Ivanka Trump to Have East Wing Office

Yeah okay, so what's your problem with this, happy smiling face.

Please enlighten me and others.

kind regards,

bally

a reply to: reldra

I thought there was an uproar when news outlets were reporting Ivanka and their younger son were going to "remain in Trump Tower" and 'refused' to move into the White House?

The media can't be trusted for anything these days, and having a Trump Presidency has these media players salivating at all the 'juicy' and attention grabbing "stories" they'll be able to push on us. It disgusts me on so many levels..

originally posted by: reldra
How? Why? No one really knows anymore. I am sure this thread will have many responses along the lines of 'why not?'

Well, I assumed Ivanka to be one of the children to be taking over Trump's businesses, but since Melania will be in NYC a lot with the youngest child, Ivanka will take on some First Lady or Hostess roles....that's not odd at all. The idea of 'odd' has changed, as of late.

CNN

Trump has indicated Don Jr. and Eric will retain control of his business operations while he's in the White House, while Kushner and Ivanka are reportedly expected to move to Washington and work closely with him in government. The couple spent Sunday house-hunting in Georgetown, two other sources told CNN.

Blind trust? Sure....why not?

Why don't we talk about Chelsea's role had Clinton won.

Non-issue. And if Ivanka wants to cut her political teeth helping out dad before striking out on her own, more power to her.

a reply to: reldra

Well, I assumed Ivanka to be one of the children to be taking over Trump's businesses, but since Melania will be in NYC a lot with the youngest child, Ivanka will take on some First Lady or Hostess roles....that's not odd at all. The idea of 'odd' has changed, as of late.

I absolutely agree that it is odd and I for one, applaud Trump for doing his thing and not caring what people think. And for two, the topic of Ivanka sitting in for First Lady deserves a thread of its own.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yes! your answer here hits the bullseye.

If the outcome was in favor of Clinton I'm sure her followers would support 'poor' Chelsea in the White House. What's wrong with Ivana's position in Chelsea's place.

Is it personal. Similar to the media reports perhaps.

bally

Probably nothing more than a "special government employee" arrangement. Huma Abedin had one for four years when she worked as 1) a paid consultant to the Clinton Foundation; 2) did consulting work for Teneo; and 3) continued her role as DoS Deputy Chief of Staff.

Journalism has been reduced to either 'Shouting Fire' or simply filling in the gaps with anything that makes it current.

Journalistic license is driving us all cray-cray.

Strong opinions are fine and all, but let's try being objective and methodical, and meet somewhere in the middle of extremes to find a common good.

This story is fake, a contributor to politico was fired for retweeting it and suggesting that Trump was ******* his daughter

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

It's not something that has been done traditionally. As long as it's just Ivanka and she's doing the same sort of advocacy that First Lady's have done, I don't think it's much of an issue in of itself though. I suspect that Melania isn't really going to be a particularly active First Lady because frankly, she's already demonstrated that she's a disaster. Even without the plagiarism of the current First Lady and the spectacle of her ridiculously myopic choice of ending cyber bullying as a cause to champion, she's not a particularly good public speaker and she comes across a bit Stepford-y in interviews.

It is however one more sign that trouble lies ahead.

It's one thing to have the kids running the family business, it's quite another to convey political influence from the executive to a cadre of family members and set them loose upon the capital. It smacks of the beginning of a familial autocracy and even if not that, it's still something that does not seem at all appropriate, remotely desirable or in keeping with the spirit of our republic.

And of course there are the innumerable overt conflicts of interest involving the Trump businesses. There has been no proper delineation between the Trump family, the Trump business, and the office of President.

What is really appalling about the whole debacle is how unimaginably hypocritical Trump's more ardent supporters are being when it comes to their views of the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation versus those of the Trumps and the Trump businesses.

a reply to: FamCore

The cult of Trump can scarcely be trusted either. They're unfailing devotion disturbs me. Which do you find worse? A media that is too critical or a public that is too uncritical?

a reply to: ksiezyc

That's about the size of it...though good luck getting anyone to admit that.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What is really appalling about the whole debacle is how unimaginably hypocritical Trump's more ardent supporters are being when it comes to their views of the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation versus those of the Trumps and the Trump businesses.

It is not only ardent Trump supporters. Anyone with an ear or eye on the news has become desensitized to what is normal, acceptable, and proper not only because of the campaign, but also because of 20+ years of the Clintons and their shenanigans. People are now poised to accept anything as the new reality.

a reply to: seagull

I'll be honest. I'm surprised you agree. I don't expect anyone to admit to anything, certainly not their own biases or being wrong. The latter can be particularly difficult.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Which do you find worse? A media that is too critical or a public that is too uncritical?

A deep question. I think the public has much potential to make positive change, but being so heavily influenced by the media keeps so many people in the dark on issues, misinformed, divided, or just plain distracted (see Kanye West, the Kardashians, or other non-stories that "trend" for example)

I think the media should be held to higher standards, and "We the People" should hold ourselves to higher standards. I see a lot of willful ignorance, cognitive dissonance, and blind followers

a reply to: theantediluvian

because frankly, she's already demonstrated that she's a disaster

plagiarism

ridiculously myopic

she's not a particularly good public speaker

The topic isn't Melania, not to mention reldra posted fake-news, but please do continue telling us how you really feel.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: FamCore

The cult of Trump can scarcely be trusted either. They're unfailing devotion disturbs me. Which do you find worse? A media that is too critical or a public that is too uncritical?

Nobody that I know is being more critical of Trump than his supporters, at least productively critical anyways.

The criticism from the left is mostly founded on ad hominem attacks, unsubstantiated claims, irrational accusations of racism, etc.

If the left wants their criticism to be productive to American society, then they best drop their bias and start seeking to fairly to critique Trump's policy rather than the media's interpretation of his behavior.

a reply to: omniEther

What about it is fake news? My comments were directly related to the topic. You're nobody to be admonishing anyone. Why don't you hop back on your other account and we can discuss your posting habits.

Also,

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Hoax bin.

Fake news.

Politico reporter fired for tweeting about this fake news story.

Just in, speaking on the condition of anonymity, a senior US intelligence official familiar with the matter has confirmed the Politico reporter's Twitter account was hacked by Russians.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Lmao. "productively critical"



Nothing you just said has anything to do with reality. At all. None of it. Look at what I just said in my post. Was any of it this:

The criticism from the left is mostly founded on ad hominem attacks, unsubstantiated claims, irrational accusations of racism, etc.

No? If so, please show me the error of my ways so that I too can be "producitvely critical." As for the reaction of the die hard Trump supporters? "This is fake news" "this is only a problem because it's not somebody on the left" yadda yadda. No criticism, positive of otherwise.

Also, your entire post was an ad hominem.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Don't be so hard on yourself buddy. Read the portion of my post that you quoted where it said the word mostly, as in you mostly don't fit in that category.

I wasn't speaking about you. I actually think you're better than that.

And I've even been known to star some of your posts, even if they were attacking me, but only because I thought you argued your point well.

But now that I think of it, maybe all my love is just going unappreciated and I should just stop.