Trump's son in law to be his senior adviser

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, MJHolland said:

Being an in law is not the same as being related 

In laws don't get the same end of life rights, for example, as blood sons and daughters have over their parents 

 

In laws are listed as relatives. Read. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Creativek said:

But if you read the article. There seems to be a loophole regarding the office of the president being considered an agency.

Politicians have been hiring friends into government positions for years. This is hardly anything shocking.

 

Friends? 

This is about hiring relatives and there is list of who is considered related. Why do you have anti-nepotism laws in first place?

 

So because some others in the past broke the laws, President should get a free pass too? 

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, lego said:

 

In laws are listed as relatives. Read. 

 

 

 

Friends? 

This is about hiring relatives and there is list of who is considered related. Why do you have anti-nepotism laws in first place?

 

So because some others in the past broke the laws, President should get a free pass too? 

 

Yooooo chill lol there's no reason to be bitchy 

I was just pondering 

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

32 minutes ago, lego said:

 

In laws are listed as relatives. Read. 

 

 

 

Friends? 

This is about hiring relatives and there is list of who is considered related. Why do you have anti-nepotism laws in first place?

 

So because some others in the past broke the laws, President should get a free pass too? 

 

This is really something to argue about lol. If it's illegal then the son-in-law won't be hired.

If it isn't illegal (which the article you linked explains might not be, but I'm not sure why you are ignoring said article) then the son-in-law will be hired.

No reason to get hysterical 

[lego 44,165]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

Yooooo chill lol there's no reason to be bitchy 

I was just pondering 

 

53 minutes ago, Creativek said:

This is really something to argue about lol. If it's illegal then the son-in-law won't be hired.

If it isn't illegal (which the article you linked explains might not be, but I'm not sure why you are ignoring said article) then the son-in-law will be hired.

No reason to get hysterical 

 

 

What's with the name calling? Just because I'm not using emoticons in political thread, it doesn't mean my tone or attitude is "bitchy" or "hysterical".  That is quite rude thing to say. 

You're reading too much into something, that isn't there, you both quoted me and expected a debate and you come back with that?

 

Whatever. The article throws doubt, but it's simply an opinion, the anti-nepotism statute exists for a reason and I don't think Trump cares if he breaks law or not. 

 

 

Two recent White House ethics counsels, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, also believe an appointment such as Kushner’s would violate the Anti-Nepotism Statute.

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

11 minutes ago, lego said:

 

 

 

What's with the name calling? Just because I'm not using emoticons in political thread, it doesn't mean my tone or attitude is "bitchy" or "hysterical".  That is quite rude thing to say. 

You're reading too much into something, that isn't there, you both quoted me and expected a debate and you come back with that?

 

Whatever. The article throws doubt, but it's simply an opinion, the anti-nepotism statute exists for a reason and I don't think Trump cares if he breaks law or not. 

 

 

Two recent White House ethics counsels, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, also believe an appointment such as Kushner’s would violate the Anti-Nepotism Statute.

 

Mess at you being rude to me for no reason and somehow blaming me for being rude. Lol. 

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, MJHolland said:

Mess at you being rude to me for no reason and somehow blaming me for being rude. Lol. 

 

Mess at you thinking that was rude. I didn't insult you. 

[Maleficent 6]

1 hour ago, Creativek said:

But if you read the article. There seems to be a loophole regarding the office of the president being considered an agency.

Politicians have been hiring friends into government positions for years. This is hardly anything shocking.

 

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

Being an in law is not the same as being related 

In laws don't get the same end of life rights, for example, as blood sons and daughters have over their parents 

 

1 hour ago, lego said:

 

are you two fvcking blind?? He even highlighted the parts you're negating! 

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

2 hours ago, lego said:

He's ****ing breaking the law, but who cares

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/18/502637785/jared-kushner-and-the-anti-nepotism-statute-that-might-keep-him-from-the-white-h

 

 

When you debate using profanity, it comes across as you being really upset (hysterical).

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

1 minute ago, Maleficent said:

 

 

are you two fvcking blind?? He even highlighted the parts you're negating! 

Listen.

As the article states,the loophole is in section 3. B. 

Trump can possibly get away with this because he is not appointing his son-in-law to a postion belonging to any "agency." 

Can you debate in a rational manner? Swearing at me just because you disagree does not strengthen your argument.

[lego 44,165]

4 minutes ago, Creativek said:

When you debate using profanity, it comes across as you being really upset (hysterical).

 

"Bitchy" and "hysterical" comments come across as sexist. 

 

I did not debate with anyone in my first comment, you are reaching. 

 

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

Just now, lego said:

 

"Bitchy" and "hysterical" comments come across as sexist. 

 

I did not debate with anyone in my first comment, you are reaching. 

 

And this is why I don't get involved in many topics here :p

[Maleficent 6]

56 minutes ago, Creativek said:

And this is why I don't get involved in many topics here :p

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

Just now, Maleficent said:

How welcoming! Thank you for inviting me in

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Creativek said:

And this is why I don't get involved in many topics here :p

You don't get involved in topics because people might accuse you of being sexist or something? Is that what you were implying? If so could that maybe be because maybe you say things that are sexist without understanding the meaning behind them?  Or is it more likely that you're just right all of the time and these darn SJWs are always pushing their agenda on you Answer for yourself. I think its worth reflecting on.

[Cuchulainn 3,040]

24 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

You don't get involved in topics because people might accuse you of being sexist or something? Is that what you were implying? If so could that maybe be because maybe you say things that are sexist without understanding the meaning behind them?  Or is it more likely that you're just right all of the time and these darn SJWs are always pushing their agenda on you Answer for yourself. I think its worth reflecting on.

I never mentioned anything about "SJWs".. Very assuming of you.

The way you talk down to me as if I don't know the meaning behind the word I'm using is disgusting honestly. Hysterical is NOT used as a gender based adjective in normal daily language where I'm from. 

I don't like to get involved because it feels like if I have a different opinion than how the majority of people think here, my thought's would just be drowned in condescending remarks like the one you just made. 

My comments above were related to the article Lego linked and I was called 'fvcking blind' for having a different thought on the issue. We'll let that one slide though.