Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mix with business

[OriZ 3,165]

32 minutes ago, IAMX said:

There's a reason I didn't vote for the guy. And while you guys are rabid on petty stuff like your one-sided nepotism fix, Russia conspiracies, and entranced with the personalities, I care more about how he implements policies. While I was quite happy with his first month or two, the last month has been awful and a massive reversal from major issues such as NATO and Syria, as well as his switch regarding Yellen, and I will keep mentioning his entire Presidency, until it's done, if it ever is, the DACA repeal, which he can do with a simple swipe of the ol' EO pen. I really don't like that he's not working with Putin on fighting terrorism -- Russia would be far better as an ally than an enemy. So if the election were held 3 months into his Presidency I'd likely not vote for him once again. We'll see how the other 42 months of his term goes until election time.

It's funny because we both have issues with some of the things he's done yet with the exception of yellen and the economy it's mostly different stuff.

[IAMX 3,055]

12 minutes ago, OriZ said:

It's funny because we both have issues with some of the things he's done yet with the exception of yellen and the economy it's mostly different stuff.

I've been frustrated for years at the US' problem with debt, to the point where the US primary export is not even a good, it's just debt. All it takes is investors to stop drinking from a spiked punch bowl of the stock market and the naive belief the US will ever pay its long term obligations and the rug is swept out from under the country. This idea that the debt can run up indefinitely is supported by the vast majority of wealthy people playing into this short term game, but the people who will really suffer in the end are those without tangible assets (when this fiat money has no more value).. which as always is the poor and middle class. Yet the left support running up the debt as much as possible. Trump is doing what every President since I've been a kid has been doing, which is passing the buck to future generations to deal with. Can't respect that. It'll be interesting seeing the first full fiscal year under Trump to see the effect his policies on hiring have, because the country must have production.. debt will always skyrocket so long as the top export is likewise debt.

Edited April 19, 2017 by IAMX

[OriZ 3,165]

4 hours ago, IAMX said:

I've been frustrated for years at the US' problem with debt, to the point where the US primary export is not even a good, it's just debt. All it takes is investors to stop drinking from a spiked punch bowl of the stock market and the naive belief the US will ever pay its long term obligations and the rug is swept out from under the country. This idea that the debt can run up indefinitely is supported by the vast majority of wealthy people playing into this short term game, but the people who will really suffer in the end are those without tangible assets (when this fiat money has no more value).. which as always is the poor and middle class. Yet the left support running up the debt as much as possible. Trump is doing what every President since I've been a kid has been doing, which is passing the buck to future generations to deal with. Can't respect that. It'll be interesting seeing the first full fiscal year under Trump to see the effect his policies on hiring have, because the country must have production.. debt will always skyrocket so long as the top export is likewise debt.

Yeah, not for nothing I have it in my sig at mo. Also this:

 

 

I have long said I find it funny that liberals support policies that widen the gap between rich and poor while claiming to be against it. What better example than the whole QE and ZIRP stuff. When this puppy comes crashing down, and make no mistake about it it will, who is going to lose for the most part? Is it sophisticated investors or traders that will get out on time, or is it the retail investors that always buy at the top and those with 401ks? Of course it's the latter, hey thanks again for the bubble Bernanke/Yellen/Obama. I do not see how Trump can add much more to employment so I wouldn't hold my breath there. I don't appreciate how he flip flopped from low interest rates to wanting them to raise them now back to low. I also don't like his protectionist policies - those do not stimulate growth. I also don't like how he went from (correctly) identifying the market was a bubble, to taking pride in adding even more to the bubble. I don't want to go too much off topic since there's plenty of other better places to discuss this, but I just thought I would point out that while we both have issues with some of Trump's policies on some of them we actually see things the other way(for example I have no problem with DACA) but this seems to be something we agree on. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by OriZ

[Jacque67 7,328]

Back on topic with the crooked Kushners... 

Back in March 

 

A deal with Chinese company Anbang Insurance Group has brought in $400 million dollars for the family of President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, according to a report by Bloomberg. 

The $4 billion deal for a New York City office building located at 666 Fifth Ave. includes the large cash payout to the Kushner's real estate company Kushner Companies. 

 

Some real estate experts consider the terms of the deal's agreement unusually favorable for the Kushners, according to the Bloomberg report. The Manhattan tower has struggled financially and the family's company retains an equity stake in the partnership. A mortgage owed by the Kushners will also be reduced to a fifth of the current amount, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg.

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/kushners-set-to-get-400-million-from-chinese-on-marquee-tower

E5!!!

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 hours ago, bcking said:

At least he was a lawyer being picked for a job that involves law.

 

Better than a lot of people Trump picked for different positions.

cause we need more lawyers in Washington , right ?

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

cause we need more lawyers in Washington , right ?

In the position of ATTORNEY general?

 

I'd say it's appropriate...

[bcking 3,157]

7 hours ago, IAMX said:

I deliberately left out Prescott Bush (US Senate), and George P. Bush (climbing the politics ladder), so that includes HW Bush (1) and W (2), along with Jeb (3), P Bush (4) and Prescott (5), along at least 4 generations. I am likewise not a fan of nepotism, so the left and I would have something to agree on if they were at least consistent with this belief, especially when it came to the Kennedys, Udalls, Pelosis (and other names), Cuomos, Chafees and Tafts, Byrds, Rockefellers, etc. But because Ivanka comes into the picture and has some ambiguous role in the WH, suddenly "nepotism". Dat selective outrage.

I'm not denying there are large political dynasties/families, and nepotism is a serious issue all around.

 

My argument, which you seemed to ignore, was that there are degrees to everything, including this. Being in the Bush family has granted a lot of people very large advantages. However, at least my knowledge, the list of Presidents who have appointed daughters/son in laws to white house positions with top security clearance is quite small (Son/Daughters with no prior experience/position that would suggest they are deserving of such clearance). I don't believe the Bush family, either time, did that. That is why I acknowledged Kennedy as a good example. I'd be curious to know if there are other examples, because I don't know of any.

Edited April 19, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

30 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

cause we need more lawyers in Washington , right ?

we need fresh faced silver spoon yielding 35 year olds with zero experience in anything that wasn't handed to them, yes?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

In the position of ATTORNEY general?

 

I'd say it's appropriate...

So Trump appointed a non attorney to this position? 

[bcking 3,157]

58 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So Trump appointed a non attorney to this position? 

We are talking about Presidential nepotism. So the comparison is between JFK appointing his brother to be AG, and Trump naming his daughter his assistant, and her husband (with no foreign policy or experience whatsoever) to an advisorship with upper level security clearance.

Edited April 19, 2017 by bcking

[Ban Hammer 14,292]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

We are talking about Presidential nepotism. So the comparison is between JFK appointing his brother to be AG, and Trump naming his daughter his assistant, and her husband (with no foreign policy or experience whatsoever) to an advisorship with upper level security clearance.

let's hope the first lady doesn't get to be the school lunch czar. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Ban Hammer

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 hours ago, bcking said:

We are talking about Presidential nepotism. So the comparison is between JFK appointing his brother to be AG, and Trump naming his daughter his assistant, and her husband (with no foreign policy or experience whatsoever) to an advisorship with upper level security clearance.

So what experience did Hillary have when Bill appointed her health car czar, Obama appointed top donors to ambassadorships

 

Heck for that matter how much experience doing anything did Obama have when he was elected president.,Ivanka  has way more experience managing large organizations than Obama ever dreamed of

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So what experience did Hillary have when Bill appointed her health car czar, Obama appointed top donors to ambassadorships

 

Heck for that matter how much experience doing anything did Obama have when he was elected president.,Ivanka  has way more experience managing large organizations than Obama ever dreamed of

Hillary ran a task force in Arkansas focused on reforming Education, so he put in charge of leading a task force for healthcare reform. Doesn't mean she was solely responsible, she was just the coordinator. It is quite typical for First Ladies to have things that they focus on. Seems reasonable.

 

We are talking specifically about family members so not sure how donors are relevant. 

Obama's experience for President is also a little off topic, since obviously he wasn't elected via nepotism towards himself. 

 

You keep drifting from the subject in order to make a point, and it's not working.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

let's hope the first lady doesn't get to be the school lunch czar. 

I'd much rather have a First Lady be a "school lunch czar" than a son in law have the highest level of security clearance and be a "senior advisor" to a President.