• 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!

Doesn't Trump's Nepotism bother you?

jimithyashford said:
So I just looked up the definition of Nepotism from 5 different sources and not a single one of them defined Nepotism being only, or even primarily, about money, in fact only two of them even mention money at all. Almost every source seems to define Nepotism as "A practice among those in power of favoring relatives, especially by giving them jobs."

So, if you think Nepotism is about the money it would seem like it is you who have the wrong notion of what Nepotism is. It seems to be that Nepotism, by almost every definition I can find, is about favoring your relatives by granting them jobs or positions of authority, with the actual relative amount of income being really secondary to the issue.
Click to expand...

What do you think the word "job" refers to? It's a "for-profit" activity. Money is the reason for having "a job." If not for the money, you're a volunteer, or a hobbyist. Gezzeuzz.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Look it up.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to know how, here's the first three that popped up on Google:

favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship •accused the company of fostering nepotism in promotions

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics


Practice of appointing relatives and friends in one's organization to positions for which outsiders might be better qualified. Despite its negative connotations, nepotism (if applied sensibly) is an important and positive practice in the startup and formative years of a firm where complete trust and willingness to work hard (for little or no immediate reward) are critical for its survival.

BTW, It isn't my view. It's the actual definition of the freaking word. Geezuscriesed people.
Click to expand...

Literally not a single one of the definition you supplied even mention money. If you say to me in one post "Money is the problem" and then go on to provide your own definitions none of which even mention money.....then you might need to reconsider your thinking on the issue. I contend that Nepotism, and the reason we don't like Nepotism, had nothing specifically to do with money, it has to do power and authority, and while Money can certainly be a form of power, for a family that is already wealthy it is not the primary consideration, the influence is...

And given that your definition doesn't say a thing about money and rather mentions jobs, appointments, and favors, it seems that the definitions you've provided agree that the job or favor or appointment you're being given doesn't have to pay more, per se, for it to still be Nepotism.
 
jimithyashford said:
Literally not a single one of the definition you supplied even mention money. If you say to me in one post "Money is the problem" and then go on to provide your own definitions none of which even mention money.....then you might need to reconsider your thinking on the issue. I contend that Nepotism, and the reason we don't like Nepotism, had nothing specifically to do with money, it has to do power and authority, and while Money can certainly be a form of power, for a family that is already wealthy it is not the primary consideration, the influence is...

And given that your definition doesn't say a thing about money and rather mentions jobs, appointments, and favors, it seems that the definitions you've provided agree that the job or favor or appointment you're being given doesn't have to pay more, per se, for it to still be Nepotism.
Click to expand...

You need to go down to the Christian Science Reading Room and do some research on the Book of JOB. I guess I can see how a Liberal wouldn't equate a job with money, however. (a joke)
 
Beaudreaux said:
What do you think the word "job" refers to? It's a "for-profit" activity. Money is the reason for having "a job." If not for the money, you're a volunteer, or a hobbyist. Gezzeuzz.
Click to expand...

Almost every president, governor, and many senators, make less as a government official then they did in their private business before entering office. Many many many government jobs are taken for the power and influence even though they pay less than the public sector. In fact, Trump himself said he didn't need the presidential salary and would refuse it, but he still wanted the job.

Taking less pay to get more power and influence is incredibly common in politics....surely you know that....
 
jimithyashford said:
So similar appointments of immediate family to similar positions would not have bothered you under Clinton or Obama, you would also have given them the benefit of the doubt and said "It's just bad optics"?
Click to expand...

Who are we talking about here, give me names please...... I need to have some idea of the number and where they are in order to evaluate the claim, and since all I know about is Ivanka and her husband clearly I have missed something because we most certainly could not have this much hubbub over two people.


Right?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Look it up.

EDIT: Since you don't seem to know how, here's the first three that popped up on Google:

favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship •accused the company of fostering nepotism in promotions

patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics


Practice of appointing relatives and friends in one's organization to positions for which outsiders might be better qualified. Despite its negative connotations, nepotism (if applied sensibly) is an important and positive practice in the startup and formative years of a firm where complete trust and willingness to work hard (for little or no immediate reward) are critical for its survival.

BTW, It isn't my view. It's the actual definition of the freaking word. Geezuscriesed people.
Click to expand...

The definitions you provided are in direct conflict with your earlier statement:

Beaudreaux said:
Nepotism? No. Because it could be argued that it isn't really nepotism since his family is having to take a SERIOUS pay cut to work for the government.

Having people you trust around you to give you advice is human nature, not some evil plot.
Click to expand...

They didn't take any pay cut, they didn't divest themselves. Instead, they've opened up new avenues of income through corruption.

President Trump is brazenly using nepotism to put his friends and family in positions of power and influence. No amount of mental gymnastics can change what that is, whether you have the intellectual honesty to call it nepotism or not.
 
Beaudreaux said:
What do you think the word "job" refers to? It's a "for-profit" activity. Money is the reason for having "a job." If not for the money, you're a volunteer, or a hobbyist. Gezzeuzz.
Click to expand...

Jobs, particularly political appointments, don't necessarily have to have pay at all. Most city council members are not paid, but they were still elected to that position and still wield power and influence and a Mayor appointing his Nephew to the council (if your city charter allowed ad hoc appointments) would still be Nepotism.....


And are you really just completely and utterly unwilling to even acknowledge the basic concept that Nepotism is about power and influence just as much as about money, particularly in politics.....are you just flat out rejecting that concept? So a president can appoint his family to as many positions as he wants as long as they are a privately wealthy family and can afford to refuse the salary? Is that really what you are saying?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Who are we talking about here, give me names please...... I need to have some idea of the number and where they are in order to evaluate the claim, and since all I know about is Ivanka and her husband clearly I have missed something because we most certainly could not have this much hubbub over two people.


Right?
Click to expand...

So, just out of curiosity, if you Elect person A, just how many of that person's immediate family have to be appointed to high profile government positions before you do get concerned? Clearly not for 2, 3 maybe, 5? Or do you have to start pulling in cousins and grandparents before you care?

Surely you can acknowledge, even if you arent personally capable of mustering concern over a President appointing his children to key positions (it boggles me that that wouldn't bother you....but ok) that this is at least extremely a-typical for western democracies where that kind of thing is general frowned upon.
 
jimithyashford said:
So, just out of curiosity, if you Elect person A, just how many of that person's immediate family have to be appointed to high profile government positions before you do get concerned? Clearly not for 2, 3 maybe, 5? Or do you have to start pulling in cousins and grandparents before you care?

Surely you can acknowledge, even if you arent personally capable of mustering concern over a President appointing his children to key positions (it boggles me that that wouldn't bother you....but ok) that this is at least extremely a-typical for western democracies where that kind of thing is general frowned upon.
Click to expand...

So it seems all you have are this two people, at least one of the two being an unpaid volunteer...Ya, I dont care.

In fact knowing Trump I say he has shown remarkable restraint in bringing in trusted family to help with the cause of the Rebellion.
 
jimithyashford said:
So similar appointments of immediate family to similar positions would not have bothered you under Clinton or Obama, you would also have given them the benefit of the doubt and said "It's just bad optics"?
Click to expand...

Go reread what I wrote. If you read that as "It's just bad optics." you read it wrong.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So it seems all you have are this two people, at least one of the two being an unpaid volunteer...Ya, I dont care.

In fact knowing Trump I say he has shown remarkable restraint in bringing in trusted family to help with the cause of the Rebellion.
Click to expand...

Correct, I only have the two, could you answer my questions regarding how many it would take to concern you and if you can acknowledge that this is at least very atypical for a western democracy.
 
jimithyashford said:
Correct, I only have the two, could you answer my questions regarding how many it would take to concern you and if you can acknowledge that this is at least very atypical for a western democracy.
Click to expand...

IDK a number because this is some combination of number and how much power they are given and the nature of the person who is doing it. Trump needs his family, he can not work effectively without family around him and helping him, and we knew that when we picked him, in Trump's case it would take a lot.

Sure it is different, but things are not going swimmingly for Western Civilization, so different is good as a general rule....trying different.
 
jimithyashford said:
So, this really struck me earlier today. Trump has his daughter and his son in law very actively involved in his administration in both official and unofficial functions with high level security access and all that good stuff.
Click to expand...

The question is, why would it bother you? Both are liberal democrats. :shrug:

I suspect it's because.....TRRUUUUMP!!!!!

tenor.gif


To answer your question, yes, it bothers me. But not the nepotism. It's the LIBERALISM.
 
countryboy said:
The question is, why would it bother you? Both are liberal democrats. :shrug:

I suspect it's because.....TRRUUUUMP!!!!!

tenor.gif


To answer your question, yes, it bothers me. But not the nepotism. It's the LIBERALISM.
Click to expand...

Nepotism bothers me either way. Did I not say in my OP that I thought Nepotism was a non-partisan issue. Did I not say in my OP that I would have been very bothered if Obama had done something like that?

So, nepotism just does not bother you? Is that what you are saying?
 
jimithyashford said:
Nepotism bothers me either way. Did I not say in my OP that I thought Nepotism was a non-partisan issue. Did I not say in my OP that I would have been very bothered if Obama had done something like that?

So, nepotism just does not bother you? Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Other than his daughter and son in law, what other family members has Trump given jobs to?

And yes, you said it was a non partisan issue. I just don't believe you. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom