> "nepotism with his children is bad, but nepotism with the democrats children is fine."
Do you seriously believe that Biden as president will appoint his children as senior advisers and put his son-in-law in charge of everything from Middle East to Covid-19 response?
If not, then you can't argue that it's the same nepotism on both sides. It's clearly been much worse with the Trumps.
no, I don't. But I'm so glad that you'll suddenly being paying attention to nepotism appointments, like Lisa and Mike Madigan in Illinois.
I'm just saying that you won't complain about them, and you didn't. Just those mean old republicans matter.
I can't imagine what ridiculous credit democrats would take if the middle east countries kept normalizing relations with israel like they did in the past 6 months.
Was either of these Madigans the President of the United States, and the other a close relative in charge of half of the administration's portfolio? If not, then it's not the same. I'll probably start caring about Madigans when they're nationally relevant.
Most accounts from the Trump White House, e.g. Bolton’s book, report that Kushner had a substantial daily influence on Trump. He was officially in charge of numerous initiatives. It’s hard to argue that he and Ivanka were not present in White House deliberations.
wow its hard to argue with such things as demonstrative as "substantial daily influence" and "numerous initiatives" as well as being "present at white house deliberations"
it wouldnt suprise me if what he had for breakfast had a bigger impact.
People are probably harder on him because it was an explicit campaign promise that he would be less corrupt as a non politician. That doesn’t seem to have panned out imo.
