Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

A little too ironic.

Yeah I really do think  

Ivanka Trump Mocked By Twitter Users

It seems that every day more and more people are starting to wake up to the follies, corruption (and blatant dishonesty) of not only Donald Trump but also of the entire Trump Crime Family!!!

To her, nepotism is a hiring skill.

the skill where she gets to keep her clothes on,..... most of the time....

I see that the most important thing about this story is not the merit of the proposal itself, but rather the fun the Twitter kids have slinging mud at someone connected to the president. These are the priorities, America. Great.

Yeah, but it's been that way for the past three and a half years.  Don't bother to look at what is being done, just sling mud cuz,  you know,  Trump...   sigh

Just exactly what have tRump and Company been doing for the last 3-1/2 years?

And we're the mud slingers?

Sigh . . . . . . 

but it's been that way for the past three and a half years.  Don't bother to look at what is being done, just sling mud cuz,

Strange, isn't it.

Perhaps you can help anwer a question many of us here have?

How come all the democrats are always doing this sort of thing-- but the Republicans never do?

(I hate "to say "Curious minds want to know-- but I think I will!)

How come all the democrats are always doing this sort of thing-- but the Republicans never do?

Democrats do it because of Partisan politics.  And there is a group of never-Trumpers who are running some rather nasty tv ad's so I would say that Republicans do it also.  But also in keeping with the main thrust of your post (as I think it is) yes the Republicans did this same partisan bullshit against Obama during his terms. 

There were plenty of Republicans, all they could do was bitch about what Obama would do because they were just against what he was. The same there are plenty of Democrats who will bitch about what this administration puts out because the family name is Trump.

so yes, both sides have done it.  Doesn't make any of it right.  Maybe someday the majority of people will come to accept that neither party gives a damn about us and will do whatever they have to do to remain in power. And in doing that we are taking for a ride.  Unfortunately there are plenty of people from both sides (and we see some of them on this website) who cannot see the truth because they are to heavily invested in their parties political positions and refuse to see anything else.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-ramp-walk-rally-tulsa-lincoln-project-john-mccain-george-conway-a9579376.html

FYI..... Snuffy..... Those really nasty ads you're talking about are coming from the Lincoln Project.  Those that run the LP are run of the mill republicans.

And yes there is quite a bit of difference between the two parties when you get down to things.  Do you really want to get into healthcare, and workers rights, and civil rights, and the environment and such?  Neither party is perfect, but one tries to govern for the people, the other's agenda is to stay in power.  Seriously, McConnell's push for judges is about power....nothing more. 

I was responding to a specific question. 

And based on your replies and how you word your statements I don't believe that we can discuss this. From what I see  you are behind the Democratic politics and don't seem to be willing to move away from it. Even your description of the two parties is slanted favorably towards the Democratic party where as you look at the Republican party as only about power and how to stay in power. When the way you talk is so biased there's no way we can have a discussion.

  Maybe someday the majority of people will come to accept that neither party gives a damn about us and will do whatever they have to do to remain in power.

I think that over time more and more people will. I see some signs its already happening a bit. 

I don't know if will ever be a majority though. 

As Albert Einstein once said:

I know of two things that are infinite-- the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the former!

And you seem to think there is equivalency between the two parties today.  Back in the 2000s I might have agreed with you, but today, we are in the process of prying the country from the grips of what the former GOP stood for.

I'm what was once called a "Goldwater republican.  Today I have more in common with the democrats than the party of Trump.  So if you believe in fiscal conservatism, social progressiveness, and the separation of church and state, then we are on the same page.

I'm closer to a Goldwater Republican as well , I believe in fiscal conservation, the rule of law and the constitution.  I left the Republican party years ago because the loudest voices were driving too far to the right. But I don't believe the Democratic party is any reflection of what it was either,  the push to the left has been too extreme IMO.  So I'm stuck in the middle without a party. I have some conservative beliefs, some progress beliefs, some libertarian beliefs, but I cannot belong to any single party because I no longer fit any of those molds.

And the equivalency between the two parties is simple. They have both gone too far to the extremes and are no longer representing the majority of people. Their number one concern is how to keep in power because with power comes money and there is very big money in politics. How many regular people get elected to office in Washington and after a few years there come out and become multi-millionaires?  IMO neither party gives a damn about the people of this country and that is why I said they are two sides of the same coin.

Nope, not two sides of the same coin.

Democrats want what's best for the MAJORITY

republicans/gop represent themselves and not their constituents or the country.  They put their party before country.  They don't care about the majority.  

As I've stated in the past.... in both politics and physics.... all movement is relative. 

Let's just look at one issue as an example.... The ACA.... The dems took a republican concept, put it on the table in an effort to improve insurance coverage in the US as a compromise approach.  The republicans did everything they could to torpedo their own plan.  Why was that? 

No, the values of the democratic party today is much more centered with the majority of Americans than what the GOP is offering.

Agree to disagree.  As I see it, the ACA was an attempt or first step by the democratic party to move to universal healthcare. As I see it an effort by the democratic party to gain more power over people. What were Grubers lines again about the american sheep?

As far as the republican effort to end ACA,  yeah that was Trump's attempt to remove all mention of Obama from public records.  I don't know why he hates Obama so much, but in watching these attempts I'm reminded of a line from a movie...

Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of Egypt. Let the name of Moses be unheard ... this to be so 

Can't you just see Trump standing on the steps to the Lincoln Memorial speaking those lines...   LOL

But no,  I don't see the ACA as an attempt by the democrats to help people, I see it as an attempt to further enrich themselves and further solidify their power.  There were cheaper and easier ways to expand healthcare to the people who didn't have it, that could have been done thru an expansion of Medicaid at a fraction of the cost. After all the initial tag line for building ACA was to expand healthcare to the millions with no healthcare. But rather than do that they pushed to dismantle the current system in the hopes of getting to universal healthcare. And isn't universal healthcare still a rally cry for the progressive left?  "all developed nations provide universal healthcare, why don't we?"   If universal healthcare is so great then why do all those Canadians and Europeans come to the US for healthcare? I work in the health insurance industry and I can guarantee you that just a simple switch to move to a medicare for all payment approach would upend the healthcare system so drastically that we would have people dying because hospitals would close, doctors offices would close and millions of people would be out of jobs.

I see that the most important thing about this story is not the merit of the proposal itself, but rather the fun the Twitter kids have slinging mud at someone connected to the president. These are the priorities, America. Great.

Do I detect more than a little bitterness in the tone of your comment? 

Do I detect more than a little bitterness in the tone of your comment? 

No. Why would I be bitter? I do have contempt for the blind and stupid obsession with Trump hate that makes this a story instead of making a consideration of the proposal a story.

The nepotism ship sailed years ago. Get over it. It's childish to keep at it. Ivanka has been working for her father since long before he became president. It's pretty normal for business owners to train and hire their own family members. It's also pretty normal for new presidents to hire people they have already been working with and whom they trust. Bringing it up every time those people put forth an idea is not smart. It's stupid.

Working for her father?

I guess you could call it that.  

I believe she has been working under him for quite some time now.  

No. Why would I be bitter?

I dunno.

Good question, actually.

Maybe...too much time watching Faux News?

I dunno. Good question, actually.

No. It isn't. You made it up out of nothing.

Maybe...too much time watching Faux News?

Boy, you are just chock full of assumptions about me. Maybe if you had something to say on-topic, and maybe if you could consider ideas contrary to your worldview, you wouldn't have to try to invent ways to demonize me

Maybe...too much time watching Faux News?

Their motto:

We whine...you decide!

Ivanka for pole dancer?  Jared holding the pole?

"Skills based hiring?"  Uh---------Ivanka for pole dancer.  Jared holding the pole. 

That's about all she's good for.  

That's about all she's good for.  

There's a phrase for people like her:

White Trash

That's what that whole family is - white trash with money.  

"We are now your biggest fear...white trash with money." (Rosanne Bar at her wedding to Tom Arnold)

independent.co.uk

Why is it that tRump and those who support him seem to be in the midst of an over 3-1/2 year psychotic break?

Above is the latest batshit craziness from Roseanne.

I used to like her show for the first few years but she got shrill and nasty the last few seasons so I quit watching it.

I feel the exact same way Paula!

The first few seasons I actually really enjoyed.

She really came into her white trash with money phase towards the end of the show, I couldn't watch it either.  Anything roughly after season 4 was the end for me.    

I wonder if the administration is going to start suggesting the qualities that should be looked for? 

Funny,  I thought the thrust of the decision was to get the hiring managers to look at what qualities and talents the potential employees could bring to the organization rather than just look at a college degree.  I tend to agree with the thought process.  A college degree is good for a young person as it can show that someone will work hard to attain a goal. But for an older person who is years out of school I prefer to look at what knowledge they bring in, how they will fit into the team and how quickly they can be up and running and be productive. If I have a chance to hire a 50yo with 20 years of experience in IT but doesn't have that sheepskin,  why would I not hire them over a 20 something who's only accomplishment is he graduated college? 

But for an older person who is years out of school I prefer to look at what knowledge they bring in, how they will fit into the team and how quickly they can be up and running and be productive.

1. How will the HR department be able to screen applicants for you?

2. How will you evaluate the quality of their experience and what their past accomplishments really were?

I agree - having a college degree should not be the determining factor but you would need a consistent, repeatable evaluation process that would stand up against discrimination charges.

It's been a while, but I would expect the IT applicant without a college degree to have a couple of pages of certifications where their skills were actually quantifiably tested by a recognized body. Long time membership in professional groups and regular workshop attendance would also be a plus.

I checked out the ExOrder - basically it is promoting a couple of years of targeted vocational training / apprenticeship similar to that developed by Toyota." Federation for Advanced Manufacturing Education ". It looks like a good program - many states have a state based version.

My concern is that the ExOrder will be abused to legalize political and nepotistic hiring.

1. How will the HR department be able to screen applicants for you?

As a hiring manager, the HR department did their initial screening based on the qualifications I required. They did not dictate to me the type of person I was allowed to hire. I work for a major company here in the US (fortune 10 company) and my experience in this was working with the recruiters and the HR department to lay out what I needed and what type of person I was looking for.

2. How will you evaluate the quality of their experience and what their past accomplishments really were?

This was handled thru a series of interviews. In the first pass I would review the resume's and cover letters to see the width of their experience. And I would only disqualify an applicant at that stage if the resume did not show any potential experience to the degree I was looking for.   ie, if I was looking to hire a DBA  (Oracle database administrator) I would not bother with a resume where the only IT experience was coding hot keys for an Excel spreadsheet. Once I had a group of 5 or 6 resumes, I would have HR start to set up the first interview. During the first interview while they are showing off their better sides (as we all do in interviews) I also had a series of technical questions that I would ask and would carefully take notes on their replies. Once all the interviews were completed I would review the answers and set up second interviews with maybe half of the first group with my current direct reports so that they could ask questions and we could see a bit on how the person might fit in with the current workgroup.  Is it a perfect solution?  No but it worked fairly well.  I've got the same bunch of professionals still working as a team 9 years later and i can count on any of them to do any part of the work.  Only had to let one person go who was able to fool all of us with their experience but when it came time to actually do the work they were not able to keep up.

I don't know all the certifications out there,  IT has gotten to big for any one person to know all of it. We have gotten very specialized. Membership in a professional group may or may not help as there's little requirement to insure active participation in the group. Regular workshop attendance is nice but again unless you use any new skills learned in a workshop on a regular basis any knowledge or skills gained out of the attendance is soon lost.

Lastly college degrees are not teaching current technology. Universities just can't spend enough money to keep up on current technology so they are always behind the curve anyway.  We bring in a number of summer interns every year in the hopes of finding a few that like how we work and have the ability to learn quickly.  It works out fairly well as we have hired a number of interns over the years but we are very active in that program also.  Hell, my own college degree is so for out of date it's practically useless.  My IT education (taking out the math courses because real math never changes (and no, I'm not talking that damn new math)) consisted of basically dead languages.  My classes used basic,  cobol,  fortran, pascal and RPG II.  Not heavily used anymore except in some very very old legacy systems.

So changing the process so that a college degree is not the most important piece of information for the hiring process allows the hiring manager to more directly find the person or persons who can best fit into the current team and hopefully become productive quickly. Let the hiring manager determine what is important for the position in question.  Yes there are some positions that will still require that college degree because you cannot get certified and licensed for the profession without the college degree  (doctor, nurse, sure there are others) but a lot of positions do not require a college degree so why not let the person closest to managing the open position determine what is needed to fill it.

Wanted to acknowledge your reply. My background is old school with some Quality Control which impacts my views making me inclined toward charting, documentation, repeatability of process, and testing.

My local 2 year college offers national/worldwide certification classes for some of topics below. I used to even know what some of them were. These are just certifications that are of interest to local companies - not cutting edge ones. Certification classes are usually taught by professionals such as yourself. The money cannot be the reason they are willing to teach. Actually,it might be a good recruiting tool and a useful experience for some of your employees. "See one, do one, teach one". While 4 year degree schools need at least a 2 year lead time to adapt to changing business needs, 2 year schools can change quickly and often will partner with companies in the area to provide the up to date needed skills tailored to the local companies.

A+^1, Security+^2, CISCO Certified Entry Networking   Technician^3,

Network+^4, Oracle Admin I^1, Oracle Admin II^{2 ,}SQL Server³

Oracle Application Express: Developing Wed Applications^4,

Digital Forensics^1,2, Network Penetration, Network Security^{3 or 4}

The men have to be yes men and total toadies.  All the women have to have is a nice rack and be grabable.

Sounds like the fox news lineup.

The men have to be yes men and total toadies.  All the women have to have is a nice rack and be grabable.

I would imagine it would also help if the were White.

Oh-- and of course "Christians". (Although in many cases that would not just Christians but the "right type" of Christians. For starters-- no Catholics!

I wonder if the administration is going to start suggesting the qualities that should be looked for? 

Under the new order, hiring is supposed to be more focused on skills necessary for the job as opposed to just blindly preferring someone with a degree over someone who doesn't have one but may have more relevant experience or training. The agency doing the hiring would know what qualities they are looking for.

Under the new order, hiring is supposed to be more focused on skills necessary for the job as opposed to just blindly preferring someone with a degree over someone who doesn't have one but may have more relevant experience or training.

I've felt that way for years.

But based on years of experience dealing with government bureaucracies, I wonder how much we can trust the government to do that...and to do it intelligently. (Perhaps even more so now that Trump and his Washington establishment are so deeply corrupt on so many levels

I think at this point it would be wise here to ponder the words of President Reagan:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

If it is going to be 'skill' that would leave most of the people donald put in place without a job.

Hell he wants to replace the newly fired NY US attorney with someone that has never tried a case.

Donald himself would seem to be both undereducated and unqualified for his current job.  

Seem to be?

Hell he wants to replace the newly fired NY US attorney with someone that has never tried a case.

At first it looked like it would happen (Basically because the Senate's controlled by Republicans who with rare exceptions kow-tow to "Idiot-in-Chief"). I haven't kept up with it but the last I heard, perhaps surprisingly, is that so many Senate Republicans, at least this once, said they're not going to support his nomination because he's so obviously unqualified.

Reminds me of this saying:

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Reminds me of this saying: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

But on a more serious note, we should give credit where credit is due-- and acknowledge those Republicans who has the backbone to stand up to "Dear Leader"-- and do the right thing!

Ivanka's picture is next to the words "Vapid" and "Clueless" in dictionaries...

Also feckless . . . . 

Not Nice? You should take it up with Merriam Webster.

By the way, Ivanka's pic is also next to "Not Nice", too...