• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump Names Son-in-Law Jared Kushner as Senior Adviser

So Trump reached across the aisle? Good for him.

... Trump is, like a hooker, whatever one wants her to be.

It's one thing the power hungry and internet trolls share in common.

:lol:
 
I'm not totally against this. Trump trusts him and sometimes you need someone you trust to bounce things off of.

Is that like Rock Hudson bouncing balls off his chin?
 
... Trump is, like a hooker, whatever one wants her to be.

It's one thing the power hungry and internet trolls share in common.

:lol:
I agree that Trump and Hillary both seemed to be on both sides of the issue depending on the audience
 
Here, let me help you:

View attachment 67212195

What positions has Mr. Kushner held that allow him to be a top adviser to a president?

Don't worry, I'll wait to hear about your VAST knowledge on a guy who you hadn't heard of a few months ago.

He has the one quality that really matters for an advisor. Trump trusts his opinion.

Whether that trust is well placed is of course a different kettle of fish.
 
What's bizarre to me is the assumption, perhaps based in the law although I have no idea, that resigning from management but retaining ownership interests somehow mitigates the large conflicts of interest.

It's like, "I'm going to do this thing that I have to do because I can't run several companies and work full time in the WH, and you will applaud me for avoiding conflicts of interest, while my financial health is still intimately tied to the success of those businesses I temporarily stepped down from but will return to in a year or two...." :roll:

I'm indifferent to him as advisor, but the conflict of interest stuff is just amazing to me.

He's unpaid so I'm not sure conflict of interest or anti-nepotism even matter here.

People get advice or opinions from family and people they trust all the time. Presidents included. The only difference here is that Kushner gets a title and an office. I don't know as a practical matter that that makes any real difference.
 
I agree that Trump and Hillary both seemed to be on both sides of the issue depending on the audience

He's got 30+ years of statements supporting Democrats when it was good to be a Democrat. He hung out with the Clintons. Then, when it became fashionable in the GOP to throw attacks at the Clinton's marriage (you know, because another Clinton was running) he did the same.

Recently after weeks of dismissal, his team finally came out and supported what Democrats, Republicans and the intelligence agencies were telling them.

Supposedly, it was him admitting it. I don't know whether he was too busy to say it himself or if his twitter account was down. We will see more of this as time goes on. Trump has used social media as a venue for his thoughts, for his team to say what he's admitting to without him actually saying something on the matter seems very unlike him.

I wouldn't be surprised if the guy insulated himself.
 
So let's assume Kushner doesn't become a "senior advisor" and just talks to Trump at the dinner table or on the golf course. Short of banning The Donald from visiting his daughter and son-in-law, how would you prevent potential conflicts of interest?

You can't, but in that scenario the son-in-law doesn't have clearance and isn't being allowed to hear state secrets.

And, really, who's more likely to be influenced anyway? The billionaire who becomes a politician, or the politician who wants to become a billionaire?

That's really not the right question, IMO. He's got a cabinet and now a special counsel or whatever who are mostly extremely wealthy, AND with ongoing investments that will or could be tremendously affected by decisions made in the Trump WH. You can argue, obviously, that you trust his son in law to make decisions that will hurt him financially if it's right for the "people" - that's a subjective analysis. I'm just pointing out that him continuing to own substantial shares in a company with $billions in real estate is a potential conflict.

But like I also said, I'm indifferent about him being named advisor. With rare exceptions, I do believe the POTUS is entitled to pick the people closest to him.
 
He's unpaid so I'm not sure conflict of interest or anti-nepotism even matter here.

People get advice or opinions from family and people they trust all the time. Presidents included. The only difference here is that Kushner gets a title and an office. I don't know as a practical matter that that makes any real difference.

Would that mean he'd be an official White House staffer?
 
He's unpaid so I'm not sure conflict of interest or anti-nepotism even matter here.

People get advice or opinions from family and people they trust all the time. Presidents included. The only difference here is that Kushner gets a title and an office. I don't know as a practical matter that that makes any real difference.

Right, he's incredibly wealthy, and can work for "free." And I don't know about the legal issues, but whether he gets $100k or nothing doesn't affect the practical problems of conficts of interest or nepotism at all. Might be a loophole to get around them but the issues are still there. I can't imagine many up and coming business types would turn down a couple of years in the WH for no pay if they got to keep their companies and turn over management for a little while. What better way to push policies that advance YOUR economic interests can there be, really?

And that informal or even formal advice from family or outsiders doesn't come with security clearance and being able sit in on meeting with world leaders, etc. But as I have said, I'm indifferent about him being named advisor. We will see what a government run by $billionaires, comes up with, I guess. It'll be a pretty close to a real life experiment in plutocracy.
 
I don't have a problem with nepotism when the position is advisory in nature. Conflict of interest will be an ongoing problem of course.
 
As expected I think.
It was already going to be near impossible not to have some conflicts of interest.
Now throw in Kushner who has his own Real Estate mini-Empire, as well as being married to DJTs princess.
A month ago the WSJ suggested that Trump just sell everything/Divest/Cash out, and that there was no other way. They may be right

Donald Trump Names Son-in-Law Jared Kushner as Senior Adviser
One of the most influential voices in the Trump camp to get a wide-ranging portfolio
By PETER NICHOLAS and DAMIAN PALETTA
Updated Jan. 9, 2017 - 2:46 p.m. ET
Donald Trump Names Son-in-Law Jared Kushner as Senior Adviser - WSJ

More and more I get the feeling that what he plans to do as far as conflicts of interest will be so egregious that he can only trust family with the details. He has taken nepotism to new heights why not do the same with his bank account?
 
As expected I think.
It was already going to be near impossible not to have some conflicts of interest.
Now throw in Kushner who has his own Real Estate mini-Empire, as well as being married to DJTs princess.
A month ago the WSJ suggested that Trump just sell everything/Divest/Cash out, and that there was no other way. They may be right

Donald Trump Names Son-in-Law Jared Kushner as Senior Adviser
One of the most influential voices in the Trump camp to get a wide-ranging portfolio
By PETER NICHOLAS and DAMIAN PALETTA
Updated Jan. 9, 2017 - 2:46 p.m. ET
Donald Trump Names Son-in-Law Jared Kushner as Senior Adviser - WSJ

At this stage of the game, I think that anything the Trump Administration can do to CRUSH the pathetic, whiny, snowflakey, mean spirited little democraps is just real good, smart politics. Can I get an "Amen" on dat?
 
At this stage of the game, I think that anything the Trump Administration can do to CRUSH the pathetic, whiny, snowflakey, mean spirited little democraps is just real good, smart politics. Can I get an "Amen" on dat?

Do lifelong Democrats tend to crush their fellow pathetic, whiny, snowflakey, mean spirited fellow Democrats?
 
giphy.gif
 
Do lifelong Democrats tend to crush their fellow pathetic, whiny, snowflakey, mean spirited fellow Democrats?

They do... by... putting them as advisors?
 
Apparently so.

Trump, the crusher AND cuddler of Liberal family members.

Trump supporters can't help this kind of idiocy. They think getting up to vote makes them smarter than everyone else in every other field right now.

We'll see where they're at a year from now.
 
More and more I get the feeling that what he plans to do as far as conflicts of interest will be so egregious that he can only trust family with the details. He has taken nepotism to new heights why not do the same with his bank account?
How do you figure new heights?
 
Would that mean he'd be an official White House staffer?

Dunno. I guess so. Don't know if that makes any difference though - nepotism is usually about money or power or continuing a dynasty. I don't think any of those really apply here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
What's bizarre to me is the assumption, perhaps based in the law although I have no idea, that resigning from management but retaining ownership interests somehow mitigates the large conflicts of interest.

It's like, "I'm going to do this thing that I have to do because I can't run several companies and work full time in the WH, and you will applaud me for avoiding conflicts of interest, while my financial health is still intimately tied to the success of those businesses I temporarily stepped down from but will return to in a year or two...." :roll:

I'm indifferent to him as advisor, but the conflict of interest stuff is just amazing to me.
Divesting/selling everything has two problems I think.
1. He's emotionally involved in his lifelong pursuit. Though by the time he leaves office even after a single term, he'd have to think about it.
2. Hiring a trustee to liquidate would show that trustee, and eventually the planet, Trump's real Net worth. Which I suspect is not even half of the $10 Billion he claims. So on this second reason alone.. no way.
 
Nepotism should go over well with the voters in 2018 if DEMs learn how to message like GOPs .
 
He's unpaid so I'm not sure conflict of interest or anti-nepotism even matter here.

People get advice or opinions from family and people they trust all the time. Presidents included. The only difference here is that Kushner gets a title and an office. I don't know as a practical matter that that makes any real difference.

It's been announced that nobody who is a Trump appointee needs to be vetted, according to Sen. McConnell. It's a waste of time.

So who is Kushner that makes him worthy of advising an office holder that was once the most powerful on the planet? Maybe a White House maintenance person can sit in and give Trump a few tips on how to clean up the Middle East?

Maybe competence, capable of understanding complex issues, having some field of expertise that is relevant to responsibilities of the POTUS doesn't matter anymore?

Besides, why would Trump need any advisors when he has Putin to guide him through his term?
 
Back
Top Bottom