The answer is immaterial, right? The act is the issue.

The issue is material. Absent a broken law, the form used for disclosure is not material, IMO. If the answer is, "I left it off the ethics form, hoping that nobody would notice the information on the other form," then I would concede that his intent was to deceive.

 

This reminds me of when the Trump campaign tried to make an issue of Ted Cruz not disclosing a loan on one form, when he disclosed on a different form filed with the FEC. I ridiculed Trump and his supporters then for what I saw as an unfounded smear on Cruz's character.

 

You still have not been able to tell me whether Puzder left information off of his ethics form that he was legally obligated to provide on that form. I am going to assume that he fully complied with the law, or the article to which you link would have charged him with breaking the law.

Being a housekeeper is a brutal job. You are expected to turn 10-14 rooms in a 8 hour shift (depends upon occupancy and # of staff). You kneel, you lift mattresses, you deal with puke, crap, trashed rooms. Industry wide it's a difficult position to fill. People don't want to work that hard for any amount of money. It's not an option to just let rooms not turn, guests expect clean rooms. It's just a really rough job. And it's not one wages alone can fix. And where I work, I do feel wages are not the issue. It's just a matter of people not wanting to work that hard.

 

As a GM for many years in the industry, I have to agree with Rockmom. It's not the wages nor the benefits for some companies but more the stigma of being a Maid/Housekeeper. Indeed it's the most important job in the industry, as without those employees doing a great job, there isn't a Hotel, I just wish more company big shots who sit in their ivory towers would understand that and it is one of many reasons I am glad I am no longer in the business.

The issue is material. Absent a broken law, the form used for disclosure is not material, IMO. If the answer is, "I left it off the ethics form, hoping that nobody would notice the information on the other form," then I would concede that his intent was to deceive.

 

This reminds me of when the Trump campaign tried to make an issue of Ted Cruz not disclosing a loan on one form, when he disclosed on a different form filed with the FEC. I ridiculed Trump and his supporters then for what I saw as an unfounded smear on Cruz's character.

 

You still have not been able to tell me whether Puzder left information off of his ethics form that he was legally obligated to provide on that form. I am going to assume that he fully complied with the law, or the article to which you link would have charged him with breaking the law.

 

 

Again, we disagree.

 

In the bigger picture it doesn't matter if it was legally required. His answer to "why" wouldn't change a thing.

Again, we disagree.

 

In the bigger picture it doesn't matter if it was legally required. His answer to "why" wouldn't change a thing.

Yes, we disagree. We probably would have disagreed on Hillary Clinton's fitness to hold any politically appointed office as well. In the pictures that I see, it always matters whether public servants engage in criminal or unethical behavior.

Yes, we disagree. We probably would have disagreed on Hillary Clinton's fitness to hold any politically appointed office as well. In the pictures that I see, it always matters whether public servants engage in criminal or unethical behavior.

 

 

IMO HRC wound have been better than President Trump. That's a very telling statement due to all of the issues that come along with her.

IMO HRC wound have been better than President Trump. That's a very telling statement due to all of the issues that come along with her.

I agree. That is a very telling admission. It is difficult for me to fathom how one could support Hillary Clinton, yet have any issues with any Trump nominee, but that is why we have elections.

He withdrew his name for the position yesterday.

President Trump is expected to announce Florida International University College of Law dean Alexander Acosta as his Sec. of Labor nominee.

 

Acosta has served in 3 previous Presidential appointed positions, and appears to be a slam dunk for confirmation.

Certainly seems well qualified, over and above his academic history and current role.

 

Acosta then worked at the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, where he specialized in employment and labor issues. While in Washington, Acosta taught classes on employment law, disability-based discrimination law, and civil rights law at the George Mason University School of Law.

 

From 1998 to 2000 Acosta was a senior fellow at the socially conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. [1]

 

President Obama made 3 Commerce Secretary nominations. Richardson withdrew because of corruption, Gregg withdrew because Obama wanted him to do the 2010 census in a favorable way and he refused, and Gary Locke became the Commerce secretary.

 

Tom Daschle also withdrew because he didnt pay his income taxes and had conflicts of interest within the healthcare industry.

 

This is nothing new. The guy decided to step away from a very public confirmation hearing.

President Obama made 3 Commerce Secretary nominations. Richardson withdrew because of corruption, Gregg withdrew because Obama wanted him to do the 2010 census in a favorable way and he refused, and Gary Locke became the Commerce secretary.

 

Tom Daschle also withdrew because he didnt pay his income taxes and had conflicts of interest within the healthcare industry.

 

This is nothing new. The guy decided to step away from a very public confirmation hearing.

 

President Obama made 3 Commerce Secretary nominations. Richardson withdrew because of corruption, Gregg withdrew because Obama wanted him to do the 2010 census in a favorable way and he refused, and Gary Locke became the Commerce secretary.

 

Tom Daschle also withdrew because he didnt pay his income taxes and had conflicts of interest within the healthcare industry.

 

This is nothing new. The guy decided to step away from a very public confirmation hearing.

 

So Cabinet members not being confirmed is not unusual. Thank you for pointing that out to those who think someone is picking on the Donald.

 

Continually posting this stuff makes it impossible to believe you when you claim you aren't rooting for the POTUS to fail. Just sayin...

So Cabinet members not being confirmed is not unusual. Thank you for pointing that out to those who think someone is picking on the Donald.

 

Correct. It is not unusual to nominate people that can't pass muster. Therefore nominating a person that can't pass muster is not a character flaw of the President, although that is what is being presented by the left-wing whiners.