7 ms·

I think the phrase you're groping for would be 'political patronage', not 'actual corruption' - unless you're alleging he fundraised for the Clinton campaign wi

I think the phrase you're groping for would be 'political patronage', not 'actual corruption' - unless you're alleging he fundraised for the Clinton campaign with the express intention of obtaining that particular seat. Otherwise political patronage is the same as it has always been, and in this case was marred by the fact they probably didn't have any relevant positions to reward him, and cast about for any seat available. If you look through the diplomatic appointments of the last ~10 presidents, you'll find that many are unqualified for their appointments. It's the same process that brought Mike 'heck of a job' Brown to the head of FEMA, where he concerned himself with his dinner plans as thousands of Americans drowned in New Orleans. And truthfully, I'll bet every presidential appointment ever has been made first and foremost on the basis of that president's relation to the individual, unless you can find me an appointment made on the behalf of an individual said president hated personally. Broken? Absolutely. Corrupt? No.

ryanlol 10y ago
I wrote a longer reply but it really comes down to this: Rajiv Fernando was not qualified to be on this particular natsec expert board that comes with a Top Secret clearance. Political patronage isn't necessarily wrong when you're handing out the typical ambassadorships which people tend to actually be qualified for. However, it certainly becomes "actual corruption" when you start putting those people in impactful roles that they're utterly unqualified for. I didn't just pull out a random example out of my ass.
- travmatt 10y ago
  >Rajiv Fernando was not qualified to be on this particular natsec expert board that comes with a Top Secret clearance. I don't disagree with you. >Political patronage isn't necessarily wrong when you're handing out the typical ambassadorships which people tend to actually be qualified for. However, it certainly becomes "actual corruption" when you start putting those people in impactful roles that they're utterly unqualified for. But again, you're not really arguing against HRC as much as you are the status quo. Again, Bush appointed a supremely unqualified man to head the agency responsible for protecting America during emergency- I didn't pull a random example out of my ass either. You're suggesting that Hilary's patronage is unique because the beneficiary could potentially have serious responsibility- Im saying Bush's beneficiary let New Orleans drown, then grossly botched his responsibilities while Americans killed each other for food. I'd suggest the oversight of American emergency preparedness is a life-or-death matter, as the blood of ~1,200 American citizens is on Mike 'heck of a job' Brown's hands. All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions. Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo.
  - bendbro 10y ago
    > But again, you're not really arguing against HRC as much as you are the status quo To many people that is the same as voting Trump.
    - travmatt 10y ago
      If people decide to rebel against the appointment of unqualified people to impactful positions by electing trump to the presidency... that would nicely summarize the cognitive dissonance of this election.
      - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
        or you know, democracy. If people choose to vote somebody into office, no matter how wrong it is, it still is democracy.
        travmatt 10y ago
        Your comment really doesn't make sense in relation to what it is responding to.
        vaishaksuresh 10y ago
        It does. If people elect Trump, you're calling it cognitive dissonance, I'm saying it is democracy.
        travmatt 10y ago
        No, I said if people rebel against unqualified people taking consequential positions by electing trump that is cognitively dissonant. And it is, because objectively Trump is the least qualified person to ever be nominated by a major party.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    I don't think the prevalence of "actual corruption" justifies it. Just to be clear though, I think HRCs opponents would in all likelihood behave in similar manner. >All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions. I don't think what Rajiv wanted is really relevant here, he supported Hillary and was rewarded for it in a very inappropriate manner, that's corruption. I wouldn't have any complaints if the post Rajiv was handed was one he was qualified for, but that obviously isn't the case here. Nothing wrong with handing out consequential positions to qualified people. >Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo. It's not, just as the cop trying to extort me for a bribe in Thailand isn't. Doesn't make it any less corrupt though.

ryanlol 10y ago

I wrote a longer reply but it really comes down to this: Rajiv Fernando was not qualified to be on this particular natsec expert board that comes with a Top Secret clearance. Political patronage isn't necessarily wrong when you're handing out the typical ambassadorships which people tend to actually be qualified for. However, it certainly becomes "actual corruption" when you start putting those people in impactful roles that they're utterly unqualified for. I didn't just pull out a random example out of my ass.

travmatt 10y ago
>Rajiv Fernando was not qualified to be on this particular natsec expert board that comes with a Top Secret clearance. I don't disagree with you. >Political patronage isn't necessarily wrong when you're handing out the typical ambassadorships which people tend to actually be qualified for. However, it certainly becomes "actual corruption" when you start putting those people in impactful roles that they're utterly unqualified for. But again, you're not really arguing against HRC as much as you are the status quo. Again, Bush appointed a supremely unqualified man to head the agency responsible for protecting America during emergency- I didn't pull a random example out of my ass either. You're suggesting that Hilary's patronage is unique because the beneficiary could potentially have serious responsibility- Im saying Bush's beneficiary let New Orleans drown, then grossly botched his responsibilities while Americans killed each other for food. I'd suggest the oversight of American emergency preparedness is a life-or-death matter, as the blood of ~1,200 American citizens is on Mike 'heck of a job' Brown's hands. All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions. Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo.
- bendbro 10y ago
  > But again, you're not really arguing against HRC as much as you are the status quo To many people that is the same as voting Trump.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    If people decide to rebel against the appointment of unqualified people to impactful positions by electing trump to the presidency... that would nicely summarize the cognitive dissonance of this election.
    - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
      or you know, democracy. If people choose to vote somebody into office, no matter how wrong it is, it still is democracy.
      - travmatt 10y ago
        Your comment really doesn't make sense in relation to what it is responding to.
        vaishaksuresh 10y ago
        It does. If people elect Trump, you're calling it cognitive dissonance, I'm saying it is democracy.
        travmatt 10y ago
        No, I said if people rebel against unqualified people taking consequential positions by electing trump that is cognitively dissonant. And it is, because objectively Trump is the least qualified person to ever be nominated by a major party.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  I don't think the prevalence of "actual corruption" justifies it. Just to be clear though, I think HRCs opponents would in all likelihood behave in similar manner. >All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions. I don't think what Rajiv wanted is really relevant here, he supported Hillary and was rewarded for it in a very inappropriate manner, that's corruption. I wouldn't have any complaints if the post Rajiv was handed was one he was qualified for, but that obviously isn't the case here. Nothing wrong with handing out consequential positions to qualified people. >Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo. It's not, just as the cop trying to extort me for a bribe in Thailand isn't. Doesn't make it any less corrupt though.