Do you think Trump should have family members serving as advisors?

2016-11-18T10:53:22-05:00

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 18 at 2016 11:06 AM

2016-11-18T11:06:07-05:00

I suppose the best way to be right all the time is to surround yourself with people that agree with you or will placate you...

Response by CPL Patrick Brewbaker made Nov 18 at 2016 11:08 AM

2016-11-18T11:08:27-05:00

Brilliant, I always tell my kids
1. Attitude is everything.
2. Don't ask someone to do something you won't do yourself.
3. Lead from the front.
4. Dad is always right.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2016 11:10 AM

2016-11-18T11:10:08-05:00

I think Trump should have the best people he can find advising him. That that might include family members doesn't bother me in the least, especially based on the way his family members, particularly his children, comported themselves during the campaign.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2016 11:13 AM

2016-11-18T11:13:29-05:00

What I think and what the Law dictates are two different things. The Law Trumps all in this case- no pun intended

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 18 at 2016 11:14 AM

2016-11-18T11:14:22-05:00

most excellent description...

Response by Maj John Bell made Nov 18 at 2016 11:16 AM

2016-11-18T11:16:22-05:00

Doesn't that kind of define the role of "First Lady".

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 18 at 2016 11:28 AM

2016-11-18T11:28:00-05:00

I think the nepotism discussion is silly. Robert F Kennedy was an effective Attorney General for JFK, and no one had an issue with it. A leader must trust his closest advisors.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 18 at 2016 11:30 AM

2016-11-18T11:30:50-05:00

this has been the Problem with Many President of Late ... their Families were Not elected and they don't need to involved in running the nation... Like The Wives of Bill Clinton and BHO... and the Family of GW Bush...

Response by SGT David T. made Nov 18 at 2016 11:53 AM

2016-11-18T11:53:11-05:00

It's not unprecedented for a President to appoint a family member to their administration. JFK appointed his younger brother as Attorney General. The important thing is to select competent and trustworthy advisors.

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Nov 18 at 2016 12:00 PM

2016-11-18T12:00:30-05:00

No as it can create the perception of impropriety. It doesn't matter if they have any real input into decisions or not. Perception is reality, especially in Washington. That is why the anti-nepotism law was nicknamed "The Bobby Kennedy Law."

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2016 12:01 PM

2016-11-18T12:01:08-05:00

I personally think it is a bad idea. Even if you children are very smart, they are your family and that adds a dynamic you don't want in meetings and the day to day operations of running the country. Plus will his children actually argue a point with him or will the be yes-men (I know he has daughters, so that is a gender neutral yes-men for all the social justice warriors out there).

You can think of it another way, would you like to have your son or daughter in the same unit you lead? What kind of issues would that cause. Now apply that to the White House and the whole host of other issues that go on there. What a headache.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 18 at 2016 12:14 PM

2016-11-18T12:14:35-05:00

Who has not considered the advice of family? If you are talking about in an official capacity, three of his five children have been very successful in their own right, and appear to have solid insight for business, not sure where that would translate into government positions or if they are seeking any? Wasn't one of Hillary Clinton's strongest supposed accomplishments her role advising President Bill Clinton? A bit before my time but didn't Robert Kennedy do okay as AG for President Kennedy?

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Nov 18 at 2016 12:26 PM

2016-11-18T12:26:48-05:00

It was OK for the Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton Families. Come to think of it...

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 18 at 2016 12:42 PM

2016-11-18T12:42:32-05:00

Trump's family members have been trained and are experienced in leading organizations and making critical decisions. I think they would make good advisors especially since he has their loyalty and trust. They are better positioned to give him critical advice than would be business associates or strangers.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2016 1:08 PM

2016-11-18T13:08:27-05:00

No, not in any official paid capacity.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Nov 18 at 2016 1:21 PM

2016-11-18T13:21:13-05:00

A leader has to employ both depending on the situation. You don't coach a team into battle you rely on authority and trust and sometimes demanding. If you are going to take the blame you have to use the word "I" when you do it. I get concerned with these two styles/approaches are juxtapositioned as though they are two different people or things. A good leader knows how to motivate people to get more done than they might have thought they could do. Not everyone is motivated the same way.

Not everyone wants to be developed. Some people are happy coming into work every day doing the same thing and will do so and entire career. Career is not important to them or at least not the most important thing.

I prefer a direct, to the point, no BS leader/boss that tells me the way it us. I don't want someone making me feel good. I want someone being straight with me. I don't need someone pumping sunshine up my ass and telling me I am a lighthouse either.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2016 1:59 PM

2016-11-18T13:59:55-05:00

The Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute was passed in 1967 as part of the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967.

While the Kennedy appointment may have been seen (and may still be seen) as the causation for this the act's passage there seems to be no correlation.
It appears that the Congress of the US simply addressed something which surprisingly US law had never addressed previously: preventing government officials from hiring relatives and family members to positions where they (the government official) supervises or managed that relative or family member.

In relevant part, the statute reads:
A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.
The statute defines public official to include government “officer[s] (including the President and a Member of Congress).

Response by SFC Donald Lemay made Nov 18 at 2016 2:01 PM

2016-11-18T14:01:44-05:00

His family will be running his business. I'd like to add that a good leader reprimands privately and praises publically.

Response by Sgt William Straub Jr. made Nov 18 at 2016 2:03 PM

2016-11-18T14:03:41-05:00

I'm not too concerned. As long as they are vetted, who would he trust more then someone like Ivanka or Eric? If they are suitable, bright enough and have the nations' best interest at heart, I have no problem. I know from experience, that a son or daughter has a much higher standard to maintain than a non-family member in business. Lead by example, don't be an example.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Nov 18 at 2016 5:37 PM

2016-11-18T17:37:01-05:00

I see no reason why not. His kids are smart, well educated and have business and management experience.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Nov 18 at 2016 11:18 PM

2016-11-18T23:18:04-05:00

I think the key word in your question is "serving". If you mean "advising him", then I have no problem with that as long as they're unpaid. People confer with family all of the time. However, if they're on the Federal payroll, that's against the law. I'm not okay with that, and especially from a "law and order" politician.