Pointless? You're pro child molestation?

No i am pro truth, you have no idea what the truth is because you buy into literally any far right bullshit posted on the internet.

Anything? Na... How does labeling it far right make it a lie? Is that somehow verifiable truth something isn't fact or real now based on political affiliation?

Sounds like hard investigative evidence to you? Lol

Take that sheepy shit somewhere else.

Seriously guys: if your claim is that Biden is "only looking for the best people", what are the chances that these "best people" all miraculously happen to come from Biden's own orbit or obamaworld?



Oh, he did try to drain the old swamp... so he can replace it with his own swamp.

In his world "qualified" has a different, very corporatist definition. He's pretty establishment, it's not surprising he knows people who can fill these roles lol

"His cabinet picks are qualified for their job" is a VERY different and much weaker statement than "he's trying to select the best/most qualified people he can find for his cabinet".

The debate is not about whether or not they're qualified and able to fill these roles, of course they are, lol. The debate is about whether his picks have extraordinary credentials which clearly set them apart from their competition, or whether they have been chosen over the rest of the absolutely tremendous talent pool the Democratic party has to offer because of their past connection/history with Biden.

Anyone thinking Kerry got appointed special envoy on climate change because of his qualifications in the field, because he is the best the Democrats have to offer on this issue, must be out of his mind. In reality, it's plain old nepotism.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 23 2020 11:40pm

The question you're really asking is one about metrics, and the reality is that "qualified" isn't cut and dry. Somebody can be "qualified" but not have any government experience and so would be a worse pick than somebody with less qualifications who has government experience, and then if you've already worked with them and know for a fact they have the capability that's another level of qualification.

Biden is an entrenched establishment Democrat, so he's going to value people he's worked with who he knows has government experience, and can do the job within that framework.

You're conflating nepotism, which is what Trump did with his kids, with choosing people you already know have the experience and capacity to do the job. (inb4 blah blah Trump has experience with his kids even though they never touched government in their lives. You get to choose between nepotism and supreme incompetence)

Biden has a wide range of people to pick from, and like 50 years of experience, so it's expected that he's going to be able to pick qualified people from his orbit, and that's not nepotism because they're in his orbit. Having worked with somebody before and seen that you like the way they work in a very similar role is itself a qualification.

appoint Hillary to president

So, you finally admit that what Ice claimed earlier in the thread was BS?


He clearly isnt trying to find "the best people", he's trying to find people who are "sufficiently competent/qualified" and with whom he's comfortable.

Look, I dont blame Bidenfor that, it's what almost all presidents do. (Except for the Kerry thing, which is ridiculous.)
I just reject this notion that Biden is doing something noble or unusual with his picks. Must be some sort of residual TDS - putting Biden on a pedestal just because he's drawing a contrast with Trump.

Being comfortable working with somebody is a qualification