Boycott Bee!

Status
Not open for further replies.
She is Trump's senior adviser. You need only look at his track record and determine that his advisers are either wholly ineffectual or in on it.
 
Manfred Belheim said:
Well from what Valka said it would have to be a "sexual term" from a North American point of view, which I don't think any of those are (although I'm surprised bugger isn't to be honest).

Also I can't believe Australians don't use "bugger" in the same way because I'm sure I've heard it. I didn't even think Americans said it at all. And I really can't imagine anyone other than a nun blushing at "bum".
Click to expand...

She said it was a sexual term, but it wasn't clear from who's point of view it was sexual.

between the American cast/crew and the Australian cast/crew. Words that are not a big deal to North Americans had the Australian actors turning bright red with embarrassment.
Click to expand...

From that, I viewed it as the words were sexual in nature to the Australians, whether the term was sexual in nature also to the Americans it's hard to say without knowing what word was used.

Also, keep in mind the Xena: Princess warrior was filmed ~20 years ago, some things such as how words are viewed, or how often they are used, may have changed since then.
 
Are you 100% sure which? She doesn't really have the luxury to quit like many others, or probably being fired either. What if she is indeed trying to temper his excesses and is fighting a losing battle. I find that more believable, but heck, I'm not privy to their conversations so I can't judge that with any accuracy.
 
rah said:
Are you 100% sure which? She doesn't really have the luxury to quit like many others, or probably being fired either. What if she is indeed trying to temper his excesses and is fighting a losing battle. I find that more believable, but heck, I'm not privy to their conversations so I can't judge that with any accuracy.
Click to expand...

Maybe, yet her brand is doing well because of this position and she doesn't seem very concerned about the impact of her father's decisions. Even if she's against what's happening, she is certainly enjoying the spoils of it.
 
rah said:
Are you 100% sure which? She doesn't really have the luxury to quit like many others, or probably being fired either. What if she is indeed trying to temper his excesses and is fighting a losing battle. I find that more believable, but heck, I'm not privy to their conversations so I can't judge that with any accuracy.
Click to expand...

The only clearly Ivanka driven policy position was the child care credit she wanted in the tax bill. You know, the one where she would get reimbursed for all her nanny expenses, and Trump himself would be paid back the cost of Barron's floor in the Trump Tower and the five person staff that maintains it.
 
If that's the only thing you got, it's kind of a stretch to say that she is destroying democracy. What Trump is doing, is a bit more of a direct cause.
 
rah said:
If that's the only thing you got, it's kind of a stretch to say that she is destroying democracy. What Trump is doing, is a bit more of a direct cause.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out that just by participating in the open nepotism that Trump has brought to the executive branch she is very clearly involved in "destroying Democracy." I was only providing a specific policy because you seemingly asked for a specific policy.
 
And like I said, I don't see a lot of difference than when the first lady participates or other family members. But when you disagree with the policy, then it's destroying Democracy.
When Bobby Kennedy was the AG, was that destroying Democracy?
 
RFK's appointment was controversial. Did you know congress passed a law in 1967, in response to RFK's appointment, that precludes the President from nominating a family member for any position for which they would enjoy supervisory authority over federal employees?
 
rah said:
And like I said, I don't see a lot of difference than when the first lady participates or other family members. But when you disagree with the policy, then it's destroying Democracy.
When Bobby Kennedy was the AG, was that destroying Democracy?
Click to expand...

Had Bobby Kennedy's only qualification been the fact that he was the President's brother, yeah, it would have been. But that was not his only qualification. That's the same kind of false equivalence that Berzerker tried, and I expect better of you than from him.
 
stinkubus said:
RFK's appointment was controversial. Did you know congress passed a law in 1967, in response to RFK's appointment, that precludes the President from nominating a family member for any position for which they would enjoy supervisory authority over federal employees?
Click to expand...
Naw, I was only thirteen at the time so I don't remember, very good point. Back then, the main controversy was the they were Catholic. ;) Has Ivanka been appointed to such a position? My point was that there are many examples in History where presidential family members participated in an advisory capacity. Bush advised his son when he was president. His brother also. There are many other examples.
Now is the entire argument here that Tim and others don't believe she is qualified to advise on anything? She is a successful business woman in her own right. You may argue that her success is the result of her name but I don't think that diminishes her totally. Heck isn't that what almost half the voters declared was good enough for Trump to be president? (regardless of how hilarious it is)

So yeah, I have no problem with disagreeing with her politics. That's your right. But to sensationalize it and calling it the death of democracy is just plain ridiculous.
And using that disagreement to say she deserves to be called what Bee called her, is over the line in my opinion. But it is obvious that many here have a different opinion on that and it disappoints me because I respect a lot of the people that are doing it. I am wrong on many things, but I didn't want to be on that.
 
If she was just an advisor, that would still be hugely problematic given her utter lack of qualifications for giving advice, but I mean it's normal to ask family members for advice.

But she's not. She's representing the U.S. in an official capacity. She participated in opening the embassy in Jerusalem, for example. She is often present at official meetings with high level foreign dignitaries.

The "First Lady" comparison is bogus, because we have a First Lady. Ivanka has an official role on staff, as does Jared Kushner (who is an even bigger problem), and appears at functions in an actual, official staff position. Solely on account of being the president's child. She has a PERMANENT top security clearance now, which not only means that Trump can tell her anything he wants - which he was always free to do - she can independently insert herself in any high-level thing she wants, and is cleared to do so. First Ladies DO NOT get that kind of access.

And of course, if nepotism wasn't bad enough, while she has all of this unearned access, while her father is negotiating trade and such with countries like China, she is cutting deals of her own, getting trademark disputes settled in her favor, etc.

Honestly, if you don't see a giant problem here, and think it's melodrama that these garbage people are curb-stomping democracy and turning us into a third-rate family business like their precious family money-laundering business, then all I can say is that your level of uncaring is what leads to them being able to get away with this crap.
 
How is her participating in the opening of the embassy destroying democracy. Michelle Obama did some dignitary work herself. Jared is not part of the argument since everyone seems to already agree on that part of it. And if you think past presidents have told things to family members in the past, you're just naive.
I'd rather have Ivanka advising the president than the star gazing Nancy when Reagan was having delusions.

I have no disagreement on some of the business aspects. It's wrong plain and simple, and wasn't part of the discussion till your recent post.
Your original complaint was

metalhead said:
She has no influence on her father. Surely none that she seems to be exercising, though it's also likely she actually likes what he is doing and agrees with his actions.

However she does have influence over herself. She has no business in any affairs of government. She should not be conducting state affairs AT ALL, but has the freaking gall to go places as an official representative of the United States.

It is quite destructive to our democracy to have utterly unqualified people running around playing diplomat, solely because they are the president's children. It makes us look like a banana republic, and it destroys international faith that our institutions and affairs are actually free and democratic.

We're not supposed to have hereditary nobility. The whole idea is anathema to our constitution and everything this country's founders fought against. You're offended by a word? Well, I'm offended by a person who is so freaking entitled she doesn't think twice about making a mockery of our entire system of government and its underpinnings that supposedly make it so great.

I'm sorry you find my disgust for people who are cheapening our country and what it stands for to be melodramatic.
Click to expand...

I was addressing that.
Hopefully we'll learn all the details on the business and people will pay.

And regardless, gentlemen don't call women that. And certainly don't revel in like the people here seem to.

I didn't vote for him, I don't support him. But there are some lines best not to cross.

I need a break from all the unbridled hate here. You all are quickly becoming what you despise.

See ya. This is why you have problems winning elections.
 
rah said:
How is her participating in the opening of the embassy destroying democracy. Michelle Obama did some dignitary work herself. Jared is not part of the argument since everyone seems to already agree on that part of it. And if you think past presidents have told things to family members in the past, you're just naive.
I'd rather have Ivanka advising the president than the star gazing Nancy when Reagan was having delusions.
Click to expand...

I already answered this. She has a top security clearance. She isn't just an advisor. She can do whatever she wants, access any information she wants, and guess what? Nobody can tell her not to do something, because she's the president's daughter. She will win every single power struggle.

This goes WAY beyond presidents telling their spouses or children or parents things. I already pointed out that's a normal thing to do.

You should be outraged. That you not only aren't outraged, but think the problem is that some people are, shows what's wrong with this country. fudge civility. We've tried for decades to be civil with these racist reactionaries. In response we get kicked in the face over. And over. And over again. I'm done. The country is on fire, and I'm going to act like it.
 
metalhead said:
You should be outraged. That you not only aren't outraged, but think the problem is that some people are, shows what's wrong with this country. **** civility. We've tried for decades to be civil with these racist reactionaries. In response we get kicked in the face over. And over. And over again. I'm done. The country is on fire, and I'm going to act like it.
Click to expand...

Me too. I've shifted my family's future out of the country.
 
7 pages on the semantics of the swear word that was used yet not one post on the content of the monologue in which it appeared...

That about sums up how American Democracy has become purely infotainment without value. (And no, I don't want to repeat about what it was here and now, you got to go and watch it).
 
<shrugs> Is anybody fussed with the content of the monologue elsewise? I think you're on a different page when it comes to what the issue is. That's fine, I'm not on the same page all the time. But seriously, I don't think anyone cares about the content all that much to make it discussion worthy news. Ivanka Trump is pretty clearly fair game for criticism, she's participating instead of keeping her head low. Criticism is necessary*. The issue is the slur. Now, you might not find the issue compelling, but not appreciating a subject doesn't mean it is without value.

*Though that doesn't mean all of it is of positive value, by definition, either.
 
mitsho said:
7 pages on the semantics of the swear word that was used yet not one post on the content of the monologue in which it appeared...

That about sums up how American Democracy has become purely infotainment without value. (And no, I don't want to repeat about what it was here and now, you got to go and watch it).
Click to expand...

I think this is a pretty big leap. There is not the slightest question that I peruse and post on CFC/OT as an entertainment. What does that say about the state of USian democracy? Frankly, nothing. I would cheerfully participate in an entire evening worth of discussion, over beers, regarding the semantics of this or any other word, swear or otherwise, as an entertainment. This also says nothing about the state of USian democracy. Not everything has to be a partisan gathering of the clans for battle to the death in order to assure the continuance of democracy.
 
Valka D'Ur said:
No, it is never okay to call a woman the "c-word." Never.
Click to expand...

Oh man, someone using genitalia-based insults. What a dick move. It's always okay to call someone an idiot if they're being one, and that applies across all insulting words, including this one.

Akka said:
But seriously, what's with the US horror reactions toward vulgar words ?
Click to expand...
The spirit of Puritanism, maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom