I think you have confused some lightweight euroweenie econoic conference with actually weiding the real powers of the office of the presidency.

I dont care who sits in the damn chair for 10 minutes. There is nothing substantive going on here. Chelsea would be fine as well.

First Trump is so incompetent, he should resign and be replaced with absolutely anyone.

Second, critical bad things are going to happen if he doesn't nod politely and hold Angela Merkels hand for the entire session.

Which is it?

These journalistic idiots are grasping at staws here, and so are you.

Umm... does Chelsea have a hand in something being discussed at this conference?

"Umm... does Chelsea have a hand in something being discussed at this conference?"

Shut up, peons, it's her turn to rule!

There's much more to the service provided by the Executive branch than "weiding the real powers."

Who 'sits in chairs' is very much a consideration. He put his fashion-twat daughter in a representative position: This is inexcusable.

Ivanka for president.

Who 'sits in chairs' is very much a consideration. He put his fashion-twat daughter in a representative position: This is inexcusable.

Crid at July 8, 2017 8:47 AM

The fashion Twat daughter with the cum laude degree in economics from the Warton school of business?

Why is it inexcusable? I really want to know how you are parsing this.

> Ivanka for president.

She will be the first female president. She is "The Apprentice."

Radwaste: Umm... does Chelsea have a hand in something being discussed at this conference?

Brian Klass is criticizing Trump for allowing Ivanka (his daughter) to take his seat for ten minutes.

He's suggesting that if Hillary Clinton had won the election and allowed Chelsea to do the same thing, Fox News would have had a meltdown.

Holland considers euthanasia for the healthy:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/30/netherlands-considers-euthanasia-healthy/

> The fashion Twat daughter
> with the cum laude degree
> in economics from the Warton
> school of business?

Yes; that fashion twat daughter.

But perhaps you were one of the many Americans who was totally okay with it when WJC started putting his loathsome yet Yale-educated wife on committees.

I was appalled.

TODAY IN HISTORY

"We have received reports that President Truman left the room for ten minutes during a meeting on Thursday and instructed his assistant, J. Wentworth Frummplemeyer III, to sit in his chair during his brief absence."

And THAT is why we lost World War II, people.

If you're saying you believe WWIII to be the project by which this President wants to be judged, I'll totally believe you.

Did she vote on anything while sitting in the chair? Did she advocate anything? Did she make a speech?

If not, then, it's only symbolic. Important symbolism, but only symbolic nonetheless.

On the other hand, Mrs. WJC's position on committees involved voting, speechifying, and advocating.

However, it does set a bad precedent and Trump deserves repudiation for doing it. This is the US government, not the Trump Organization, the family business.

We've had enough of presidents treating the government as the family business from the Clintons and the Bushes - and the Kennedys and Adams and the Roosevelts.

> Important symbolism, but
> only symbolic nonetheless.

Self-abnegating, no?

You guys turned in your balls.

Meeeeee-yow.....

Barro.

You guys turned in your balls. ~ Crid at July 8, 2017 6:32 PM

Nah, we're just not as emotionally invested in Trump's presidency being immediately labeled a failure as you seem to be.

In all honesty, he'll probably turn out to be a mediocre president with some failures and some successes. I doubt his election is a harbinger of doom for the Republic; nor, however, is it a sign of a healthy electorate.

Most likely, his election is a necessary step in a long repair process for our ailing electorate - whether as a good example or an object lesson remains to be seen.

Ivanka has an undergraduate degree, not an MBA from the prestigious MBA program. Four years of college with an OK grade point average and a failing line of dowdy women's clothing that she likely wouldn't have if she weren't born with gold coins stuffed up her ass is not much in the way of credentials to sit in the president's seat representing our country opposite Putin and Merkel. She'd never, ever, ever be there in a billion years were she not Trump's little girl.

Nepotism is a bad idea, period. HRC was better-qualified than Ivanka, but it still wasn't right for Bill to appoint her. And if you screamed about that, you should be screaming about this. We need stronger anti-nepotism provisions -- if we're going to have political family dynasties, we should at least be voting them in.

Ironic as hell that the same people who screeching about the Clintons and Bushes producing a succession of politicians think it's hunky dory for Trump to re-create a Saudi-esque dynasty. Just pathetic.

And if you screamed about that, you should be screaming about this.

Point

Counterpoint, I no longer really give a fuck and am enjoying watching liberals go insane over behavior exhibited by Trump and Co they lauded in liberal politicians

New favorite pop song! ♪—

♫ And if you screamed
about that
you should be screaming
about this ♬

While your full attention is rightly attuned the vectors of my interior life —particularly, if perhaps immodestly, to my emotions— your assessment of motives is a little goofy. I'm not interested in "labeling" anything at all. With a loathsome & incompetent personage such as Trump ensconced in our highest position of executive service, neither I nor any other taxpayer owes him so much as a blink of patience before we express judgment. Nor, in ANY context, have we been shown a convincing agenda for goals this administration might have for defending, let alone improving, the state of our nation.

So this isn't about the passage of time, or the amusement of some Pakistani historian in the 24th century. Trump, and his ludicrous staffers and his venal, clueless family, are fucking things up right now. Your apparent resistance to unqualified criticism is merely timid, not even-handed. To say 'Well, this-or-that bundle of public servants was pretty corrupt too!' means nothing... Especially when, as above, the resentment Hillary's depredation is so transparently contextual.



Reading Snoopy's comments above, and now thinking about the totality of his comments, calls to mind some excellent discussion on this week's Fifth Column podcast about the nature of internet trolls (in the context of the Trump/CNN gif)... Basically, for such people, participation is about expressing disruptively childish resentments. One need not waste time searching their work for principles to dispute.

Last week, in the most obnoxious possible context, Darth posted a link about the improvement of life in recent decades, as if to invalidate the criticisms and observations on this blog.

Let's give the Devil his due. Some good things will happen during this Trump administration, and that is certain. Some of them may well be set in motion by Trump.

But most of them were going to happen anyway. There's no need to credit him for planetary good luck, or for anything he doesn't set in motion through willful, publicly-affirmed effort. He's a public servant, hired help, and he should do what I want him to do whether I voted for him or not.

And I didn't. He's a child of wealth who grew up to be incompetent financier, as tawdry in the full scope of his life as in his wretched, gossiping television performances.

There's nothing to wait for, Coney. The man's as putrescent as can be. You affirm that we need to 'wait and see,' when his corruptions are every bit as wretched as those of the Clinton Foundation while only less proficient. (And people says so as if to soothe: Hillary was worse!)

"Naw."

You have to give the democrats their due.

Unlike a lot of woozy half baked libertarians on this board, they instinctively understand that politics is a team sport.

Although they secretly might loathe their own teams quarterback, they will support him fully until he proves to be a loser.
Even if they love him, and agree with all his positions, God help him if he joins the other team. They will turn on him in a heartbeat and rip him to shreds.

I think Ivanka is a typical rich girl and is probably as poorly educated about how the world works as most thirty somethings coming out of ivy league schools. (Still not as clueless as the Pope)

A life spent playing intellectual kitten on the keys is poor preparation for dealing with thorny global issues.
That said, she shows a great deal more poise under fire (thinking of the Jet Blue incident) than Hillary ever has.

Dont know about Chelsea but if her canned social justice tweets are any indication, she inherited half of Bill's brains, but thankfully not a lot of her mother's nasty disposition.

I think Crid was unfair calling Ivanka a twat. Economics still has some cred left as an undergraduate field of study, unlike say *international relations*. However Ivanka is a card carrying member of the Church of Climate Change so I expect the Eurotrash running the EU are quite comfortable around her.

As I so very, very often asked, regarding Obama, for so many, many years: Is there any reason to think she's ever done anything for anyone in her entire life?

Just curious!

Because unlike Obama, she wasn't even elected. So we got the ass-packed wealth of Gail's description, the inappropriate & unearned presence representing the United States in world affairs, and a blank resume for public (or presumably private) service in any context.

Name calling seems appropriate here.

See also this article and Welch's podcast, linked above. Also, recent thoughts from Drezner.

Trump's incompetence and Euroweenie conferences can be plenty consequential.

Trump's incompetence and Euroweenie conferences can be plenty consequential.

Crid at July 9, 2017 7:02 AM

I want details here. Past G20 conferences and anything substantial you think came out of them. The economy is so trashed, there is almost quite literally no way out of insovency down the road for the US.

As far as I am concerned all politicians are putting on a lying face and rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Gail claims to be a libertarian, but unlike your posts, hers are always firmily in the camp of Team Blue.

Hint. She thinks Hillary is a wonderful person and would have been a great President because she met her once and didnt personally see her throw a single lamp at either Bill or the Secret Service agent.

However, it does set a bad precedent and Trump deserves repudiation for doing it. This is the US government, not the Trump Organization, the family business.

We've had enough of presidents treating the government as the family business from the Clintons and the Bushes - and the Kennedys and Adams and the Roosevelts.

Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2017 6:20 PM

A president's relative should not be an adviser to the White House (paid or unpaid) - Wharton economics degree or Yale law degree notwithstanding. We all know a president is going to ask family members for advice, but to make it official smacks of nepotism.

Most presidents have honored an unspoken anti-nepotism rule for the White House - e.g., GHWB did not appoint GWB or JEB or any of his other offspring to official White House advisory positions, despite many of them having extensive business and/or political experience. Bill Clinton later made a mockery of the rule with his "two for one" boast about his future First Lady. Neither GW Bush nor Obama appointed or used family members as official advisors. Then came Trump.

Ivanka may be a very smart woman, but an undergraduate degree in economics, even cum laude from Wharton, imbues the graduate with neither a deep understanding of economics nor world affairs. Her past experience has been in her father's company, running her own jewelry and fashion businesses, and a brief stint at a non-Trump real estate development company. Not exactly a great grounding in world affairs. She is neither published in these areas nor relied upon by anyone but her father for advice in these areas.

Her father's trust in her wisdom and insight has not been echoed by the public. While Ivanka's work on a World Bank women's finance initiative (the topic that was being discussed while she occupied the US representative's chair) did give her some standing among the G20 representatives attending the event, the US public has not placed its trust in her. Having a Cabinet officer sit in for him would have been better, despite the fact that the role was mostly symbolic and could have been filled by a random passerby.

As far as I am concerned all politicians are putting on a lying face and rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. ~ Isab at July 9, 2017 7:23 AM

At this point, yes. Trump may try to roll back the welfare state, but too many have become so dependent upon it that it has become a permanent fixture. Same with the regulatory state.

The man's as putrescent as can be. You affirm that we need to 'wait and see,' when his corruptions are every bit as wretched as those of the Clinton Foundation while only less proficient. ~ Crid at July 9, 2017 1:17 AM

I've seen nothing in his public actions to refute that position, but I won't claim to know everything about him. Can anyone be as putrescent as you've argued he is without having some redeeming feature? Perhaps he reads to orphans outside the spotlight. Per your earlier argument, I see no reason to assume he does anything remotely like actual charity work. However, he did employ people on his projects and that employment of people carried with it, by default, some public benefit. If that's his only redeeming point, so be it.

Trump may well be a modern-day James Buchanan. He's alienated half his own party as well as most of the opposition party. He is, by temperament, incapable of healing the country's rifts. He is attempting to govern business as usual while the country is careening toward an irreversible split, the foundation of which was laid long before he took office.

Let's hope he doesn't live up (down?) to Buchanan's legacy, else he may very well be the last president of a united United States.

If a civil war is coming, it will not be like the last one, states seceding with distinct armies meeting in set-piece battles fought along defined boundaries according to accepted rules of war. This one will be fought in the streets with random violence and mob rule.

Nonetheless, Trump may still turn out to be the president we need at this point. Whether as a shining example or an object lesson remains to be seen. But, he was elected and partisan-driven removal of him from office out of anger and contempt does the country, the electorate, and society no good, and may in fact do great harm to all three. We have to ride this out. And we can do it stomping our feet, pitching a temper tantrum, and demanding it not be so; or we can do it making the best of the situation we're in.

Because, in reality, the opposition party is not offering better.

Continuation of the opposition-supported status quo (divisive identity politics, an over-reaching regulatory state, and an ever-expanding welfare state) will only divide us further and bankrupt us sooner.

The truth is, our republic is ailing. Clinton or Trump was not a choice a healthy republic would ever have to make. Bernie Sanders at least offered a coherent political and social viewpoint, albeit a horribly flawed one. Trump's opponent, Mrs. Clinton, offered nothing more than a continuation of the status quo and expanded corruption.

Trump is not the cure for what ails us by any stretch of the imagination, but at the very least, offers a step in a different direction, a brief interruption of the expansion of an insatiable regulatory state and imposition of identity politics into every nook and cranny of American political life.

For that and the appointment of a strict Constitutionalist like Gorsuch to the Court, I'll take a "wait and see" attitude toward his presidency, despite his "less proficient" and wretched corruptions.

Congrats, Isab. I've moved you over to the "not worth even an eyeroll" camp. What I said about HRC was to dispute your ridiculous characterization of her as a falling-down drunk. Not quite the same thing as praising her. Feel free to make shit up, though. I'll give you a gift to start you off -- I do think she's way better than Trump, which says some really sad things about the 2016 election. Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson would have been much better, but neither stood a chance, which says even sadder things.

Good news, guys! Trump's going to collaborate with Russia on cybersecurity! https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump. To think Hillary would have made them hack into our systems rather than hand them the keys.

If Reagan were around today, he'd be forming a new party.

By the way, from your posts, Isab, I wouldn't call you conservative or libertarian -- I'd call you
alt-right. Ditto for most of Trump's dwindling number of hard-core fans.

Also, I'll say this: the one thing for which I give credit to Trump is Gorsuch, who is simply an excellent choice (though he would have been top of the list for pretty much any conservative president, and was no doubt pushed forward by the wiser, more informed elements of the Trump camp).

Other than that, he is a flailing, ranting, mess who is dragging down the GOP and embarrassing us in the eyes of the world.

...that said, as terrific as I think Gorsuch is, I believe we purchased him too dearly, given that he came at the cost of Trump.

Please, congress can strip the executive branch of every last iota of extra constitutional power it has been accruing since the Whiskey Rebellion any time it wants.

Problem is doing so ensures the next candidate of whatever party assumes office will be just as powerless.

Politicans may hate Trump but if they really, TRULY, thought he was a danger they would have already stripped his power

The fact they haven't even TALKED about doing so is telling

Other than that, he is a flailing, ranting, mess who is dragging down the GOP and embarrassing us in the eyes of the world.

Gail at July 9, 2017 11:51 AM

Yep. Team Blue

And Conan, .How many degrees of seperation before you can work in the White House?

Nephews, neices, second cousins ok? How about your mother in laws sister?

What abour fellow alum from law school?

What if they are working for free? Or getting paid by the Clinton foundation, like Hillary's IT guy?

You want to rid the government of nepotism, you are going to have to go a lot farther than any democrat has ever gone, or would be willing to go.

That is what the civil service rules were supposed to prevent.
Take a look at how that worked out. Obama converted half his political appointees to civil service on his way out the door.

"Name calling seems appropriate here." Right, because this, as opposed to responsibility, decorum, dedication and care about the issues is what will get you a better candidate next year.

"I'll give you a gift to start you off -- I do think she's way better than Trump, which says some really sad things about the 2016 election."

This from the person who said *I'd* "lost it" because I wasn't reading Breitbart to oppose earlier commentary. Sucks when you can't label somebody, doesn't it?

Which lie of Hillary's or what episode makes her better? The deal on Uranium? "Sniper fire" landing in the ME? Getting fired from Rose Law firm? Backing BO in lying about Benghazi? "Hillarycare", with its own set of lies about how it was being pursued?
The Web has featured her own supporters several times being unable to name a single accomplishment making her worthy of the Presidency.

All of these things are independent of Trump. Do tell.

Yonder.

This is what we in the family call a "family business weekend" even though it starts on Sunday and goes to Wednesday. So I'm typing on a teentsy keyboard, which doesn't always go so well when you're trying to say something more articulate than "I'm paying the gas bill from outta town." I'll reply to all this midweek, so check back often.

Meanwhile, be assured that my insights are golden, my principles are stellar, and my alliances are world-changing; plus I am correct about stuff in 100% of contexts. See you later in the week!

Meanwhile, basically, Team Gail 👍

Trump The Businessman could learn a few lessons from Hillary The Inevitable Next President.

Like how to go from being "flat broke" to earning $230 million in 14 years on a government salary of much less than 200k.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435968/hillary-clinton-bill-clintons-crime-family-where-politics-and-mafia-meet

Trump The Businessman could learn a few lessons from Hillary The Inevitable Next President.

Like how to go from being "flat broke" to earning $230 million in 14 years on a government salary of much less than 200k.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435968/hillary-clinton-bill-clintons-crime-family-where-politics-and-mafia-meet

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 9, 2017 8:18 PM

Probably just an *alt right fantasy* Gog, like the forty year record of Hillary throwing temper tantrums, and knocking back the booze.

Best indicator of a classy person? How they treat the help.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18389/watch-president-trump-picks-marines-fallen-hat-joseph-curl?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

According to the article itself, the topic being discussed was one that Ivanka was directly involved in. I don't see what the big deal is. If Chelsea Clinton were there and they were discussing how to get paid millions by a media company without doing any work, I suspect she'd be at the table too.

And Conan, .How many degrees of seperation before you can work in the White House? ~ Isab at July 9, 2017 3:25 PM

How many degrees do you need to ensure that the person being hired for a job is qualified for that job and not being hired because they're related to the boss? Is one enough? Twenty?

Has Ivanka risen to a high level in any organization that was not controlled by her family or her family's connections? Has Hillary? Had Robert Kennedy? Was the country well-served by having them as close advisors to the president, instead of someone who was recognized as an expert in the subject area?

Ivanka Trump may be very smart (I think she is), but she has never achieved a publicly-recognized expertise level in any field; never published or called upon as a subject-matter expert in any field. Has she ever been recognized for her expertise outside of the Trump umbrella?

What if they are working for free? ~ Isab at July 9, 2017 3:25 PM

This ain't socialism. Nobody works for free.

So, what's in it for them? RFK got political exposure and a shot at running for president. HRC, the same. What are Jared and Ivanka getting?

And who's covering their expenses while they're working for "free?" RFK had the Kennedy fortune. HRC had her husband's salary. Jared and Ivanka are independently wealthy. But what about the next presidential relative working for "free?"

Best indicator of a classy person? How they treat the help. ~ Isab at July 10, 2017 3:59 AM

The Marine cover incident (a Marine or sailor's headgear is a "cover") speaks well of Trump, especially going after it personally the second time, and is one of those humanizing anecdotes that have been missing from the major media coverage of him.

Contrasted with Obama's asking a Marine to hold an umbrella (though not intended by Obama as an insult), it reflects even more favorably on Trump.

Then again, the president can ask anyone he wants to for advice. And it's silly to think he wouldn't ask family. It's the official status as a White House advisor that bugs most people and smacks of nepotism.

And Ivanka was representing the US in a discussion of a global initiative on women's business financing, something in which she'd already represented the US at the first meeting with Angele Merkel et al. So, it's not like she was sitting in Daddy's chair while the grown ups discussed nuclear disarmament. Much ado about nothing.

"How many degrees do you need to ensure that the person being hired for a job is qualified for that job and not being hired because they're related to the boss? Is one enough? Twenty?"

You can never sus out motivations short of picking the White House staff randomly out of voter registrations. That was my point. Because the hiring authorities always control the system. They will engineer an *appearance* of fairness.

The world runs on nepotism, and other social connections. Thinking you can screen it out is like believing that hormone treatments allow you to change your sex.

Chairman Mao sent the literate middle class out to the farms to grow rice. In turn he sent the peasants to the hospitals to be doctors.

Party members children were of course, exempt. They werent growing rice, and neither were they being treated by rice farmers forced to work as doctors.