• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Queen Ivanka

mgidm86 said:
This?:
The first daughter was spotted slipping into Trump's seat at a working session on "Partnership with Africa, Migration and Health,"....
....
She entered the session with her father but "briefly joined the main table when the President had to step out", a spokesperson for the first daughter said.
Sounds ominous.
Click to expand...
She was an individual who 1) was not elected, 2) was not formally appointed (she is just considered "an advisor"), and 3) had no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.

While I don't think it would cause a collapse in civilization if she sat in the Orangutan-in-Chief's chair for a few minutes, that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a foolish thing.
 
Segnosaur said:
She was an individual who 1) was not elected, 2) was not formally appointed (she is just considered "an advisor"), and 3) had no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.

While I don't think it would cause a collapse in civilization if she sat in the Orangutan-in-Chief's chair for a few minutes, that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a foolish thing.
Click to expand...

She also sat on the Iron Throne for a few minutes, causing Ned Stark to mistrust her and her family for the rest of his life. "Hey, Ned," more reasonable people said, "it's just a chair, no need to lose your head over it."

eta: Does Trump ever go boar hunting?
 
Segnosaur said:
She was an individual who 1) was not elected, 2) was not formally appointed (she is just considered "an advisor"), and 3) had no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.

While I don't think it would cause a collapse in civilization if she sat in the Orangutan-in-Chief's chair for a few minutes, that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a foolish thing.
Click to expand...
Tell it to The Atheist. He's the one saying it completes her ascension.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
The optics are bad, but I agree that Ivanka warning her Dad's seat at a non-critical time isn't a big deal.
If she had opened her mouth, now that would have been a different matter.

But it is clear that Trump believes he's grooming Ivanka for his current job.
 
The Don said:
Apparently, Angela Merkel thought it was fine (be interested to know if this was the case) and in any case, had Chelsea Clinton done it, then the press would have been delighted :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40561077
Click to expand...
Re. Mama Merkel: I guess Team Trump asked "Would it be OK?" and Merkel responded that translate to a diplomatic "Yeah, whatever...". Essentially, to her and the others it's totally irrelevant who actually sits there. It doesn't even have to be a properly confirmed person.

Which should you make pause and think. If true, it means that the current POTUS* is irrelevant to the rest of the most powerful countries. Imagine what they know from intelligence, and what all this implies to the internal state of this 'administration'.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The optics are bad, but I agree that Ivanka warning her Dad's seat at a non-critical time isn't a big deal.
If she had opened her mouth, now that would have been a different matter.

But it is clear that Trump believes he's grooming Ivanka for his current job.
Click to expand...

I disagree. From my foreign POV, the optics is absolutely disastrous for the state of the WH.
 
elgarak said:
Re. Mama Merkel: I guess Team Trump asked "Would it be OK?" and Merkel responded that translate to a diplomatic "Yeah, whatever...". Essentially, to her and the others it's totally irrelevant who actually sits there. It doesn't even have to be a properly confirmed person.

Which should you make pause and think. If true, it means that the current POTUS* is irrelevant to the rest of the most powerful countries. Imagine what they know from intelligence, and what all this implies to the internal state of this 'administration'.
Click to expand...
Or it means that it's the occupant that matters, not the chair. The other heads of state don't care who sits there, when one of them is out of the room.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
Segnosaur said:
She was an individual who 1) was not elected, 2) was not formally appointed (she is just considered "an advisor"), and 3) had no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.

While I don't think it would cause a collapse in civilization if she sat in the Orangutan-in-Chief's chair for a few minutes, that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a foolish thing.
Click to expand...
All of that reminds of Hillary Clinton and the Medical Care debacle in her husbands administration. He put an arkansas lawyer in charge of basically secrete meetings to craft health care legislation. The criticisms were:
1) She was not elected 2) not formally appointed 3) no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.

IMHO, this is the seed of the hate for her that exists today. So, perhaps, Ivanka will have the same issue.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
All of that reminds of Hillary Clinton and the Medical Care debacle in her husbands administration. He put an arkansas lawyer in charge of basically secrete meetings to craft health care legislation. The criticisms were:
1) She was not elected 2) not formally appointed 3) no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.

IMHO, this is the seed of the hate for her that exists today. So, perhaps, Ivanka will have the same issue.
Click to expand...

Nonsense they hated her long before that, the hate for her goes back to her days as the first lady of Arkansas.
 
ahhell said:
All of that reminds of Hillary Clinton and the Medical Care debacle in her husbands administration. He put an arkansas lawyer in charge of basically secrete meetings to craft health care legislation. The criticisms were:
1) She was not elected 2) not formally appointed 3) no experience or qualifications that would be relevant to the discussions.
Click to expand...
Lets address point #3 by comparing the qualification levels of Hillary Clinton (while working on health care legislation) and Ivanka Trump (at the recent government meetings), shall we?

- Hillary: Law degree (knowledge of law might be considered relevant when dealing with creating legislation)
- Ivanka: BA in business (perhaps would be relevant if she were sitting in on some meeting about economics; less relevant when at a meeting dealing with issues of health)

- Hillary: Extensive exposure to dealing with government programs when bill was gov. (Ok, she wasn't "in charge" but she at least had an insiders view about how legislation gets put together.)
- Ivanka: Was a business person (possibly riding on Daddy's coat tails) who had never worked within governments before

Hillary may have been involved because of her relationship to the president, but she was still fairly qualified.
 
Segnosaur said:
Lets address point #3 by comparing the qualification levels of Hillary Clinton (while working on health care legislation) and Ivanka Trump (at the recent government meetings), shall we?

- Hillary: Law degree (knowledge of law might be considered relevant when dealing with creating legislation)
- Ivanka: BA in business (perhaps would be relevant if she were sitting in on some meeting about economics; less relevant when at a meeting dealing with issues of health)
Click to expand...
Like it or not, economics has at least as much relevance in medical care as law and medicine is a business even in nations with more universal coverage than the US.
Segnosaur said:
- Hillary: Extensive exposure to dealing with government programs when bill was gov. (Ok, she wasn't "in charge" but she at least had an insiders view about how legislation gets put together.)
- Ivanka: Was a business person (possibly riding on Daddy's coat tails) who had never worked within governments before

Hillary may have been involved because of her relationship to the president, but she was still fairly qualified.
Click to expand...
So that's an argument for nepotism and aristocracy. She was qualified to be in government because she was closely related to someone else who was in government.

@ponderingturtle, who had heard of Hillary or even Bill outside of Arkansas prior to his running for president? A few guest shots on sunday news shows was about has high as his profile got. So sure, "they" hated her while she was in arkansas but "they" were a pretty small group.
 
Segnosaur said:
Lets address point #3 by comparing the qualification levels of Hillary Clinton (while working on health care legislation) and Ivanka Trump (at the recent government meetings), shall we?

- Hillary: Law degree (knowledge of law might be considered relevant when dealing with creating legislation)
- Ivanka: BA in business (perhaps would be relevant if she were sitting in on some meeting about economics; less relevant when at a meeting dealing with issues of health)

- Hillary: Extensive exposure to dealing with government programs when bill was gov. (Ok, she wasn't "in charge" but she at least had an insiders view about how legislation gets put together.)
- Ivanka: Was a business person (possibly riding on Daddy's coat tails) who had never worked within governments before

Hillary may have been involved because of her relationship to the president, but she was still fairly qualified.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear a concise, widely accepted definition of what qualifies someone to serve a role in the government. Of course, "widely accepted," is going to be the sticking point.

I have no problem with political/government newbies serving in the government; I think we need more of that. I remember that Obama had very little experience in the government when he ran for President and, while I certainly didn't agree with most of his positions, he did OK for a Democrat...

As for Ivanka Trump, she's a smart woman who has worked in a major business organization for most of her life. In her various roles, she's had to learn how to deal with the government as a citizen and business person and, really, what else does she need? If we are going to stick only with people who have worked in government, then we are in effect asking for a political class whose values may not align with ours. I would much prefer that our politicians be people who are not career politicians.
 
xjx388 said:
I would love to hear a concise, widely accepted definition of what qualifies someone to serve a role in the government. Of course, "widely accepted," is going to be the sticking point.
Click to expand...

A formal selection process would be nice.

President Trump went through a formal selection process. Even though I personally consider him to be woefully unsuitable to be President, enough of the US electorate thought he was suitable for him to win the electoral college.

Members of the cabinet are scrutinised by the Senate, another formal process. Less senior members of the administration (if any are eventually appointed) are subject to formal scrutiny in post.
 
xjx388 said:
I would love to hear a concise, widely accepted definition of what qualifies someone to serve a role in the government. Of course, "widely accepted," is going to be the sticking point.

I have no problem with political/government newbies serving in the government; I think we need more of that. I remember that Obama had very little experience in the government when he ran for President and, while I certainly didn't agree with most of his positions, he did OK for a Democrat...

As for Ivanka Trump, she's a smart woman who has worked in a major business organization for most of her life. In her various roles, she's had to learn how to deal with the government as a citizen and business person and, really, what else does she need? If we are going to stick only with people who have worked in government, then we are in effect asking for a political class whose values may not align with ours. I would much prefer that our politicians be people who are not career politicians.
Click to expand...

You seem to be conflating “working at the highest level of the government” with “working in the government”.
 
xjx388 said:
I have no problem with political/government newbies serving in the government; I think we need more of that.
Click to expand...
Trump is a "newbie". Its regularly used as an excuse for his mess-ups.
I remember that Obama had very little experience in the government when he ran for President...
Click to expand...
Lets see:
- Law degree and experience as a civil rights lawyer (not necessarily "inside the government", but at least provided familiarity with the constitution, something useful to the job of being president.)
- Over half a decade as a state senator (this included serving on several committees)
- U.S. senator for 1 term (where he served on committees for Foreign Relations, public works and the environment)

So, he had been working in government at both the state and federal level for over a decade, as well as exposure to both foreign policy and internal policy matters.
As for Ivanka Trump, she's a smart woman...
Click to expand...
Is she? Or did she just happen to get lucky being born into the right family?

Maybe she's a super-genius, but we don't really have enough information to go on.
...who has worked in a major business organization for most of her life.
Click to expand...
She worked for Trump (and, should I remind you, Trump's businesses are far from booming, what with the multiple bankruptcies and other failures.) And she does has her own line of jewelry/clothing, which probably says more about her ability to market herself than it does about her business abilities.
If we are going to stick only with people who have worked in government, then we are in effect asking for a political class whose values may not align with ours.
Click to expand...
There are multiple levels of government, and the government needs large numbers of civil servants (both long-term and appointed) to function properly. You don't need an isolated "political class", but it doesn't seem to be too extreme to suggest that having some exposure to working within a government framework might be beneficial.

Heck, even if they had no government experience, an educational background in some relevant field would be beneficial.
I would much prefer that our politicians be people who are not career politicians.
Click to expand...
There are benefits and drawbacks to the "non-politician leader".

There are certain rules (protocols, constitutional power limits, etc.) within government. Your non-politician coming from a non-politics background may have trouble navigating in that environment. They may either propose things that can't be done, or run the risk of falling victim to manipulation.
 
xjx388 said:
As for Ivanka Trump, she's a smart woman who has worked in a major business organization for most of her life. In her various roles, she's had to learn how to deal with the government as a citizen and business person and, really, what else does she need? If we are going to stick only with people who have worked in government, then we are in effect asking for a political class whose values may not align with ours. I would much prefer that our politicians be people who are not career politicians.
Click to expand...

As for Ivanka TrumpDonald Trump, she's a smart woman who has worked in a major business organization for most of heris life. In her his various roles, she's had to learn how to deal with the government as a citizen and business person and, really, what else does she need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom