• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When special interest and lobbies take over key positions with Democrats blessings.

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yes, what are you actually griping about? She appears qualified for the job

And you gotta admit, qualification sure beats the nepotism of the old presidency
No. It's pandering to special interest and cementing that special interest to secure yet even more entrenchment.

Have you ever heard of conflict of interest?

These people are the ones who fund the Democrats election campaigns and 'encourage' their members to keep voting Democrat.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
At the very least they are qualified for the position, unlike appointing radiologist as an adviser on the coronavirus pandemic. No experience in viruses. Most of Trump's appointments were unqualified for the position.

Coal industry lobbyist at the EPA and Oil drilling lobbyist at Marine safety were my favorites though.

To be honest if a person is qualified for the job, as in as experience and training in the domain, isn't directly opposed to the mission of the organism she is supposed to head and don't stand to benefit financially directly from their position, then there are no significant problem. Of course people with in such position have an agenda. They are supposed to. That's what politics is for: setting up agenda and shaping society in a way or another.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Unions pressure management to improve working conditions as well as improve worker's wages and benefits. Do you take issue with this special interest?
Unions pressure its members to vote a party line they endorse.

It's obviously cronyism, paying back a favor in return for a favor done, which helps insure long term entrenchment.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No. It's pandering to special interest and cementing that special interest to secure yet even more entrenchment.

Have you ever heard of conflict of interest?

These people are the ones who fund the Democrats election campaigns and 'encourage' their members to keep voting Democrat.

Yes. That is how the game is played on both sides. When republicans come in, they put business leaders into those positions that have oversight over businesses. They put politicians in positions to judge science.

This is a general problem with oversight: those who are qualified to do the oversight generally have a position on many key decisions they will make and have been in the industry that is under oversight.

So, yes, you get a member of the AFL-CIO in a post overseeing labor and a former investment banker heading the SEC or a former oil company executive making climate change regulations.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yes. That is how the game is played on both sides. When republicans come in, they put business leaders into those positions that have oversight over businesses. They put politicians in positions to judge science.

This is a general problem with oversight: those who are qualified to do the oversight generally have a position on many key decisions they will make and have been in the industry that is under oversight.

So, yes, you get a member of the AFL-CIO in a post overseeing labor and a former investment banker heading the SEC or a former oil company executive making climate change regulations.
Yep and this is why everything gets so skewed.

That includes Republicans as well.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yep and this is why everything gets so skewed.

That includes Republicans as well.


The problem is that nobody is qualified to do the oversight unless they have studied the issues involved. That typically means they have been involved in the industry in some way (nobody can get all the required experience without, well, experience).

So you have either unqualified people doing the work or biased people doing the work. And you can't simply get rid of oversight. So you try for turnover and diverse advisory committees.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The other aspect is that you expect any president to put people into office that agree with his/her positions. Such people often contribute to the presidential campaign and are more likely to support other priorities of the president.

And THAT is how it *should* be. elections have consequences. If we put the same people in, those policies that should change because of the election do not get changed.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
No. It's pandering to special interest and cementing that special interest to secure yet even more entrenchment.

Have you ever heard of conflict of interest?

These people are the ones who fund the Democrats election campaigns and 'encourage' their members to keep voting Democrat.
Stop inventing things you have no proof of. Why so easily tricked? Always so angry and paranoid
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
One way to get around qualifications is to appoint an 'acting' whoever. No confirmation necessary.

Another example of Congress not doing its part of oversight. Seems like a similar problem to me: those with a stake in the game are determining who to hold accountable.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
These people are the ones who fund the Democrats election campaigns and 'encourage' their members to keep voting Democrat.

Well, that is completely to be expected. You expect the people put into office by a president to support the agenda of that president and, usually, to support the re-election of that president and that party.

And, again, that much is how it probably *should* be. For elections to have consequences, this is how it happens.

What is more concerning is trying to suppress voting or gerymandering districts to entrench power even if the majority of people disagree with the positions of a party. Too few congressional districts are competitive because of the way the district lines are chosen. And too often those lines are drawn to keep one party in power across a state no matter how opinions change.
 
Top