Both Kennedy and Clinton had strong legal backgrounds that fit their respective positions. Both (especially Kennedy) had the appropriate qualifications to do their job.
As i said If you make allowances for 'nepotism' then your making allowances for nepotism, and it just becomes a discussion over whether you personally feel the person is qualified for the job.
Ivanka actually runs businesses, and it certainly isn't clear that a Government political 'advisory job' is so different from running a business that it is disqualifying.
You can't be against nepotism but then make allowances or else it is subjective.
Also Kennedy was the reason the nepotism law was introduced in the first place. Back then this was still legal. So much for not knowing history.
Legality doesn't address the problem of nepotism, nepotism doesn't become ethical because it is legal as it is a moral and ethical principle that one is supposed to have, or else Ivanka probably is not going to be found guilty.
Your argument doesn't make sense, furthermore your just validating what i said rofl. So much for not knowing history.
Hilariously, The argument revolves around Ivanka violating Nepotism law, which came about because Kennedy hiring his brother, but Kennedy's brother is an exception to the same ethical problem and the very law people use against Ivanka, because he has some qualifications for the job? Even though it was created against him in the first place?
Thats some amazing circular argumentation going around.
Australians (and the rest of the world it seems) are growing tired of the socialist, politically correct, SJW, far-leftist, refugee-swamping, pro-feminist, pro-globalist, white-hating, segregating, greens aligning leaders. This is why Tony Abbott won Australia and why Brexit, Trump and the rise of Le Pen followed.
Unfortunately both Australian liberal and labor are just as bad as each other as both Rudd and Abbott got backstabbed by their own party. I no longer trust my votes to the mainstream right or left parties. I will only vote the "alt-right" or the "alt-left" so to speak.
On a side note.... GO PAULINE HANSON AND DAVID LEYONHJELM!
Australia's 'revolving door' of politically ousting their own parties leader is ridiculous.
Everyone in Australia considers the Government a Kangaroo Court.
Or it could be the fact that you have to go back nearly 60 years to find a even remotely comparable example. And even then, it was Bobby Kennedy, who may have one day been President himself one day if he hadn't been assassinated. And on the other hand we have Ivanka. A individual they have used the office of the Presidency to shill for her Nordstrom's clothing line. And again, they explicitly said less than 90 days ago this would not be happening. I'm not even going to bother posting the tweet again, because what's the point?? It's a pretty safe bet to assume at this point, if Trump says something, there is a better than 75% chance it's a total lie.
Or it could be the fact that you have to go back nearly 60 years to find a even remotely comparable example. And even then, it was Bobby Kennedy, who may have one day been President himself one day if he hadn't been assassinated. And on the other hand we have Ivanka. A individual they have used the office of the Presidency to shill for her Nordstrom's clothing line. And again, they explicitly said less than 90 days ago this would not be happening. I'm not even going to bother posting the tweet again, because what's the point?? It's a pretty safe bet to assume at this point, if Trump says something, there is a better than 75% chance it's a total lie.
Hillary isn't an example from 'a long time ago', so what are you talking about, And if JFK hiring his brother is too long ago, i guess the law that was created because of them is also too long ago too (the One commonly used to say Ivanka is doing something wrong, even though it was lol clarified to not be anymore because of Hillary herself).
Furthermore, all your doing is making excuses and exceptions to your own criticism of Nepotism.
hardly consistent.
"And even then, it was Bobby Kennedy" What is this argument? The person for virtue of whether you like or admire them becomes an exception to your own criticism?
Whatever it's just another lie from Trump. "I'm not going to get top security clearances for my kids", then does that. "If I get elected I'll show my taxes", doesn't. "Drain the swamp", then fills positions with more millionaires, billionaires and Goldman Sachs executives than any other administration. "I'm not going to take vacations or golf or take a salary", doesn't do any of that. And he still profiting from government paid vacations to resorts he owns that he then charges the government for.
It's a loophole, the law is against nepotism, the salary concerns are not the issue. What about Clinton in 1992 or Kennedy, well we don't have a time machine do we? And again these people were qualified in the law and government, not employed by the grace of daddies money.
Or it could be the fact that you have to go back nearly 60 years to find a even remotely comparable example. And even then, it was Bobby Kennedy, who may have one day been President himself one day if he hadn't been assassinated. And on the other hand we have Ivanka. A individual they have used the office of the Presidency to shill for her Nordstrom's clothing line. And again, they explicitly said less than 90 days ago this would not be happening. I'm not even going to bother posting the tweet again, because what's the point?? It's a pretty safe bet to assume at this point, if Trump says something, there is a better than 75% chance it's a total lie.
Hillary isn't an example from 'a long time ago', so what are you talking about, And if JFK hiring his brother is too long ago, i guess the law that was created because of them is also too long ago too (the One commonly used to say Ivanka is doing something wrong, even though it was lol clarified to not be anymore because of Hillary herself).
Furthermore, all your doing is making excuses and exceptions to your own criticism of Nepotism.
Your quite literally making exceptions to your logic, that people can just use to justify Ivanka working in the White House.
hardly consistent.
Was Hillary supposed to recuse herself from being First Lady?? That wasn't nepotism, they were married for christ's sake. Every First Lady has a portfolio of issues. Hillary took up being a spokesman for a health care bill. Different?? Yeah. Nepotism?? Not even close.
And this semantic game where the rest of us apparently have to criticize a President who has been dead for over 50 years for making his brother Attorney General 20 years before I was born if I want to criticize Ivanaka is one I refuse to play.
Was Hillary supposed to recuse herself from being First Lady?? That wasn't nepotism, they were married for christ's sake. Every First Lady has a portfolio of issues. Hillary took up being a spokesman for a health care bill. Different?? Yeah. Nepotism?? Not even close.
You mean she was head of working on Health Care, till it was known as Hillary-care.
Yes, it qualifies your argument of Nepotism, if you want to make exceptions to your own argument then you have.
Being First Lady has nothing to do with running Health-Care, Shifting the Goal-posts doesn't make sense but it is a sign of trying to confuse the issue.
Hell, it became such an issue she was taken to court, to which the Federal Judges amusingly made an exception to the very nepotism law commonly cited so that it is fine for Ivanka to be working there too.
And this semantic game where the rest of us apparently have to criticize a President who has been dead for over 50 years for making his brother Attorney General 20 years before I was born if I want to criticize Ivanaka is one I refuse to play.
Concession noted, Also you kind of have to talk about JFK and his brother, because the very anti-nepotism law commonly argued comes from their circumstance.
I'm not here to give a full-throated defense of the Kennedy Administration anymore than you are of the Hoover Administration.
I WILL defend Hillary on this charge, and not just because she was First Lady. It's because Bill Clinton touted his wife being by his side as a policy advisor as an ASSET throughout the entire '92 campaign. It was one of the main topics of conversation. Every Clinton voter in '92 knew damn well Hillary would be playing a major policy role as First Lady. And again, Trump EXPLICITLY said Ivanka would not be working in the White House. Multiple times. You're creating a parallel where none exists. The parallel would be if Bill had specifically said Hillary WOULD NOT play a policy role and then she did. The exact opposite is what took place.
Both Kennedy and Clinton had strong legal backgrounds that fit their respective positions. Both (especially Kennedy) had the appropriate qualifications to do their job.
As i said If you make allowances for 'nepotism' then your making allowances for nepotism, and it just becomes a discussion over whether you personally feel the person is qualified for the job.
Ivanka actually runs businesses, and it certainly isn't clear that a Government political 'advisory job' is so different from running a business that it is disqualifying.
You can't be against nepotism but then make allowances or else it is subjective.
Also Kennedy was the reason the nepotism law was introduced in the first place. Back then this was still legal. So much for not knowing history.
Legality doesn't address the problem of nepotism, nepotism doesn't become ethical because it is legal as it is a moral and ethical principle that one is supposed to have, or else Ivanka probably is not going to be found guilty.
Your argument doesn't make sense, furthermore your just validating what i said rofl. So much for not knowing history.
Hilariously, The argument revolves around Ivanka violating Nepotism law, which came about because Kennedy hiring his brother, but Kennedy's brother is an exception to the same ethical problem and the very law people use against Ivanka, because he has some qualifications for the job? Even though it was created against him in the first place?
Thats some amazing circular argumentation going around.
No. Not everything is dealt in constants, although I think we are in an agreement on this issue.
You ask yourself one question:
What qualifications/skills does this person have that will allow them to do the desired job properly and effectively?
If you are able to give a strong answer to that question, you then ask yourself,
Is there anyone, who you personally think can do the job more effectively than the person in question.
If you answer able to answer the first question and can answer no to the second question, it isn't nepotism.
The second question can add shades of gray to the process, but as long as you can stand by WHY that person is more qualified (even if it is a "I can work with them better answer") it doesnt matter.
Trump hasn't addressed those two questions, so people are going to assume nepotism.
With both Clinton and Kennedy, those questions were asked and addressed and is why there was less blow back on their appointments.
If, hypothetically he appoints Barron to be the ambassador of Switzerland, then that is clearly nepotism as he isnt qualified and there are thousands of people more qualified for the position.
I personally have no issue with Ivanka taking a position within the administration and personally think she would be good for it. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if she ran for president in the future (2024-8), using this time (being branded as a calming influence) as its stepping stone, much like Hillary did with the Health position.
The issue I have is Trump stating, she isnt going to be part of the staff, dont worry or question it. He lied to avoid answering questions and concerns others might have about her role in the government. That is unacceptable, and gives a negative perception to her hire as being strictly nepotism.
I WILL defend Hillary on this charge, and not just because she was First Lady. It's because Bill Clinton touted his wife being by his side as a policy advisor as an ASSET throughout the entire '92 campaign. It was one of the main topics of conversation. Every Clinton voter in '92 knew damn well Hillary would be playing a major policy role as First Lady. And again, Trump EXPLICITLY said Ivanka would not be working in the White House. Multiple times.
Your defense of Hillary has nothing to do with your criticism of Nepotism and doesn't even address it.
That Bill Clinton campaigned that his wife would be useful, doesn't absolve or address the issue of nepotism at all, The issue of nepotism doesn't revolve or become resolved depending on how hard a candidate campaigns for someone.
No. Not everything is dealt in constants, although I think we are in an agreement on this issue.
You ask yourself one question:
What qualifications/skills does this person have that will allow them to do the desired job properly and effectively?
If you are able to give a strong answer to that question, you then ask yourself,
Is there anyone, who you personally think can do the job more effectively than the person in question.
If you answer able to answer the first question and can answer no to the second question, it isn't nepotism.
I agree exceptions can be made, Life isn't absolute.
Nepotism has no provisio over the qualifications for a person, that doesn't even make sense logically. You can make exceptions to nepotism, that is, you accept nepotism as valid insofar as the person is qualified. That's still nepotism you simply accept it under certain circumstances.
Also, there are many people more qualified then Hillary to head Health-Care, particularly so since Hillary-Care became such a political disaster it cost the Democrats, Like some People who actually ran Health-Care.
I personally have no issue with Ivanka taking a position within the administration and personally think she would be good for it. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if she ran for president in the future (2024-8), using this time (being branded as a calming influence) as its stepping stone, much like Hillary did with the Health position.
Interesting, I would prefer she actually not work in the White House.
You are correct that Ivanka tends to pull Trump towards more social female issue's so perhaps some good will come out of it.
Any other potential instances are ones we can't change without a time machine.
So dumb, Republicans do something illegal and then "but Hillary did it". Apples and oranges. Supppse Trump robs a bank then yells about "but beghazi!" His current bad behavior is the problem, not some other thing.
Children know that if Timmy steals a dollar from old man Jones, that doesn't make it right for you to steal a dollar from old man Jones.
You going to jump off a bridge if Hillary tells you to?
it isn't illegal because Federal Judges ruled in the exact anti-nepotism law that it does not apply to Presidential White House of Staff, per Hillary's issue.
No. Not everything is dealt in constants, although I think we are in an agreement on this issue.
You ask yourself one question:
What qualifications/skills does this person have that will allow them to do the desired job properly and effectively?
If you are able to give a strong answer to that question, you then ask yourself,
Is there anyone, who you personally think can do the job more effectively than the person in question.
If you answer able to answer the first question and can answer no to the second question, it isn't nepotism.
Wrong, Nepotism has no provisio over the qualifications for a person, that doesn't even make sense logically. You can make exceptions to nepotism, that is, you accept nepotism as valid insofar as the person is qualified. That's still nepotism you simply accept it under certain circumstances.
Also, there are many people more qualified then Hillary to head Health-Care, particularly so since Hillary-Care became such a political disaster it cost the Democrats, Like some People who actually ran Health-Care.
Hillary-Care actually failed.
So your argument doesn't even apply.
From wiki under the politics section:
Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications.
So yes there is a qualification component when discussing it in political terms. (In before you argue that what's written on wiki is meaningless and only your opinion is valid.)
My argument was that before she was even appointed, she was put through the ringer on her qualifications and if this was just an act of nepotism. As someone else said in this thread, it was even part of Bill's campaign, allowing the voters to decide for themselves.
Bill explained why she would be good for the job and why he thought no one else could do it better. That they failed to get it through congress does not dismiss the fact that Bill made a choice, explained it and stood by it.
Comparing it Trump who lied about Ivanka having a role in the administration all the way up to the point she got her clearance and role. People will fall back on the nepotism argument because there is so much secrecy revolving around her role, people don't know what is actually there to do.
it isn't illegal because Federal Judges ruled in the exact anti-nepotism law that it does not apply to Presidential White House of Staff, per Hillary's issue.
We'll let the courts decide that one. I imagine the lawsuit against her over unfair competition have even more legal ammunition now that she's officially advisor to the President and a govt employee.
And even if it's not illegal it's still unethical, nepotism and rotten.
Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications.
nepotism is giving people favors or positions based on favoritism of ones own family.
So yes it is nepotism, it truly is a stretch to argue that Hillary becoming the chief architect of Healthcare under Bill Clinton wasn't favoring someone close to you for that position.
And no, she wasn't qualified.
Becoming Chief Architect of health-care is a pretty high position, moreover HillaryCare failed.
her own party members advised her (as a newcomer) to create and pass smaller legislature to get experience and capital in Government, jumping into running Health-Care is hardly good qualification.
My argument was that before she was even appointed, she was put through the ringer on her qualifications and if this was just an act of nepotism. As someone else said in this thread, it was even part of Bill's campaign, allowing the voters to decide for themselves.
Bill explained why she would be good for the job and why he thought no one else could do it better. That they failed to get it through congress does not dismiss the fact that Bill made a choice, explained it and stood by it.
Your criteria was whether there is no one else more suitable for the job, and there is, like people who actually ran Health-Care.
So yes it qualifies for nepotism under your criteria.
'Letting the voters decide' An often used excuse with no real value, people didn't vote for Bill Clinton because of Hillary Clinton.
Moreover that kind of argument tends to allow Presidents un-critically carte-blanche to do whatever they want because 'the people chose him'.
Oh my. Well who in the world could have seen this coming I wonder.....check my posts from this last wknd about Trump throwing Flynn to the wolves. Asking for immunity implies you think you NEED immunity.
Oh my. Well who in the world could have seen this coming I wonder.....check my posts from this last wknd about Trump throwing Flynn to the wolves. Asking for immunity implies you think you NEED immunity.
He's already retroactively tried to cover his tracks by among other things registering as a foreign agent of Turkey.
I don't think he should get immunity, dudes guilty as sin as is.
Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications.
nepotism is giving people favors or positions based on favoritism of ones own family.
So yes it is nepotism, it truly is a stretch to argue that Hillary becoming the chief architect of Healthcare under Bill Clinton wasn't favoring someone close to you for that position.
And no, she wasn't qualified.
Becoming Chief Architect of health-care is a pretty high position, moreover HillaryCare failed.
her own party members advised her (as a newcomer) to create and pass smaller legislature to get experience and capital in Government, jumping into running Health-Care is hardly good qualification.
My argument was that before she was even appointed, she was put through the ringer on her qualifications and if this was just an act of nepotism. As someone else said in this thread, it was even part of Bill's campaign, allowing the voters to decide for themselves.
Bill explained why she would be good for the job and why he thought no one else could do it better. That they failed to get it through congress does not dismiss the fact that Bill made a choice, explained it and stood by it.
Your criteria was whether there is no one else more suitable for the job, and there is, like people who actually ran Health-Care.
So yes it qualifies for nepotism under your criteria.
'Letting the voters decide' An often used excuse with no real value, people didn't vote for Bill Clinton because of Hillary Clinton.
Moreover that kind of argument tends to allow Presidents un-critically carte-blanche to do whatever they want because 'the people chose him'.
Even using the dictionary definition, you are ignoring the word "favoritism" in the definition. Just because a family member is hired, doesn't automatically make it nepotism.
You are also ignoring the point that the Clintons faced the scrutiny of her appointment before she was appointed, while Trump flat out lied about Ivanka being appointed.
And let the voters decide was if there was a large enough ruckus about her appointment, and if people generally did care that she was under qualified, they would have stated it loudly enough that Clinton might have reversed his position. They didn't, so bringing it up a decade later and using it validation for Ivanka's appointment. The two are far from equal.
This has nothing to do with what Clinton did, or what Kennedy did. It is about what Trump is doing NOW. By first lying about her getting a position to avoid the backlash and then having her role as a vague as "Assistant to the President." Falling back on the argument saying "well Clinton did it," why the double standard, especially when you are stating that Clinton failed at her job and shouldn't have been appointed in the first place isn't doing the appointment of Ivanka any favours, and in fact, is strengthening the backlash against it.
Look, those of us who have been pushing the obvious nefariousness of this Russia business have been laughed off and dismissed so often it's almost a badge of honor. People seem to think it's just an excuse that was concocted after the election. Couldn't be more wrong. I've personally been following the story since mid-July, right after Manafort left the campaign, when Hillary looked like a shoe-in. If you've been paying attention to the right people, you've known for a long time that, more likely than that, the intelligence community has these traitorous bastards dead to rights. Here is yet another link in the chain to being vindicated on this subject.
Even using the dictionary definition, you are ignoring the word "favoritism" in the definition. Just because a family member is hired, doesn't automatically make it nepotism.
You are also ignoring the point that the Clintons faced the scrutiny of her appointment before she was appointed, while Trump flat out lied about Ivanka being appointed.
Lol.
Hillary Clinton becoming Chief Architect of health-Care under Bill Clinton isn't favoritism? It's just a coincidence? I don't think so.
Chief Architect of Health-Care reform that fundamentally changes the system that governs all Americans is, on the face of it, a little different in scope and severity then 'advisory role'.
And let the voters decide was if there was a large enough ruckus about her appointment, and if people generally did care that she was under qualified, they would have stated it loudly enough that Clinton might have reversed his position. They didn't, so bringing it up a decade later and using it validation for Ivanka's appointment. The two are far from equal.
Presidents tend to get away with things alot, like Unjustified wars and bypassing congress.
So the fact Hillary got appointed because of nepotism is more par for the course in American Politics rather then some exception we should be skeptical over.
I also wonder if you were aware of Politics back then, Hillary-care was a major national issue and her role and conduct was front-and-center of controversy.
Congressional hearings, demonstrations, Court battles over so many issues like secrecy and transparency, health organizations criticizing it.
So the UK can tell the EU to f' off but the EU isn't allowed to play hardball with a country that pretty much betrayed their alliance??
A benevolent act is to make the process as painless as possible Because it is the people that will suffer from Economic retaliation. also i tend to think any perceived retaliation won't make people in the West love the EU more.
The people are supposed to be who matters, Politician's and their hurt feelings don't really matter to me much.
I don't know what this 'betrayal' argument is about.
So the fact Hillary got appointed because of nepotism is more par for the course in American Politics rather then some exception we should be skeptical over.
I also wonder if you were aware of Politics back then, Hillary-care was a major national issue and her role and conduct was front-and-center of controversy.
Congressional hearings, demonstrations, Court battles over so many issues like secrecy and transparency, health organizations criticizing it.
And as I said, the Clinton's faced that criticism head on.
Trump lied about his intentions with his daughter's role in his government to avoid the criticism.
Do you not see the difference? One allowed a discussion to happen. The other denied the need for a discussion, then did anyway. Clinton's role was spelt out, so that it could be criticized properly. Ivanka's role is vague enough that it can't be criticized.
It isn't about what Clinton did, it is what Trump is doing now.
It isn't about what Clinton did, it is what Trump is doing now.
This. And are you saying Clinton was not nepotism and was fine or are you saying it was wrong? If it was fine, why do you keep mentioning it? If it was not fine then do two wrongs make a right? And back to the kids lesson thing if Hillary jumps off a bridge is Trump going to do it too?
And as I said, the Clinton's faced that criticism head on.
Trump lied about his intentions with his daughter's role in his government to avoid the criticism.
Do you not see the difference? One allowed a discussion to happen. The other denied the need for a discussion, then did anyway. Clinton's role was spelt out, so that it could be criticized properly. Ivanka's role is vague enough that it can't be criticized.
It isn't about what Clinton did, it is what Trump is doing now.
You changing the discussion from nepotism (which is wrong on hillary's part) to who lied about what shows me you've conceded the former argument.
It's simply evidence of the sheer political partisan-ship in this discussion, If you make such strong defenses for Hillary, then you certainly can't complain about Ivanka, You want to talk about severity or Scope, and Yet Hillary being the Chief-Architect of Health-Care is of a totally different severity and scope to 'advisory role'.
Nor do i even understand your statement 'face criticism head on' what does this mean? Do you think Bill campaigned on Hillary being chief architect of Health-Care?
So to Trump and Ivanka, I've already stated i'd prefer she not work on the White House, I can be perfectly consistent on this ethical issue, why Can't you?
I don't even understand your point on discussion, anyone can discuss anything, and the media has long discussed Ivanka's role in Trump's Presidency and even speculation on her serving in the White House.
But you can elaborate on what the Campaign promises were specifically.
So here is the Trump playbook: deny something in as unequivocal of terms as possible, wait 3 or 4 months, and blatantly break the promise in the full light of day, because you have that little respect for the people who voted you into office.
Comments
Ivanka actually runs businesses, and it certainly isn't clear that a Government political 'advisory job' is so different from running a business that it is disqualifying.
You can't be against nepotism but then make allowances or else it is subjective. Legality doesn't address the problem of nepotism, nepotism doesn't become ethical because it is legal as it is a moral and ethical principle that one is supposed to have, or else Ivanka probably is not going to be found guilty.
Your argument doesn't make sense, furthermore your just validating what i said rofl.
So much for not knowing history.
Hilariously, The argument revolves around Ivanka violating Nepotism law, which came about because Kennedy hiring his brother, but Kennedy's brother is an exception to the same ethical problem and the very law people use against Ivanka, because he has some qualifications for the job? Even though it was created against him in the first place?
Thats some amazing circular argumentation going around.
Everyone in Australia considers the Government a Kangaroo Court.
Furthermore, all your doing is making excuses and exceptions to your own criticism of Nepotism.
hardly consistent.
"And even then, it was Bobby Kennedy" What is this argument? The person for virtue of whether you like or admire them becomes an exception to your own criticism?
It's a loophole, the law is against nepotism, the salary concerns are not the issue. What about Clinton in 1992 or Kennedy, well we don't have a time machine do we? And again these people were qualified in the law and government, not employed by the grace of daddies money.
And this semantic game where the rest of us apparently have to criticize a President who has been dead for over 50 years for making his brother Attorney General 20 years before I was born if I want to criticize Ivanaka is one I refuse to play.
Yes, it qualifies your argument of Nepotism, if you want to make exceptions to your own argument then you have.
Being First Lady has nothing to do with running Health-Care, Shifting the Goal-posts doesn't make sense but it is a sign of trying to confuse the issue.
Hell, it became such an issue she was taken to court, to which the Federal Judges amusingly made an exception to the very nepotism law commonly cited so that it is fine for Ivanka to be working there too. Concession noted, Also you kind of have to talk about JFK and his brother, because the very anti-nepotism law commonly argued comes from their circumstance.
I WILL defend Hillary on this charge, and not just because she was First Lady. It's because Bill Clinton touted his wife being by his side as a policy advisor as an ASSET throughout the entire '92 campaign. It was one of the main topics of conversation. Every Clinton voter in '92 knew damn well Hillary would be playing a major policy role as First Lady. And again, Trump EXPLICITLY said Ivanka would not be working in the White House. Multiple times. You're creating a parallel where none exists. The parallel would be if Bill had specifically said Hillary WOULD NOT play a policy role and then she did. The exact opposite is what took place.
You ask yourself one question:
What qualifications/skills does this person have that will allow them to do the desired job properly and effectively?
If you are able to give a strong answer to that question, you then ask yourself,
Is there anyone, who you personally think can do the job more effectively than the person in question.
If you answer able to answer the first question and can answer no to the second question, it isn't nepotism.
The second question can add shades of gray to the process, but as long as you can stand by WHY that person is more qualified (even if it is a "I can work with them better answer") it doesnt matter.
Trump hasn't addressed those two questions, so people are going to assume nepotism.
With both Clinton and Kennedy, those questions were asked and addressed and is why there was less blow back on their appointments.
If, hypothetically he appoints Barron to be the ambassador of Switzerland, then that is clearly nepotism as he isnt qualified and there are thousands of people more qualified for the position.
I personally have no issue with Ivanka taking a position within the administration and personally think she would be good for it. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if she ran for president in the future (2024-8), using this time (being branded as a calming influence) as its stepping stone, much like Hillary did with the Health position.
The issue I have is Trump stating, she isnt going to be part of the staff, dont worry or question it. He lied to avoid answering questions and concerns others might have about her role in the government. That is unacceptable, and gives a negative perception to her hire as being strictly nepotism.
That Bill Clinton campaigned that his wife would be useful, doesn't absolve or address the issue of nepotism at all, The issue of nepotism doesn't revolve or become resolved depending on how hard a candidate campaigns for someone.
Changing the goal posts i see.
Nepotism has no provisio over the qualifications for a person, that doesn't even make sense logically.
You can make exceptions to nepotism, that is, you accept nepotism as valid insofar as the person is qualified.
That's still nepotism you simply accept it under certain circumstances.
Also, there are many people more qualified then Hillary to head Health-Care, particularly so since Hillary-Care became such a political disaster it cost the Democrats, Like some People who actually ran Health-Care.
Hillary-Care actually failed.
So by your criteria it is still nepotism. Interesting, I would prefer she actually not work in the White House.
You are correct that Ivanka tends to pull Trump towards more social female issue's so perhaps some good will come out of it.
It's not a huge matter to me either way.
Any other potential instances are ones we can't change without a time machine.
So dumb, Republicans do something illegal and then "but Hillary did it". Apples and oranges. Supppse Trump robs a bank then yells about "but beghazi!" His current bad behavior is the problem, not some other thing.
Children know that if Timmy steals a dollar from old man Jones, that doesn't make it right for you to steal a dollar from old man Jones.
You going to jump off a bridge if Hillary tells you to?
Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications.
So yes there is a qualification component when discussing it in political terms. (In before you argue that what's written on wiki is meaningless and only your opinion is valid.)
My argument was that before she was even appointed, she was put through the ringer on her qualifications and if this was just an act of nepotism. As someone else said in this thread, it was even part of Bill's campaign, allowing the voters to decide for themselves.
Bill explained why she would be good for the job and why he thought no one else could do it better. That they failed to get it through congress does not dismiss the fact that Bill made a choice, explained it and stood by it.
Comparing it Trump who lied about Ivanka having a role in the administration all the way up to the point she got her clearance and role. People will fall back on the nepotism argument because there is so much secrecy revolving around her role, people don't know what is actually there to do.
And even if it's not illegal it's still unethical, nepotism and rotten.
the act of using your power or influence to get good jobs or unfair advantages for members of your own family
-http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nepotism
So yes it is nepotism, it truly is a stretch to argue that Hillary becoming the chief architect of Healthcare under Bill Clinton wasn't favoring someone close to you for that position.
And no, she wasn't qualified.
Becoming Chief Architect of health-care is a pretty high position, moreover HillaryCare failed.
her own party members advised her (as a newcomer) to create and pass smaller legislature to get experience and capital in Government, jumping into running Health-Care is hardly good qualification. Your criteria was whether there is no one else more suitable for the job, and there is, like people who actually ran Health-Care.
So yes it qualifies for nepotism under your criteria.
'Letting the voters decide' An often used excuse with no real value, people didn't vote for Bill Clinton because of Hillary Clinton.
Moreover that kind of argument tends to allow Presidents un-critically carte-blanche to do whatever they want because 'the people chose him'.
Oh my. Well who in the world could have seen this coming I wonder.....check my posts from this last wknd about Trump throwing Flynn to the wolves. Asking for immunity implies you think you NEED immunity.
Now, with increasing talk of an Australia and post-Brexit Britain free trade deal in the air, there’s an opportunity for Brits to get reacquainted with the original. They might even be persuaded to forsake Marmite for Vegemite. After all, Londoners already love shopping at Australian-owned Westfield shopping centres and flat whites have become the milky coffee of choice across the British Isles.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/australia-needs-to-ensure-it-doesnt-jeopardise-its-relationship-with-the-eu-by-rushing-into-a-trade-deal-with-post-brexit-britain/news-story/5cd0422a7990742c5e49c35080102d5a
I hope UK Brexit doesn't devolve into EU backstabbing the UK or petty stuff like that.
And lol Australia being the cast-off convicts of Britain is always hilarious to me.
I don't think he should get immunity, dudes guilty as sin as is.
You are also ignoring the point that the Clintons faced the scrutiny of her appointment before she was appointed, while Trump flat out lied about Ivanka being appointed.
And let the voters decide was if there was a large enough ruckus about her appointment, and if people generally did care that she was under qualified, they would have stated it loudly enough that Clinton might have reversed his position. They didn't, so bringing it up a decade later and using it validation for Ivanka's appointment. The two are far from equal.
This has nothing to do with what Clinton did, or what Kennedy did. It is about what Trump is doing NOW. By first lying about her getting a position to avoid the backlash and then having her role as a vague as "Assistant to the President." Falling back on the argument saying "well Clinton did it," why the double standard, especially when you are stating that Clinton failed at her job and shouldn't have been appointed in the first place isn't doing the appointment of Ivanka any favours, and in fact, is strengthening the backlash against it.
Hillary Clinton becoming Chief Architect of health-Care under Bill Clinton isn't favoritism? It's just a coincidence? I don't think so.
Chief Architect of Health-Care reform that fundamentally changes the system that governs all Americans is, on the face of it, a little different in scope and severity then 'advisory role'. Presidents tend to get away with things alot, like Unjustified wars and bypassing congress.
So the fact Hillary got appointed because of nepotism is more par for the course in American Politics rather then some exception we should be skeptical over.
I also wonder if you were aware of Politics back then, Hillary-care was a major national issue and her role and conduct was front-and-center of controversy.
Congressional hearings, demonstrations, Court battles over so many issues like secrecy and transparency, health organizations criticizing it.
The people are supposed to be who matters, Politician's and their hurt feelings don't really matter to me much.
I don't know what this 'betrayal' argument is about.
Trump lied about his intentions with his daughter's role in his government to avoid the criticism.
Do you not see the difference? One allowed a discussion to happen. The other denied the need for a discussion, then did anyway. Clinton's role was spelt out, so that it could be criticized properly. Ivanka's role is vague enough that it can't be criticized.
It isn't about what Clinton did, it is what Trump is doing now.
It's simply evidence of the sheer political partisan-ship in this discussion, If you make such strong defenses for Hillary, then you certainly can't complain about Ivanka, You want to talk about severity or Scope, and Yet Hillary being the Chief-Architect of Health-Care is of a totally different severity and scope to 'advisory role'.
Nor do i even understand your statement 'face criticism head on' what does this mean? Do you think Bill campaigned on Hillary being chief architect of Health-Care?
So to Trump and Ivanka, I've already stated i'd prefer she not work on the White House, I can be perfectly consistent on this ethical issue, why Can't you?
I don't even understand your point on discussion, anyone can discuss anything, and the media has long discussed Ivanka's role in Trump's Presidency and even speculation on her serving in the White House.
But you can elaborate on what the Campaign promises were specifically.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/ivanka-trump-west-wing/
https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-trump-promised-to-resign-from-family-business-hasnt-filed-paperwork
So here is the Trump playbook: deny something in as unequivocal of terms as possible, wait 3 or 4 months, and blatantly break the promise in the full light of day, because you have that little respect for the people who voted you into office.