3 ms·

>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 p

>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.
- travmatt 10y ago
  >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. For better or worse (probably worse), or current definition of corruption necessitates a quid pro quo. Using your Thai cop analogy, its possible that said cop could attempt to extort a powerful Thai politician who could have them prosecuted. However, that doesn't make their prosecution any less corrupt, nor does it address the incentives that make extortion so commonplace to begin with. Will the police force be any less corrupt after they are gone? It is simply swapping out one corrupt individual with another, and life goes on. I'm saying if I have a problem with the practice, I'm going to try and change the process - not simply charge the last person holding the hot potato.

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.

travmatt 10y ago
>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. For better or worse (probably worse), or current definition of corruption necessitates a quid pro quo. Using your Thai cop analogy, its possible that said cop could attempt to extort a powerful Thai politician who could have them prosecuted. However, that doesn't make their prosecution any less corrupt, nor does it address the incentives that make extortion so commonplace to begin with. Will the police force be any less corrupt after they are gone? It is simply swapping out one corrupt individual with another, and life goes on. I'm saying if I have a problem with the practice, I'm going to try and change the process - not simply charge the last person holding the hot potato.