• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?

Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?

  • Total voters
    35
Deuce said:
Oh so now you have an actual person to talk about instead of a vague description?

Any particular reason you didn't mention her 30 year legal career?
Click to expand...

She didn't have a 30 year legal career.
 
apdst said:
She didn't have a 30 year legal career.
Click to expand...

Started as a law court for the DC circuit appeals court in 1987. SCOTUS nomination in 2009.
 
apdst said:
We expect hardcore Trump haters to say no.
Click to expand...

You might expect students of the Second World War to say no, too.

Question: Did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor before or after we forged our strong relationship with them during the D-Day landings?
 
Last edited:
Heather Nauert: "D-Day was height of U.S.-German cooperation"

felixlaffidiotSAFE.jpg
LAUGHING.jpg

“When you talk about Germany, we have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany,” Heather Nauert, the State Department’s spokeswoman, said in June. She added: “Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government.”
Click to expand...
 
JANFU said:
Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?
Yes
No
Me- NFL - Not Freaking Likely
No experience, limited knowledge, a FOX news personality
Now I do expect hard core Trump supporters to support her
Click to expand...

Of course trumpsters will support this. Hopefully trump will tell his supporters to drive off a cliff and you know they would. Then America will be great again.
 
Well obviously she is under qualified/not qualified for the job. But it might be a hard job to fill, having been down graded from a cabinet position (which Nicki Haley had required) and serving under Trump/Bolton who have made public claims that the UN is ineffectual and should be disbanded. What career foreign policy expert would take such a slot?

She's probably all excited about it for whatever reason?? and Trump gets to make believe his administration is a bit more diverse. The kowtowing Senate will approve her appt.

The rest of the world has another reason to snicker.

I did not answer the poll as it is impossible to believe that any confirmation by this Senate has any credibility at all.
 
JANFU said:
Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?
Yes
No
Me- NFL - Not Freaking Likely
No experience, limited knowledge, a FOX news personality
Now I do expect hard core Trump supporters to support her
Click to expand...
Based on what I know of this individual, I would say she might be qualified for her current position, as she is a member of the media organizations and it is likely that as Spokesperson for the United States Department of State, she deals mainly with them.

From a read of the wikipedia page on her, I'd say she hasn't done so well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Nauert
Certainly I'm opposed to anyone anywhere in government holding any power now or ever again, if they have spoken in support of Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen.

She might be a good option for the Trump administration, but I don't think she'd even be considered for her current post in any prior administration.
 
YES

Why not?

It is a post of NO importance to an organization that is of NO importance.

If President Trump had his druthers, he would probably (rightly) kick the UN out of the United States.

It is just a post that is used by American presidents to reward their supporters. (And it seems that it's becoming a post that presidents use to show everyone how much they love diversity. Don't be surprised if the Democratic president in 2021 gives the post to that football player who won't stand up for the national anthem.)
 
No, she should not be our UN Ambassador. She has absolutely no experience at all in diplomacy.
 
I don't really care who a President selects as their Ambassador. She could be fine, she could be awful. A few UN Ambassadors have had no diplomatic experience either: Andrew Young and Madeleine Albright, come to mind.
 
The President has the presumption of his choice, absent something that is actively disqualifying.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I don't really care who a President selects as their Ambassador. She could be fine, she could be awful. A few UN Ambassadors have had no diplomatic experience either: Andrew Young and Madeleine Albright, come to mind.
Click to expand...

Young served two terms as a mayor and four years in the House of Representatives. Madeleine Albright's background is extensive. Did you even bother reading their wiki pages?

If logical pretzels that people are tying themselves into in order to equate a person with zero experience (sans tv host) with all the other US Ambassadors is simply extraordinary.
 
cpwill said:
The President has the presumption of his choice, absent something that is actively disqualifying.
Click to expand...

The poll question is "Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?" and not "Does the President have the presumption of his choice for US Ambassador?" If the question had been the latter the thread would obviously have taken a different turn.
 
Hell no she shouldn't. She's not qualified and congress should ask for someone better to be put forward.

But the problem with the Trump admin is nobody wants the job anymore. They don't get the best because the boss is an idiotic crook who throws his staff under the bus. So they're left with fox hosts and other hangers-on when the competent people leave.
 
Cardinal said:
Young served two terms as a mayor and four years in the House of Representatives. Madeleine Albright's background is extensive. Did you even bother reading their wiki pages?

If logical pretzels that people are tying themselves into in order to equate a person with zero experience (sans tv host) with all the other US Ambassadors is simply extraordinary.
Click to expand...

diplomat
[dip-luh-mat]

noun
1. a person appointed by a national government to conduct official negotiations and maintain political, economic, and social relations with another country or countries.
2. a person who is tactful and skillful in managing delicate situations, handling people, etc.

Show me how any of the 3 individuals referenced meet the definition of #1
Show me how any of the 3 individuals referenced do not meet definition of #2

As for reading comprehension, Andrew Young was elected major of Atlanta after he served as UN Ambassador. Are you really implying that future qualifications should be used to qualify in the past? Madeleine Albright was a congressional liaison with the NSC and a policy advisor, and generally an academic. Neither was a diplomat by definition #1.

Again, my point neither defends Nauert, nor impugn Young or Albright. What is your agenda?
 
JANFU said:
Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?
Yes
No
Me- NFL - Not Freaking Likely
No experience, limited knowledge, a FOX news personality
Now I do expect hard core Trump supporters to support her
Click to expand...

America needs good people representing the nation in foreign affairs. We do not need corrupt politicians and their corrupt lackeys damaging the process. Nauert has a good reputation among civilized Americans. She has my vote.
 
How exactly is this person qualified for this very important job?
 
Cardinal said:
The poll question is "Should Heather Nauert be confirmed as UN Ambassador?" and not "Does the President have the presumption of his choice for US Ambassador?" If the question had been the latter the thread would obviously have taken a different turn.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, absent disqualifying information, the one answers the other

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary, absent disqualifying information, the one answers the other

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No.

....
 
Cardinal said:
No.

....
Click to expand...
....yes. the President, should have presumption when it comes to the staffing of the Executive.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
....yes. the President, should have presumption when it comes to the staffing of the Executive.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which was not in question. Your straw man is stupid.
 
Cardinal said:
Which was not in question. Your straw man is stupid.
Click to expand...
Evidently it is, since folks are pretending the two at linked.

IF the President, absent information disqualifying the candidate, has presumption of his or her pick within the Executive

THEN, absent that disqualifying information, the candidate should be confirmed.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom