Ooooooooooh, they WORKED for the family businesses.
Trying to argue that advantages for the children of the rich and powerful is some kind of partisan thing is about the stupidest argument I've ever heard here -- and that's saying A LOT.
Partisan impeachment continues to backfire; Trump raises record $46M in donations
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
Trying to argue that advantages for the children of the rich and powerful is some kind of partisan thing is about the stupidest argument I've ever heard here -- and that's saying A LOT.
The Trump kids (at least Ivanka and Jared) are currently working for the United States government, which are far more important positions than Chelsea, and no, the US government is not the Trump family business, or at least isn't supposed to be.
30 years old isn't a young kid. I don't know why you are trying to make that age out to be like she was 20 years old with no education or experience or something. But just let me ask, what is the appropriate age before people should be able to have a good job? And BTW, the Expedia Group which you brought up, she started working for at age 37. So 37 year old women can't have good jobs either?
Regardless, and again, nobody has ever doubted that the children of powerful people have advantages in life. But if you have a problem with Chelsea, and not Ivanka, then you are simply a partisan. Ivanka and Jared are in much more consequential positions and also have zero qualifications to be in those positions. Start demanding they be removed and then we can talk about kids working in the private sector.
Last edited:
Is the US government the Trump family business? Because that is who Ivanka and Jared are currently working for, neither with any qualifications to be there.
One of your red hat buddies attempts to tell us all there was a distinct difference between rich and previleged Chelsea and rich and previleged Ivanka and you accuse me of partisanship???
Reading comprehension is undervalued.
The difference is that the trump kids weren't in a position where their parent was a politically powerful figure. Sure, they benefitted from Trump being rich and nobody denies it but that's a little bit different than could appear to be a conflict of interest.
Working for the government is different than working for an outsider who may be buying access to the government. Come on, you have to know the difference between those two things. Prior to doing that, they worked for the family business. Now, is there a conflict of interest between the family business and their work in the government? maybe. They definitely need to be transparent and the checks and balances need to be in place.
She graduated with her master's in 2003. She got her job with Avenue Capital group in 2006. She's been on the board since 2011. So, roughly 5 years of experience to be on the board. That's awesome. She is certainly to be commended for her work ethic and her schooling and the volume of stuff that she takes on. She's no idiot. But that still doesn't mean that she would be qualified for a board position on that company 8 years out of school if her parents weren't who they were in the positions they were in.
I'm not the one who votes for Democrats that vilify the wealthy and then use the system and their networking to make themselves and their family wealthy. You seem to be getting irritated that you voted for someone who used the Government to enrich themselves and their family and you're going to be doing it again in November. You might as well vote for Trump.
This is where you are going to lose me. If you think putting your kids in high government jobs is less than important than getting a cushy board member position, then we are just going to have to a agree to disagree.
Shouldn't your issue be with Avenue Capital? And look, I don't know if she was qualified to be on the board or not, but I think 30 years of age is 5 years experience is more than enough time to make major career advances, especially for extremely intelligent people Does being a Clinton help? Obviously. Does that mean she wasn't qualified? No, not necessarily.
I am not irritated in the least. My issue, is that the only reason you care about this is for partisan reasons, which you basically just admitted. I have no issue with you calling it out. My issue, is that you call this out, but have no problems with Trump putting his kids in far more important positions. IF Chelsea on the board of Avenue Capital is more worrisome to you than Jared being responsible for Middle East peace (which is obviously not going well), then yeah, I can't take you seriously on this issue.
chelesea gets jobs with various companies with ties to her parents, likely in hopes of legislation/regulations that help those companies. this is the very thing all the democrats have been railing against.
im not a fan but i realize it goes on. if it were so important to you, it is not to me, then why do you only cherry pick?
again i dont really care. im pointing out the dems double standards.
i would personally like to see jared/ivanka removed from whatever positions of power they ahve in the current admin.
Yeah, but Republicans tend to only care if the last name is Biden or Clinton. They have no issue with the Trump's directly profiting off the presidency. That is all I am pointing out. What the Trump's are doing right now is more blatant in this regard than anyone, yet, for some reason Republican's are ok with it.
How are the trump kids profiting off of their positions? That's a serious question, I dont see how they are coming out ahead financially but admittedly havent followed it much.
There have been all kinds of stories about it.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...do-business-overseas-as-president-slams-biden
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/13/media-needs-focus-real-corruption/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/03/politics/trump-kids-international-deals-fact-check/index.html
And its not just his kids. Renting out space to the secret service at Trump Tower, trying to have the G7 at his resort (which was decided against), and the Trump Hotel DC supposedly makes a killing for foreign official who want to get in tight with Trump, so they make sure to book his hotel etc etc
That's true too. The point of a corporation is to make money and make sure there stock holders are pleased. So while experience is usually a good thing, it is most certainly not the only thing.
Last edited:
trump is certainly profiting off his presidency. i mean just look at his net worth estimates before and after he became president. wait, the estimates went down....
I'd love to see the amount of money the government has spent on Trump transportation and protection during his time in office versus Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
And a lot of it at his own clubs. The government is essentially paying Trump when the secret service is staying at one of his resorts.
I am perfectly fine with disqualifying the Trump kids from government service unless they divest from their companies or otherwise prove that their businesses do not create a conflict of interest with their government service. The US Government is not there to enrich politicians and their families.
To put it quite clearly, I'm amused at people who defend Democrats that abuse the system and then vote Democrat and then call Republicans hypocrites at every opportunity. The majority of your party platform is based on equality while the people you vote for do exactly the opposite.
Nobody is defending anything. But here is the problem. These are private companies you are talking about, hiring a private citizen. So, do we make a law where politicians kids can't have jobs? Or if they do have jobs they can only make like $50k a year or something? Do we fine private companies for giving jobs to politicians kids who we don't think are qualified? Do we have some sort of review board to determine if they are qualified? What exactly are you wanting to be done here, other than complain about it?
Again, absolutely nobody denies kids from powerful families (not just political families either) have advantages, but what exactly is it you want to be done about it? And Chelsea never ran for office so absolutely nobody has ever voted for her, so I don't know how you can say I "vote for people who do the opposite".
Last edited:
And apparently you are unaware how to post a link. Regardless, estimates of his net worth all over the place, and are just that, estimates.
Last edited:
Yep. But I don't identify with a party that is currently enthralled with using government to equalize outcomes for all people in America and presenting candidates for President that are pushing policies in that direction at every opportunity. That's the difference.
The Democrats are pushing policies where private companies can't hire people if there parents are rich? I wasn't aware of this.
It's almost like you have no idea how much he was worth before taking office, or how much he is worth now, especially considering he is the most secretive president in modern history with his finances.
forbes probably does the best job at giving these estimates. i get it, you dont like trump so dont trust them on this one.
i think its stupid that he didnt share like all the previous guys did, but in the end i dont care.
Dude, it has nothing to do with disliking Trump. You admit he is secretive with his finances, yet you still want to trust all of this information, but then blame me when I dont. Secondly, it even if it has fallen, that doesn't necessarily mean it is because he became president. Hell, for all we know it would have fallen a lot more if he wasn't president. You are trying to equate being president with losing wealth, but unless we really dissect his business, there is no way to make that determination. I mean, there was a lot of speculation that he wasn't doing well financially and that is why he ran for office to begin with.
And also, there is no real way to know how accurate Forbes is. In fact, Wilbur Ross was on the Forbes Billionaire list 13 straight years. But funny enough, when he joined the Trump cabinet and declared his assets, he wasn't actually a billionaire and most likely never had been. Forbes was wrong about him for 13 years.
https://qz.com/1123599/wilbur-ross-...illionaires-who-lie-about-being-billionaires/
The thing about Forbes, is they just take peoples word for it a lot of time and don't actually do much of any research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html
There is an article from a former Forbes writer who basically flat out says Trump should have never been on their list to begin with going all the way back to the 80s. In other words. Forbes doesn't do a good job at all in giving those estimates.
Gee, I wonder why?
Which explains why he got away with it and why we're all suffering the consequences.
Then spell it out. What policies are the Democrats pushing that should prevent Chelsea Clinton from getting a job with a private company? You clearly said "presenting candidates for President that are pushing policies in that direction at every opportunity". So what policies are they pushing that would prevent Chelsea Clinton from getting jobs in the private sector? You are trying to make us all out to be hypocrites, so it is more than fair to ask what policies they are pushing, that would equate to hypocrisy, because Chelsea Clinton has a job.
No they’re not. They’re skewing the opportunity based on social factors to try to equalize outcomes.
