Originally Posted by corumstation (Post 3095718)

Under the anti nepotism Federal Postal Act of 1967, Trump children and son-in-law cannot serve directly in the executive branch as currently apply. However, they can head task forces or serve as unofficial “czars” with policy portfolios like Hillary did in the Health Reform Task Force in 1993

Originally Posted by whuynh (Post 3095716)

Again, you're repeating yourself here. This is the transitional time. His children are allowed to help their father, and that's constituted because it's a part of his Presidency campaign.

But he is not vested to appoint any of his family members to certain positions in government, including the Cabinet.

In response to that, Congress passed a law in 1967 that prohibits federal officials from appointing family members to certain positions in government, including the Cabinet. So, no, TRUMP cannot appoint a family member to the Cabinet. It's written in our constitution.

Originally Posted by whuynh (Post 3095720)

See? There. That is what I call "Beauty with brains".

Originally Posted by whuynh (Post 3095716)

Originally Posted by vkz (Post 3095723)

Thank you for your knowledgeable info.

However, you are saying các đài truyền hình CNN, MSNBC đều sai khi họ khẳng định Trump & his family have too much conflicts of interest.

Originally Posted by corumstation (Post 3095729)

2) Doesn't matter who got the scoop first! It's still written down as law and in the history books!

Originally Posted by laughster (Post 3095727)

that's a guy hahahaha

BTW, I love this thread; I love that you guys debate the different political points for me to learn from:hafppy::handshake::thankyou:

Originally Posted by vkz (Post 3095728)

This is where you were wrong about me. Trump won fair and square, and I will be a good citizen (work & pay taxes). But differences are what make human being evolved and developed.

Originally Posted by whuynh (Post 3095733)

really? It's a dude? Man, I've gotta get rid of this avatar out of my dream :112: :112: :112:.

Originally Posted by laughster (Post 3095736)

that pic is of a famous Chinese singer or something haha. Anh cha12ba pointed out one time; her name is xu chin something (it kinda rhymes with sú chen hahaha because I remember cracking up about it hahahha)

http://vietbf.com/forum/attachment.p...1&d=1479474229


http://vietbf.com/forum/attachment.p...1&d=1479474229

Originally Posted by corumstation (Post 3095737)

"Laws & History are sometimes proven to be very wrong in the past. But this is another topic for another time" --> vkz

1) Wrong? ... But view from what perspectives? And base upon what judgement standards?

2) Facts --> it's currently a law & has occurred in history. Unless you're talking about Schrödinger's cat

Originally Posted by whuynh (Post 3095739)

Social Media is so deceiving, you think? :( :D :mad:

Originally Posted by laughster (Post 3095741)

well, you assumed that avatar is corumstation, and he never claimed that' the pic is hers hahaha LMAO you know what happens when you assume hahahahah

BTW, what's your wife's phone number?? I am going to tattle on you hahaha tối nay bị bả bắt quỳ gối trên vỏ trái sầu riêng cho coi hahahaha :hafppy::hafppy:

Originally Posted by corumstation (Post 3095742)

"You mean the Racial segregation in the United States, A Century of Racial Segregation 1849–1950 was just and right?
This is just one example of many laws written down in the past were very very wrong" --> vkz

1) From their perspective --> Yes

2) From yours --> No

Originally Posted by laughster (Post 3095741)

well, you assumed that avatar is corumstation, and he never claimed that' the pic is hers hahaha LMAO you know what happens when you assume hahahahah

BTW, what's your wife's phone number?? I am going to tattle on you hahaha tối nay bị bả bắt quỳ gối trên vỏ trái sầu riêng cho coi hahahaha :hafppy::hafppy:

Originally Posted by SlyGuy (Post 3095751)