Tweets over some event 3 months ago (what was the context btw) is hardly a campaign promise that was broken rofl.
It actually kind of reeks of desperation, is this the 'big broken promise' ?
Well if the worse thing people can find on Trump is tweets, then he must be doing a fairly good job.
btw, its interesting to read about why Ivanka is getting a formal advisory role, as evidently people thought she might as well instead of having an informal advisory role.
Ivanka Trump is officially joining her father's administration as an unpaid employee, after her plans to serve in a more informal capacity were questioned by ethics experts.
So is it the case Hitler Trump had a mastermind plan all along? these news articles seems to suggest Ivanka took an official role at the behest of ethics experts.
Venezuala Supreme Court assumes total power CUENCA, ECUADOR In a move rejected throughout the region and decried as a “coup” by the opposition, Venezuela’s Supreme Court effectively shut down congress, saying it would assume all legislative functions amid its contention that legislators are operating outside of the law. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article141655519.html
Looks like Governments can still turn tyrannical into todays age.
"I'm not trying to get top level security clearance for my children" to his child IS getting top level security clearance doesn't require a mastery of rune translation to figure out. His tweets are his words, it's the main way he communicates. They come directly from him with no filter. But again, this is the ultimate attitude of Trump supporters and defenders. Nothing is to be taken seriously, and nothing is meant literally or meant to be taken at face value. Which is a get out of jail free card, for, literally, ANYTHING.
You yourself have said you are a fan of trolling, so I totally understand why you are a Trump defender (or at least a VERY STRONG devil's advocate for him). The entire manta of internet trolling is that you can NEVER be held responsible for anything because anything that is said can retroactively be construed as a joke, or metaphorical, or a "gee, lighten up man". But nothing is EVER allowed to be taken at face value, because that would require the person writing or communicating those ideas to accept responsibility for them. It is no surprise a sizable portion of young males who spend alot of time on Reddit and 4chan gravitated toward Trump. I think it's one of his more important demographics.
Just looking at the news articles from multiple sources it seems they repeat the same thing.
Ivanka Trump is officially joining her father's administration as an unpaid employee, after her plans to serve in a more informal capacity were questioned by ethics experts.
A source with knowledge of the decision told CNN's Gloria Borger the decision was made after the "unease" expressed by people about the nature of her voluntary role, and ethics advocates Norm Eisen and Fred Wertheimer had sent White House counsel Don McGhan a letter last Friday. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/ivanka-trump-white-house-job/
So Ivanka becoming an official Government employee came at the behest of ethics experts themselves, not any master plan of Trump.
This news story turned out to be not as exciting as i hoped.
EX-FBI AGENT TESTIFIES DURING SENATE HEARING: Russian agents tweet conspiracy theories at Trump when they think he's online, then he turns around and parrots 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.
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.
No, during this discussion, I have made two points, hence I am not changing the discussion, just refocusing it on those two points:
1. Nepotism isn't a constant as you claimed it was. Just because a relative was hired doesn't automatically make it nepotism. Therefore, there are certain shades of grey when it comes to nepotism as both qualifications and favouritism plays into it. As long as the person doing the hiring can answer the two questions I provided truthfully, and stand by their answers regardless of the outcome, then I, personally do not have a problem with it.
Others can question, and critic their decision, just like any other hire they may do, however, if they make a case for why they should have the job then it shouldn't be denied to them just because they are related. This is all in general terms.
Since nepotism isn't a constant, my personal view, is that both Hilary and Bobby Kennedy were more qualified for their positions than Ivanka Trump is for hers. Feel free to disagree with this opinion. It will not change mine.
That said, my view, as stated, I don't care if Ivanka gets hired. I actually think she will be good for this administration. What I personally care about is point number two:
2. Trump lied and mislead, and continues to mislead the American people about his intentions on what type of role Ivanka is going to have in his administration. He is ignoring most questions regarding her appointment, leading people to only speculate what her role is. It is not as transparent as Hillary's role (regardless of the outcome) or Bobby Kennedy's was during their discussions on nepotism.
Without any information about her role, people need to fall back on the nepotism argument because they have no other information to judge if she is qualified for it. Allowing the administration to fall back on the "The Clinton's did it" excuse should not be acceptable regardless of the type of role Ivanka has.
Edit: I do, however buy the "you really should make this appointment formal" argument. Better optics all around especially when she is meeting heads of state by herself
1. Nepotism isn't a constant as you claimed it was. Just because a relative was hired doesn't automatically make it nepotism. Therefore, there are certain shades of grey when it comes to nepotism as both qualifications and favouritism plays into it. As long as the person doing the hiring can answer the two questions I provided truthfully, and stand by their answers regardless of the outcome, then I, personally do not have a problem with it.
Others can question, and critic their decision, just like any other hire they may do, however, if they make a case for why they should have the job then it shouldn't be denied to them just because they are related. This is all in general terms.
Since nepotism isn't a constant, my personal view, is that both Hilary and Bobby Kennedy were more qualified for their positions than Ivanka Trump is for hers. Feel free to disagree with this opinion. It will not change mine.
Sure, Hillary being put in the position of chief architect for Health-Care under Bill Clinton is a clear sign of nepotism under your criteria because one of your criteria is that no other was better qualified..
Furthermore she is evidently not qualified to be Chief Architect for such a comprehensive and complicated initiative, as it failed spectacularly.
2. Trump lied and mislead, and continues to mislead the American people about his intentions on what type of role Ivanka is going to have in his administration. He is ignoring most questions regarding her appointment, leading people to only speculate what her role is. It is not as transparent as Hillary's role (regardless of the outcome) or Bobby Kennedy's was during their discussions on nepotism.
Without any information about her role, people need to fall back on the nepotism argument because they have no other information to judge if she is qualified for it. Allowing the administration to fall back on the "The Clinton's did it" excuse should not be acceptable regardless of the type of role Ivanka has.
Ahh so were changing the goal-post from a specific claim to 'Trump has been vague on Ivanka's role' now.
The goal-posts keeps changing.
Ivanka Trump is officially joining her father's administration as an unpaid employee, after her plans to serve in a more informal capacity were questioned by ethics experts.
According to news articles (which evidently is discounted because it doesn't fit some peoples narrative) Ivanka obtained official Government position because people were complaining about her unofficial advisory role.
If true, that has nothing to do with Trump seemingly 'planning' to go back on his tweet.
You should be blaming the ethics experts.
Also, there is a completely valid 'position' for 'people to fall back on', It's a position of no judgement. 'I dont know yet' or 'I have no Judgement'.
I have no comment on nepotism involving the Kennedy's, no comment on nepotism involving the Clintons, and no comment on nepotism involving the Trumps. But we had almost an entire page of semantic back-and-forth in which people were focusing on dissecting each other's words rather than just discussing the issue itself. I warned that this would lead nowhere, and sure enough, the debate went in circles all day.
People in this thread have suggested that other commenters were ignorant. People have said that other commenters held double standards. People dismissed arguments with "lol." People claimed that other commenters had already lost the argument and were changing the goal posts.
This is not respectful behavior, and it does not live up to the standards of this forum.
I'm disappointed. Most of this thread has been strictly issue-based and impersonal. That's why I love this thread, and that's why I've been encouraging people to post here.
I know every single poster who participated in this argument today, and I've seen each and every one of you show respect to people you disagreed with. So I know for a fact that you guys can discuss politics without being dismissive or disrespectful.
This discussion is not here for you guys to fight.
Seems like there is conflicting stories about this, wonder why.
Devin Nunes has less credibility than anyone in Washington DC right now, as he has basically been caught with his pants down on the "intelligence" he supposedly received that he had to tell the White House about. Turns out he has been making trips in the middle of the night to avoid being seen (again, what person with nothing to hide acts like this??) and that it's a near certainty he received this information from people inside the White House itself. Which means the entire thing has been a dog and pony show. And it doesn't matter. The House Intelligence Committee led by Nunes is a joke. The House Republicans would stand by Trump if he sacrificed a newborn baby on live television. The Senate is the only thing that matters at this point. And I don't even know why Flynn would need Congressional immunity. It's the FBI he has to worry about. And word is they have turned him down. Which would mean they probably have him dead to rights. And this entire story broke late this afternoon from the Wall Street Journal, who sure as hell have no liberal leanings whatsoever. Something has been up with Flynn for weeks, rumors started circulating about this 5 or 6 days ago, and I held off on believing them because it honestly seemed too much too soon. But here we are. This Russia scandal IS going to come to fruition and break right open, mark my words.
You yourself have said you are a fan of trolling, so I totally understand why you are a Trump defender (or at least a VERY STRONG devil's advocate for him). The entire manta of internet trolling is that you can NEVER be held responsible for anything because anything that is said can retroactively be construed as a joke, or metaphorical, or a "gee, lighten up man". But nothing is EVER allowed to be taken at face value, because that would require the person writing or communicating those ideas to accept responsibility for them. It is no surprise a sizable portion of young males who spend alot of time on Reddit and 4chan gravitated toward Trump. I think it's one of his more important demographics.
Regardless of the accusatory post here, I'll respond because its interesting.
In terms of Trump? No, I didn't even vote for him.
I simply don't engage in the media and social hysterics, I didn't think Obama was going to be amazing although i did expect him to be simplistic in defending the larger simple but important moral issues (no un-justified wars, surveillance etc) hell he campaigned on those exact things. But he turned to be just as guilty as Bush for the larger wrongs.
Hillary is one of the most corrupt and stereotypical politicians around, now that might be typical for Politician's or 'thats how the game is played' but seeing people at once complain about corruption but support one of the most stereotypical corrupt politicians is hilarious.
Bernie (whom i voted for) identifies the simpler broader wrongs in society such as banks having too much power, but i had little hope for him able to ever craft any practical policies (being a socialist doesn't help) however if he at least stopped America going to War and giving in to the Corporations he'd be a leg up on the previous Presidents.
Trump? He is hilariously easy to understand and transparent in his motives, but people chase exaggerated caricatures and when people do that, its chasing empty air.
There can be no constructive criticism of Trump (And there are many) so long as people engage in arguing against a caricature that doesn't really exist.
Every time society has become hysterical over a President or Candidate, it has never ended well. From the pass Bush got for the Iraq War (but honestly that was due to 9/11 but the argument still applies), to Obama getting such a free pass from attacking Libya and bypassing Congress (something not even Bush did).
The Democrat party cannot recover so long as they engage in exaggerated identity politics and this absurd partisan-type politics, America is tired of it.
The problem for people chasing this empty caricature of Trump, is that they are blind to actual legitimate issues with Trump that could be growing.
I might even post about it if people are interested.
It wasn't accusatory, I was referring to a previous post you made about liking the idea that Trump was "trolling" the media. And where you are wrong is in that OF COURSE Trump is a caricature. He's been a caricature his entire public life going back 30 or 40 years. You couldn't invent him. He is a fake billionaire who has failed his way upward through multiple bankruptcies by screwing everyone he has come across his entire life. He's a transparently horrible human being.
"Identity politics" is simply code for whenever anyone, anywhere even mentions a minority having their rights infringed or oppressed. I know part of "America" is sick of it. But there really is no "America" that anyone can speak of in totality. The county I grew up in voted for him by a 70% margin. I have no need to try understand their motives, I understand them perfectly well, have since I was 12 years old.
I'm aware you didn't vote for Trump, I have never questioned that since the first time you said it. You can't deny you defend nearly EVERY point made against him, which is perfectly fine. If I didn't have a foil this thread wouldn't be any fun. I always half suspect you are playing devil's advocate, which is often infuriating but, again, if I wanted to have everything I said praised, I'd go back to my liberal blog mainstays (which I actually haven't posted on much at all since starting here). I ALSO supported Bernie in the primary, but as I've suspected all along, there are a couple of VERY different types of Bernie Sanders voters.
I also wanted to support Bernie but by the time even the primary came to my state, he had already lost. I am a Sanders supporter but could not vote for him because he'd already been disqualified from the race.
I find it hard to believe that vanatos supported bernie to be honest. I've yet to see him take a progressive position that Bernie might have such as free college or universal healthcare but yeah he's been a staunch supporter of the GOP and Trump, why's that? It seems a very un-Bernie position to take. Maybe he's gone so far to the left that he's wrapped back around to the right? I don't get it.
I also wanted to support Bernie but by the time even the primary came to my state, he had already lost. I am a Sanders supporter but could not vote for him.
I find it hard to believe that vanatos supported bernie to be honest. I've yet to see him take a progressive position that Bernie might have such as free college or universal healthcare but yeah he's been a staunch supporter of the GOP and Trump, why's that? It seems a very un-Bernie position to take. Maybe he's gone so far to the left that he's wrapped back around to the right? I don't get it.
I don't doubt he voted for Bernie. There are many Bernie voters who ended up thinking Trump was the lesser of two evils. I don't get it either, but I believe it's true. Just please stop making me defend him before my head explodes.
It wasn't accusatory, I was referring to a previous post you made about liking the idea that Trump was "trolling" the media. And where you are wrong is in that OF COURSE Trump is a caricature. He's been a caricature his entire public life going back 30 or 40 years. You couldn't invent him. He is a fake billionaire who has failed his way upward through multiple bankruptcies by screwing everyone he has come across his entire life. He's a transparently horrible human being.
Lol, Well I consider Trump to be pretty successful in the business arena.
"Identity politics" is simply code for whenever anyone, anywhere even mentions a minority having their rights infringed or oppressed. I know part of "America" is sick of it. But there really is no "America" that anyone can speak of in totality. The county I grew up in voted for him by a 70% margin. I have no need to try understand their motives, I understand them perfectly well, have since I was 12 years old.
Identity politics is what is killing political discussion, It creates intractable groups that don't want to work together.
I'm aware you didn't vote for Trump, I have never questioned that since the first time you said it. You can't deny you defend nearly EVERY point made against him, which is perfectly fine. If I didn't have a foil this thread wouldn't be any fun. I always half suspect you are playing devil's advocate, which is often infuriating but, again, if I wanted to have everything I said praised, I'd go back to my liberal blog mainstays (which I actually haven't posted on much at all since starting here). I ALSO supported Bernie in the primary, but as I've suspected all along, there are a couple of VERY different types of Bernie Sanders voters.
I love arguing, The more passionate a discussion becomes the more interesting it becomes to me, and the same with individuals.
I respect a person more if they are passionate and honest (even if i think their opinion is wrong) then someone who bucks the line, conformity creates un-interesting people.
As to me supporting Bernie, strategic vote and he is a decent guy, I wanted to fracture the Corporatism that has engulfed both political parties (to the point it is literally one party pretending to be two).
Trump evidently was going to win without my vote, so i voted for Bernie. Well i knew he wouldn't win but i hoped Bernie's amazing progress would force the Democrat party to reconsider their priorities.
"Within days of Congress repealing online privacy protections, Verizon has announced new plans to install software on customers’ devices to track what apps customers have downloaded. With this spyware, Verizon will be able to sell ads to you across the Internet based on things like which bank you use and whether you’ve downloaded a fertility app.
@smeagolheart The good thing is repealing privacy protections does not require carriers to do this. As a consumer simply switch your carrier to one who respects your privacy.
Or switch your vote to a politician who respects your privacy!
There was a concrete vote on electronic privacy that took place just this last week. Every Republican voted for an infringement on that privacy and every Democrat voted against it. This is just a stone-cold fact that has no room for opinion or obfuscation. On this issue, one party absolutely voted to take away that right and the other one voted to protect it.
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.
It's amazing how Australia can get sick of leaders that didn't exist. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard put refugees in concentration camps, and for it they should be in chains awaiting their trials at the Hague. I'd like to see a few of those leaders, and then maybe I could get sick of them.
Tony Abbott won Australia because Labour ripped itself to pieces over the Rudd/Gillard situation. A well-trained poodle could have beaten Labour after four years of Rudd/Gillard. Aside from this being totally obvious at the time, it was pretty clear that a vote against Labour wasn't a vote for Abbott because his approval ratings dropped like a rock after being elected and pretty much continued to drop until the party panicked and replaced him with Turnbull (whose approval ratings have also dropped continuously since taking office, largely because he has been obliged to govern just like Abbott by forces within the Coalition).
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.
I'm curious as to what you consider the "alt-left", given that you described centre-right Labour leaders as if they were some sort of merger of Lenin, Malcolm X, and Gloria Steinem. The Khmer Rouge?
As an Australian resident for many many years I might explain a rather brief modern look at politics in Australian history (At least from my perspective) to non-Australians and the Refugee crisis.
@Ayiekie is correct that Tony Abbott won largely from the complete shambles of the Rudd/Gillard (Labour) era, Australian political system is somewhat different to American in that Australians vote for parties more then actual figureheads, and as such the system allows for parties to replace their figureheads more easily then the American System.
In recent times this has largely resulted in what seems to be a dysfunctional political party system where the figurehead seems to be replaced (or backstabbed to some extent) by their own Party very often, Australians have largely considered this situation as a joke.
Malcolm Turnball is also a result of this (notwithstanding his forced vote later on), so Australians have had for the past Prime Ministers a result where the leader didn't seem so much elected by the people as much as a replacement for whomever the people seemed to have voted for at the time.
The Labor era of Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard had a constant political issue of the refugee crisis (refugee's holed up in camps in Australia) the conditions there were terrible, this has been out of sight during the Liberals reign (Tony and Malcolm).
Many international figures rather misleadingly credit Australia for solving their refugee crisis, this is not really completely accurate, Tony Abbot's Government engaged in a variety of initiatives that included Paying off smugglers (so they don't bring them in), deals with other countries to take the refugees in their camps (naru and even America has been somewhat involved), increased sea vigilance and banning reporters from entering or coming near refugee camps in Australia (Something very hard to find out even in Australia).
Maybe it can be called an 'out of sight and out of mind' strategy, regardless Australia has shifted the problem to other countries rather then 'solving' it in some Humanitarian fashion.
Australia has actually been less affected by the 'nationalistic' wave sweeping Europe and America and it looks like it won't really come to Australia soon, Australia simply is less affected by the problems in the Middle-East and most non-European Immigrants are Asians (Or Orientals if your of UK origin), Asians altogether tend to integrate into their host nation and pick up the host nation culture rather quickly.
That doesn't mean Australia hasn't had discriminatory attitudes in the past (White Australian policy etc) but altogether Australia has trended towards more ethnic and cultural diversity for a good while.
On the bright side, Australia must be one of the world leaders in having eccentrics break off from the major parties to run as tiny protest parties that still get elected due to the complexities of the Australian voting system (it has both preference voting AND proportional voting, depending on house!).
Palmer United had a good run, but my favourite is the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), mostly because I used to watch NXT back when I had an internet.
I am neutral about NXT, Nick Xenophon says he is a centrist but really all he does is play it safe on the fence 99% of the time. I won't vote for him anymore..
@Ayiekie is correct that Tony Abbott won largely from the complete shambles of the Rudd/Gillard (Labour) era,
This is true
However I would also argue that Tony Abbott added to this by being ruthless in parliament/media against Labor's Rudd/Gillard. The only comeback poor Gillard could ever come up with to Abbott's assault was "misogyny" lol.
It's amazing how Australia can get sick of leaders that didn't exist. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard put refugees in concentration camps,
Only some, many "refugees" got dumped where I live (Sydney's West). Politicians love dumping the garbage in Sydneys West and virtue signal to us how we must tolerate their misbehavior. I really wish politicians would dump criminals, sunni "refugees" and other undesirables in the latte sipping inner city areas for a change....
I'm curious as to what you consider the "alt-left", given that you described centre-right Labour leaders as if they were some sort of merger of Lenin, Malcolm X, and Gloria Steinem. The Khmer Rouge?
Actually Bill Shorten is very conservative it is just his party forces him to sway left. While Malcolm Turnbull is the complete opposite a progressive labor [reject] who is dragged to the right by his party.
To my knowledge there is no true "alt-left" parties to vote for in Australia currently. So the ever increasing "alternate/minority" votes from people like me will sway toward the NXT or the alt-right. So expect preferences to be given to the Coalition roughly 70% of the time from these alternate parties (according to the Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm, the main person I voted for).
However I would also argue that Tony Abbott added to this by being ruthless in parliament/media against Labor's Rudd/Gillard. The only comeback poor Gillard could ever come up with to Abbott's assault was "misogyny" lol.
Definitely true that Abbott was effective as an attack dog.
Lol, Well I consider Trump to be pretty successful in the business arena.
I don't. Because, as pointed out by Mark Cuban in an interview with...I think it was Trevor Noah, although maybe it was with Bill Maher, Trump does not have good business practices. He has a string of bankruptcies and a huge list of people he has screwed over, from employees to contractors to shareholders. No one who has associated with him business-wise has said anything good about him. He lost nearly a billion dollars in 1995. Was there some great recession or tanking real estate market that I'm not aware of that happened in 1995?
He is wildly successful in marketing his brand name though.
As to me supporting Bernie, strategic vote and he is a decent guy, I wanted to fracture the Corporatism that has engulfed both political parties (to the point it is literally one party pretending to be two).
Which is a sign that democratic institutions have grown too weak and we're tipping into fascism.
@smeagolheart The good thing is repealing privacy protections does not require carriers to do this. As a consumer simply switch your carrier to one who respects your privacy.
that doesn't work in many places there's a monopoly in ISPs, Or if not a monopoly, then there is extremely limited choice of two or three ISPs that all are selling your privacy.
@smeagolheart The good thing is repealing privacy protections does not require carriers to do this. As a consumer simply switch your carrier to one who respects your privacy.
that doesn't work in many places there's a monopoly in ISPs, Or if not a monopoly, then there is extremely limited choice of two or three ISPs that all are selling your privacy.
I don't particularly worry anything is going to actually happen to me because of internet providers. It's clear from the ads I see on a daily basis that my browsing history is already being manipulated to show me ads that it has figured out would cater to my tastes. And they are pretty accurate. But I'm also aware of what is happening. Alot of people probably aren't, and can be easily manipulated by these types of tactics.
Comments
It actually kind of reeks of desperation, is this the 'big broken promise' ?
Well if the worse thing people can find on Trump is tweets, then he must be doing a fairly good job.
btw, its interesting to read about why Ivanka is getting a formal advisory role, as evidently people thought she might as well instead of having an informal advisory role.
Ivanka Trump is officially joining her father's administration as an unpaid employee, after her plans to serve in a more informal capacity were questioned by ethics experts.
Several attorneys and government watchdog leaders last week wrote a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn asking him to reconsider his approval of Ms Trump serving her father without becoming an official government employee.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-30/ivanka-trump-to-become-official-white-house-employee/8399954
So is it the case Hitler Trump had a mastermind plan all along? these news articles seems to suggest Ivanka took an official role at the behest of ethics experts.
Ironic.
CUENCA, ECUADOR
In a move rejected throughout the region and decried as a “coup” by the opposition, Venezuela’s Supreme Court effectively shut down congress, saying it would assume all legislative functions amid its contention that legislators are operating outside of the law.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article141655519.html
Looks like Governments can still turn tyrannical into todays age.
Not a good outcome for the socialist country.
You yourself have said you are a fan of trolling, so I totally understand why you are a Trump defender (or at least a VERY STRONG devil's advocate for him). The entire manta of internet trolling is that you can NEVER be held responsible for anything because anything that is said can retroactively be construed as a joke, or metaphorical, or a "gee, lighten up man". But nothing is EVER allowed to be taken at face value, because that would require the person writing or communicating those ideas to accept responsibility for them. It is no surprise a sizable portion of young males who spend alot of time on Reddit and 4chan gravitated toward Trump. I think it's one of his more important demographics.
Ivanka Trump is officially joining her father's administration as an unpaid employee, after her plans to serve in a more informal capacity were questioned by ethics experts.
Several attorneys and government watchdog leaders last week wrote a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn asking him to reconsider his approval of Ms Trump serving her father without becoming an official government employee.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-30/ivanka-trump-to-become-official-white-house-employee/8399954
A source with knowledge of the decision told CNN's Gloria Borger the decision was made after the "unease" expressed by people about the nature of her voluntary role, and ethics advocates Norm Eisen and Fred Wertheimer had sent White House counsel Don McGhan a letter last Friday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/ivanka-trump-white-house-job/
So Ivanka becoming an official Government employee came at the behest of ethics experts themselves, not any master plan of Trump.
This news story turned out to be not as exciting as i hoped.
Russian agents tweet conspiracy theories at Trump when they think he's online, then he turns around and parrots it.
Trump and Putin parrot the same lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyjVT1BywAw
Wow! You can decide for someone else if they concede? Man, have I been debating wrong all these years!
1. Nepotism isn't a constant as you claimed it was. Just because a relative was hired doesn't automatically make it nepotism. Therefore, there are certain shades of grey when it comes to nepotism as both qualifications and favouritism plays into it. As long as the person doing the hiring can answer the two questions I provided truthfully, and stand by their answers regardless of the outcome, then I, personally do not have a problem with it.
Others can question, and critic their decision, just like any other hire they may do, however, if they make a case for why they should have the job then it shouldn't be denied to them just because they are related. This is all in general terms.
Since nepotism isn't a constant, my personal view, is that both Hilary and Bobby Kennedy were more qualified for their positions than Ivanka Trump is for hers. Feel free to disagree with this opinion. It will not change mine.
That said, my view, as stated, I don't care if Ivanka gets hired. I actually think she will be good for this administration. What I personally care about is point number two:
2. Trump lied and mislead, and continues to mislead the American people about his intentions on what type of role Ivanka is going to have in his administration. He is ignoring most questions regarding her appointment, leading people to only speculate what her role is. It is not as transparent as Hillary's role (regardless of the outcome) or Bobby Kennedy's was during their discussions on nepotism.
Without any information about her role, people need to fall back on the nepotism argument because they have no other information to judge if she is qualified for it. Allowing the administration to fall back on the "The Clinton's did it" excuse should not be acceptable regardless of the type of role Ivanka has.
Edit: I do, however buy the "you really should make this appointment formal" argument. Better optics all around especially when she is meeting heads of state by herself
Furthermore she is evidently not qualified to be Chief Architect for such a comprehensive and complicated initiative, as it failed spectacularly. Ahh so were changing the goal-post from a specific claim to 'Trump has been vague on Ivanka's role' now.
The goal-posts keeps changing.
Ivanka Trump is officially joining her father's administration as an unpaid employee, after her plans to serve in a more informal capacity were questioned by ethics experts.
Several attorneys and government watchdog leaders last week wrote a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn asking him to reconsider his approval of Ms Trump serving her father without becoming an official government employee.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-30/ivanka-trump-to-become-official-white-house-employee/8399954
According to news articles (which evidently is discounted because it doesn't fit some peoples narrative) Ivanka obtained official Government position because people were complaining about her unofficial advisory role.
If true, that has nothing to do with Trump seemingly 'planning' to go back on his tweet.
You should be blaming the ethics experts.
Also, there is a completely valid 'position' for 'people to fall back on', It's a position of no judgement.
'I dont know yet' or 'I have no Judgement'.
I have no comment on nepotism involving the Kennedy's, no comment on nepotism involving the Clintons, and no comment on nepotism involving the Trumps. But we had almost an entire page of semantic back-and-forth in which people were focusing on dissecting each other's words rather than just discussing the issue itself. I warned that this would lead nowhere, and sure enough, the debate went in circles all day.
People in this thread have suggested that other commenters were ignorant. People have said that other commenters held double standards. People dismissed arguments with "lol." People claimed that other commenters had already lost the argument and were changing the goal posts.
This is not respectful behavior, and it does not live up to the standards of this forum.
I'm disappointed. Most of this thread has been strictly issue-based and impersonal. That's why I love this thread, and that's why I've been encouraging people to post here.
I know every single poster who participated in this argument today, and I've seen each and every one of you show respect to people you disagreed with. So I know for a fact that you guys can discuss politics without being dismissive or disrespectful.
This discussion is not here for you guys to fight.
Stop trying to "win" the debate.
It's not about you.
Seems like there is conflicting stories about this, wonder why.
In terms of Trump? No, I didn't even vote for him.
I simply don't engage in the media and social hysterics, I didn't think Obama was going to be amazing although i did expect him to be simplistic in defending the larger simple but important moral issues (no un-justified wars, surveillance etc) hell he campaigned on those exact things.
But he turned to be just as guilty as Bush for the larger wrongs.
Hillary is one of the most corrupt and stereotypical politicians around, now that might be typical for Politician's or 'thats how the game is played' but seeing people at once complain about corruption but support one of the most stereotypical corrupt politicians is hilarious.
Bernie (whom i voted for) identifies the simpler broader wrongs in society such as banks having too much power, but i had little hope for him able to ever craft any practical policies (being a socialist doesn't help) however if he at least stopped America going to War and giving in to the Corporations he'd be a leg up on the previous Presidents.
Trump? He is hilariously easy to understand and transparent in his motives, but people chase exaggerated caricatures and when people do that, its chasing empty air.
There can be no constructive criticism of Trump (And there are many) so long as people engage in arguing against a caricature that doesn't really exist.
Every time society has become hysterical over a President or Candidate, it has never ended well.
From the pass Bush got for the Iraq War (but honestly that was due to 9/11 but the argument still applies), to Obama getting such a free pass from attacking Libya and bypassing Congress (something not even Bush did).
The Democrat party cannot recover so long as they engage in exaggerated identity politics and this absurd partisan-type politics, America is tired of it.
The problem for people chasing this empty caricature of Trump, is that they are blind to actual legitimate issues with Trump that could be growing.
I might even post about it if people are interested.
"Identity politics" is simply code for whenever anyone, anywhere even mentions a minority having their rights infringed or oppressed. I know part of "America" is sick of it. But there really is no "America" that anyone can speak of in totality. The county I grew up in voted for him by a 70% margin. I have no need to try understand their motives, I understand them perfectly well, have since I was 12 years old.
I'm aware you didn't vote for Trump, I have never questioned that since the first time you said it. You can't deny you defend nearly EVERY point made against him, which is perfectly fine. If I didn't have a foil this thread wouldn't be any fun. I always half suspect you are playing devil's advocate, which is often infuriating but, again, if I wanted to have everything I said praised, I'd go back to my liberal blog mainstays (which I actually haven't posted on much at all since starting here). I ALSO supported Bernie in the primary, but as I've suspected all along, there are a couple of VERY different types of Bernie Sanders voters.
I find it hard to believe that vanatos supported bernie to be honest. I've yet to see him take a progressive position that Bernie might have such as free college or universal healthcare but yeah he's been a staunch supporter of the GOP and Trump, why's that? It seems a very un-Bernie position to take. Maybe he's gone so far to the left that he's wrapped back around to the right? I don't get it.
I respect a person more if they are passionate and honest (even if i think their opinion is wrong) then someone who bucks the line, conformity creates un-interesting people.
As to me supporting Bernie, strategic vote and he is a decent guy, I wanted to fracture the Corporatism that has engulfed both political parties (to the point it is literally one party pretending to be two).
Trump evidently was going to win without my vote, so i voted for Bernie.
Well i knew he wouldn't win but i hoped Bernie's amazing progress would force the Democrat party to reconsider their priorities.
"Within days of Congress repealing online privacy protections, Verizon has announced new plans to install software on customers’ devices to track what apps customers have downloaded. With this spyware, Verizon will be able to sell ads to you across the Internet based on things like which bank you use and whether you’ve downloaded a fertility app.
Verizon’s use of “AppFlash”—an app launcher and web search utility that Verizon will be rolling out to their subscribers’ Android devices “in the coming weeks”—is just the latest display of wireless carriers’ stunning willingness to compromise the security and privacy of their customers by installing spyware on end devices."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/first-horseman-privacy-apocalypse-has-already-arrived-verizon-announces-plans
Seems to be alot of conflicting reports.
Tony Abbott won Australia because Labour ripped itself to pieces over the Rudd/Gillard situation. A well-trained poodle could have beaten Labour after four years of Rudd/Gillard. Aside from this being totally obvious at the time, it was pretty clear that a vote against Labour wasn't a vote for Abbott because his approval ratings dropped like a rock after being elected and pretty much continued to drop until the party panicked and replaced him with Turnbull (whose approval ratings have also dropped continuously since taking office, largely because he has been obliged to govern just like Abbott by forces within the Coalition). I'm curious as to what you consider the "alt-left", given that you described centre-right Labour leaders as if they were some sort of merger of Lenin, Malcolm X, and Gloria Steinem. The Khmer Rouge?
@Ayiekie is correct that Tony Abbott won largely from the complete shambles of the Rudd/Gillard (Labour) era, Australian political system is somewhat different to American in that Australians vote for parties more then actual figureheads, and as such the system allows for parties to replace their figureheads more easily then the American System.
In recent times this has largely resulted in what seems to be a dysfunctional political party system where the figurehead seems to be replaced (or backstabbed to some extent) by their own Party very often, Australians have largely considered this situation as a joke.
Malcolm Turnball is also a result of this (notwithstanding his forced vote later on), so Australians have had for the past Prime Ministers a result where the leader didn't seem so much elected by the people as much as a replacement for whomever the people seemed to have voted for at the time.
The Labor era of Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard had a constant political issue of the refugee crisis (refugee's holed up in camps in Australia) the conditions there were terrible, this has been out of sight during the Liberals reign (Tony and Malcolm).
Many international figures rather misleadingly credit Australia for solving their refugee crisis, this is not really completely accurate, Tony Abbot's Government engaged in a variety of initiatives that included Paying off smugglers (so they don't bring them in), deals with other countries to take the refugees in their camps (naru and even America has been somewhat involved), increased sea vigilance and banning reporters from entering or coming near refugee camps in Australia (Something very hard to find out even in Australia).
Maybe it can be called an 'out of sight and out of mind' strategy, regardless Australia has shifted the problem to other countries rather then 'solving' it in some Humanitarian fashion.
Australia has actually been less affected by the 'nationalistic' wave sweeping Europe and America and it looks like it won't really come to Australia soon, Australia simply is less affected by the problems in the Middle-East and most non-European Immigrants are Asians (Or Orientals if your of UK origin), Asians altogether tend to integrate into their host nation and pick up the host nation culture rather quickly.
That doesn't mean Australia hasn't had discriminatory attitudes in the past (White Australian policy etc) but altogether Australia has trended towards more ethnic and cultural diversity for a good while.
Palmer United had a good run, but my favourite is the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), mostly because I used to watch NXT back when I had an internet.
However I would also argue that Tony Abbott added to this by being ruthless in parliament/media against Labor's Rudd/Gillard. The only comeback poor Gillard could ever come up with to Abbott's assault was "misogyny" lol. Only some, many "refugees" got dumped where I live (Sydney's West). Politicians love dumping the garbage in Sydneys West and virtue signal to us how we must tolerate their misbehavior. I really wish politicians would dump criminals, sunni "refugees" and other undesirables in the latte sipping inner city areas for a change.... Actually Bill Shorten is very conservative it is just his party forces him to sway left. While Malcolm Turnbull is the complete opposite a progressive labor [reject] who is dragged to the right by his party.
To my knowledge there is no true "alt-left" parties to vote for in Australia currently. So the ever increasing "alternate/minority" votes from people like me will sway toward the NXT or the alt-right. So expect preferences to be given to the Coalition roughly 70% of the time from these alternate parties (according to the Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm, the main person I voted for).
He is wildly successful in marketing his brand name though. Which is a sign that democratic institutions have grown too weak and we're tipping into fascism.