of the crazy people who compared the Trump Administration to Nazi Germany and now it's the Taliban or whoever the fuck else. Look love him or hate him this is the first time we've had a president who's actually had a real job besides having his ass kissed as a politician. Anyway over the years he's had working relations with people not just political appointees so there's absolutely no reason that this kid, who he knows and trusts, would be unfit for that position. Besides the fact that the Democrats want something to scream about. I don't remember anyone on the left screaming about Chelsea Clinton's involvement with the Clinton slush fund oh, whoops I mean Foundation. Is there anything really about the kid that you think would make him unfit for the job? Or just a silly Middle East coup reference? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 His son in law is perfectly eligible for the position and I fully support it. And anything that the Donald does quite frankly. Go cry over a picture of Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Oh jeez Osiris. Now you're starting to sound like the rest of the crazy people who compared the Trump Administration to Nazi Germany and now it's the Taliban or whoever the fuck else. Look love him or hate him this is the first time we've had a president who's actually had a real job besides having his ass kissed as a politician. Anyway over the years he's had working relations with people not just political appointees so there's absolutely no reason that this kid, who he knows and trusts, would be unfit for that position. Besides the fact that the Democrats want something to scream about. I don't remember anyone on the left screaming about Chelsea Clinton's involvement with the Clinton slush fund oh, whoops I mean Foundation. Is there anything really about the kid that you think would make him unfit for the job? Or just a silly Middle East coup reference? WSS Chelsea Clinton's involvement did not violate the anti-nepotism law because Chelsea Clinton was not appointed into a government agency. I am not talking about "fit" or "unfit" or "qualified" or "unqualified". I'm talking about legality. So, no, he is not eligible. This is US law: "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." -5 U.S. Code § 3110 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110) If you want to argue that the law is wrong, go ahead and argue that. I'm telling you that nepotism promotes political corruption because it gives those in office additional cart-blanche to do what they want. This is obvious to any objective observer. His son in law is perfectly eligible for the position and I fully support it. And anything that the Donald does quite frankly. Go cry over a picture of Hillary. We already know that you are blind partisan so that comes as no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Chelsea Clinton's involvement did not violate the anti-nepotism law because Chelsea Clinton was not appointed into a government agency. I am not talking about "fit" or "unfit" or "qualified" or "unqualified". I'm talking about legality. So, no, he is not eligible. This is US law: "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." -5 U.S. Code § 3110 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110) If you want to argue that the law is wrong, go ahead and argue that. I'm telling you that nepotism promotes political corruption because it gives those in office additional cart-blanche to do what they want. This is obvious to any objective observer. We already know that you are blind partisan so that comes as no surprise. We do, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-consensus-anti-nepotism-law-kushner-appointment-233303582--election.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-consensus-anti-nepotism-law-kushner-appointment-233303582--election.html From your own article: "Congress didn't in this law carve out an exception for the White House. It's quite broad in scope. It applies to the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the DC government," Clark said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Well then if it is, as you say, a clear-cut violation of the law then it will be nipped in the bud immediately. We shall see. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 And if as you say the laws are quite Broad that Chelsea Clinton would be definitely in charge of laundering bribes in exchange for State Department preference. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 From your own article: "Congress didn't in this law carve out an exception for the White House. It's quite broad in scope. It applies to the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the DC government," Clark said. You only quoted the statement that said it was. Their are others that say the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 We do, do we? We do, we really do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Well I'm not particularly worried. I do expect the Democrats to throw a fit over every nomination or hire. Al Sharpton is already planning riots. Good work Democrats keep it up. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 wrong, osiris - it is legal. He won't be paid, and it doesn't require confirmation..... you mad, bro? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kushner-idUSKBN14T251 "Kushner, 35, who is married to Trump's daughter Ivanka, is taking the post after receiving legal counsel that doing so would not violate U.S. anti-nepotism law, transition officials said. The position, unlike Cabinet posts, does not require U.S. Senate confirmation, and Kushner will not be paid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 same old thang....check it out, Os: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-jared-kushner-hillary-clinton-precedent-231577 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 ditto Attorney General of the United States (1961–1964)Robert Kennedy speaking to a civil rights crowd in front of the Justice Department on June 14, 1963. After winning the 1960 presidential election, President-electJohn F. Kennedy appointed his younger brotherAttorney General. Robert F. Kennedy - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Oh jeez Osiris. Now you're starting to sound like the rest of the crazy people who compared the Trump Administration to Nazi Germany and now it's the Taliban or whoever the fuck else. WSS Does that crazy go both ways? Comparing Obama's administration to things like Nazi Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Does that crazy go both ways? Comparing Obama's administration to things like Nazi Germany? Point out where I made one of those posts. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 No Cal, the Trump family will be invading DC on Camel Back and turning this into another Saudi Arabia........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Point out where I made one of those posts. WSS I have this funny feeling Woody isn't referring to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I have this funny feeling Woody isn't referring to you. Well he was talking to me... But maybe you're right. But the Trump hatred derangement syndrome is far more widespread than the Obama hate which shows up more here just because of the nature of the Forum. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Well he was talking to me... But maybe you're right. But the Trump hatred derangement syndrome is far more widespread than the Obama hate which shows up more here just because of the nature of the Forum. WSS No it isnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Remember, The Democratic Party is the party of tolerance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 wrong, osiris - it is legal. He won't be paid, and it doesn't require confirmation..... you mad, bro? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kushner-idUSKBN14T251 "Kushner, 35, who is married to Trump's daughter Ivanka, is taking the post after receiving legal counsel that doing so would not violate U.S. anti-nepotism law, transition officials said. The position, unlike Cabinet posts, does not require U.S. Senate confirmation, and Kushner will not be paid." No, you are wrong and your quote doesn't support your argument that it is legal. The legal counsel this quote refers to does not determine the legality of something, they advise people. The advice can be wrong, right, murky, or politically motivated. This won't be legal unless the courts ultimately rule it so. Until then, the 1967 law, which specifically mentions the POTUS, prohibits appointment of relatives, regardless of their party affiliation. ditto Attorney General of the United States (1961–1964)Robert Kennedy speaking to a civil rights crowd in front of the Justice Department on June 14, 1963. After winning the 1960 presidential election, President-electJohn F. Kennedy appointed his younger brotherAttorney General. Robert F. Kennedy - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy Do you actually read the things you link? You would've noticed this in the Politico article you posted: The 1967 law was widely viewed as a response to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s dislike for the Kennedys and, in particular, President John F. Kennedy’s nomination of his brother Robert as attorney general. So yes, the law was a response to Kennedy's nepotism. I am not here to argue with you that Democratic nepotism is okay and Republican nepotism is not. Take your partisan hat off for five minutes. Nepotism is wrong because it undermines confidence in government and the notion that America is at least somewhat a place where people achieve their positions based on merit. Not to mention as I said before, it allows individuals to act with impunity because they know their relative has their back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Nah, you're wrong Oiris. You're just mad because your family may be deported and citizenship revoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Nah, you're wrong Oiris. You're just mad because your family may be deported and citizenship revoked. While I'm sure that idea gives you wet dreams, it's never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 While I'm sure that idea gives you wet dreams, it's never going to happen. Never say never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Point out where I made one of those posts. WSS Never said you did. I'm just trying to clarify who falls into your crazy pool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Well he was talking to me... But maybe you're right. But the Trump hatred derangement syndrome is far more widespread than the Obama hate which shows up more here just because of the nature of the Forum. WSS "Far more widespread"?.... Yeah, idk about that. And what is the "nature of this forum"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.