• 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!

Nepotist in Chief

tres borrachos said:
So that's why you opposed Obama. You didn't really oppose him - you were just butt hurt that he kicked everyone else's ass to the curb.
Click to expand...

Obama?

Oh...wait...that's right. WHATABOUT!!!

Dismissed.
 
tres borrachos said:
I would really like to know exactly why Ivanka needed security clearance. I can understand why Jared needed it, given the fact that his father in law has him working on foreign affairs stuff (not sure why he is, but he is, so there's that). But why her?
Click to expand...

Gotta make those foreign business deals!
 
AlphaOmega said:
Except Trump didn't do that. Do you ever ponder why your argument needs to based on crap completely made up in your head. Here lets fact check your statement.
Did Trump do this and did I make any post at any point saying I would support such an insane comment? The answer is No to both but lets see how TDS changes your answers. This is fascinating to study.
Click to expand...

Well, you said this, which is equally dumb: "Of course, the President has no authority to make executive decisions. Security issues are best handled by democrats who support open borders."

So I'll put it this way. It's usually poor debate strategy to advance an argument you know is factually incorrect, which you did. It suggests you realize the correct answer rests with your opponents. Cognizant citizens, whether or not Democrats, believe security issues are best handled by those charged with handling them. Not the President who wishes to give clearances to his relatives.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Faulty conclusion. It wasn't people on anonymous debate forums who made that call, but professionals who do it for a living. He brought an unqualified moron on as a shadow cabinet member because he was married to Ivanka, un-nominated, unconfirmed by the Senate, then overruled his intelligence people, his own CoS, and his own WH legal counsel's recommendations and granted the guy a security clearance. So, yes, it's a fair guess that Trump's own people responsible for controlling access to the nation's secrets who were inside the WH, dealt with Kushner on a regular basis, are likely not risking the wrath of their boss on baseless concerns.
Click to expand...
NewsFlash! It is his right to do so. Same as every President before him. They don't run the country he does.
 
JackA said:
Well, you said this, which is equally dumb: "Of course, the President has no authority to make executive decisions. Security issues are best handled by democrats who support open borders."

So I'll put it this way. It's usually poor debate strategy to advance an argument you know is factually incorrect, which you did. It suggests you realize the correct answer rests with your opponents. Cognizant citizens, whether or not Democrats, believe security issues are best handled by those charged with handling them. Not the President who wishes to give clearances to his relatives.
Click to expand...
There you have it folks, he did everything except answer the yes or no questions that have factual answers. Behold, the extent to which TDS has affected people.
 
AlphaOmega said:
There you have it folks, he did everything except answer the yes or no questions that have factual answers. Behold, the extent to which TDS has affected people.
Click to expand...
Mexico pay for that wall yet?
 
Mycroft said:
Until you are in his shoes, you have no ability to make such a judgment...unless you want to be a biased demagogue.

You simply don't have enough information.
Click to expand...

We actually DO have enough information.

The people who are usually tasked with determining if someone is eligible for a security clearance deemed both Jared and Ivanka not to be. The only reason they were granted was because Donald stepped in and forced the issue.

If they were any other citizen in the country, and this had come to light, you would be screaming that those tasked with making that decision made if for a good reason, I'm pretty sure.

Yet here, we have you basically making them out to be idiots who needed The Donald to set them right.

Good on ya.
 
AlphaOmega said:
NewsFlash! It is his right to do so. Same as every President before him. They don't run the country he does.
Click to expand...

So it is your contention that it is the RIGHT of the President to potentially sell out the country? **** checks and balances, eh? Whatever he wants, he gets...is that how **** is gonna operate now?

Before you get your panties in a knot....I am not accusing Jared, Ivanka or anyone else of having done that. I am simply pointing out that by what you said above, it would be the right of the President to knowingly force a clearance upon someone who would then go out and do that exact thing.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
So it is your contention that it is the RIGHT of the President to potentially sell out the country? **** checks and balances, eh? Whatever he wants, he gets...is that how **** is gonna operate now?

Before you get your panties in a knot....I am not accusing Jared, Ivanka or anyone else of having done that. I am simply pointing out that by what you said above, it would be the right of the President to knowingly force a clearance upon someone who would then go out and do that exact thing.
Click to expand...
It is not my contention, it is a fact. It is his right to do this. If you dont like it, then I suggest running for President yourself.
 
AlphaOmega said:
It is not my contention, it is a fact. It is his right to do this. If you dont like it, then I suggest running for President yourself.
Click to expand...

So you are on record that if the President wants to sell out the country, its his right.

Noted.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
So you are on record that if the President wants to sell out the country, its his right.

Noted.
Click to expand...
No I am not. Your inference of a situation does not equal fact. Hillary Clinton had classified emails on a personal server. Didn't see your complaints about selling out the country on that. Do you have any?
 
AlphaOmega said:
Then what is the left whining about exactly?
Click to expand...

President overruling his own people tasked with handing out security clearances to grant one to his son in law, because he's married to Ivanka, the favored one.

This may come as a shock to you, but it's quite natural and appropriate for the citizenry to object to decisions made by elected officials, even when those decisions are LEGAL! And pointing out - "it's legal!!" - isn't actually an argument on the merits of the decision.

Just to point out the end of your not very slippery slope, it's theoretically 'legal' for POTUS to send over to Putin a list of our spies in Russia so he can round them up, jail them, execute a few, send the rest home. Would your defense be - "Trump's POTUS, it's legal!" I don't imagine so, so why do you think it's a good argument here?
 
AlphaOmega said:
No I am not. Your inference of a situation does not equal fact. Hillary Clinton had classified emails on a personal server. Didn't see your complaints about selling out the country on that. Do you have any?
Click to expand...

So, your standard of acceptable behavior is what Hillary Clinton did. If she did it, then that's a good thing and we should applaud Trump for living up to that standard? Seems like a very stupid standard to me, but if that's what you believe is appropriate, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Ranks right up there with a kid, "But dad! Jimmy did it too!!!"
 
JasperL said:
President overruling his own people tasked with handing out security clearances to grant one to his son in law, because he's married to Ivanka, the favored one.

This may come as a shock to you, but it's quite natural and appropriate for the citizenry to object to decisions made by elected officials, even when those decisions are LEGAL! And pointing out - "it's legal!!" - isn't actually an argument on the merits of the decision.

Just to point out the end of your not very slippery slope, it's theoretically 'legal' for POTUS to send over to Putin a list of our spies in Russia so he can round them up, jail them, execute a few, send the rest home. Would your defense be - "Trump's POTUS, it's legal!" I don't imagine so, so why do you think it's a good argument here?
Click to expand...

There's that whining again. Let us know when Trump does something that is actually illegal.
 
JasperL said:
So, your standard of acceptable behavior is what Hillary Clinton did. If she did it, then that's a good thing and we should applaud Trump for living up to that standard? Seems like a very stupid standard to me, but if that's what you believe is appropriate, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Ranks right up there with a kid, "But dad! Jimmy did it too!!!"
Click to expand...
no no, thats your stance. You are criticizing trump but not Obama when out of the two only obama allowed classified information on a personal server. I am asking you why you have such a blatant double standard.
 
AlphaOmega said:
no no, thats your stance. You are criticizing trump but not Obama when out of the two only obama allowed classified information on a personal server. I am asking you why you have such a blatant double standard.
Click to expand...
Nonsense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom