Yeah, how dare you guys imply that making minorities wear special identification is in any way bigoted.
Naturally, the hypothetical assumes Trump wins both the nomination and the general election. As far as Melania’s interest in being First Lady, this is the first I’ve heard of her expressing interest in being First Lady or of her picturing herself as a future Jackie Kennedy. I stand corrected if that’s the case. What little I’ve seen or heard is that she has little interest in hitting the campaign trail or doing anything much to help her husband win office, and the impression I get is that she’d prefer to stay at home in New York, tending her own business interests and raising her son.
As for myself, I don’t find Melania particularly likable (or beautiful), but I really have no idea what she’s like in person. She might be very funny and charming and gracious for all I know. I just haven’t seen much evidence of it myself, and that’s why I’m thinking that Ivanka would be so good fulfilling many of the traditional roles of the First Lady. She seems to have won almost universal respect for her charm, intelligence and business savvy and to me she’d be quite effective as a unifier among those Trump would have to deal with, both on domestic and international fronts. It could be Trump already has something similar in mind for her anyway, as sort of fill-in for Melania in areas Melania might not be good at or in some other role as a high level functionary. I think he could do much worse than to have her involved somehow. She’s quite an impressive young woman. I also think she could work wonders during the campaign in bringing undecided women into the fold.
I think Ivanka is going to be busy running her father’s business while he is in the white house.
She would be fine as a first lady and there is precedent for daughters filling at least some of the first lady roles. I think Chelsea did it for a while for Bill and I know in other countries daughters filled in after their mother died.
The quote is at the end of this article. It was made almost 17 years ago, long before she actually married Trump.
Still, I don’t see anything inconsistent in what you’ve said about her not wanting to campaign and her vision of herself as a glamorous Kennedy-esque First Lady. Campaigning is hard work, becoming President and First Lady is the reward at the end of it. Avoiding the work and swooping in for the reward is pretty much the job description of the gold-digging trophy wife, the kind that gets herself on the cover of Vogue with the caption “How to Marry a Billionaire”. OTOH, she not only makes the perfect trophy wife, she seems like a kindred spirit – she once told a reporter who was insufficiently obsequious that “he should be fired from his failing magazine”. I bet she called him a loser, too. I’m sure she and the Donald deserve each other.
I think the problem would be that if Ivanka fills the role of First Lady it will highlight the fact that Melania is not. So people are going to question why the President’s wife was supplanted and rumors will begin.
Judging a woman from her facial expressions seems a little sketchy in this day and age. We at one time heard a lot about how angry Michelle Obama must be, for instance.
And as for being a gold-digger, we’ve heard essentially the same thing about Hillary Clinton, that she tolerated her husband’s infidelities simply to trade upon his political success.
Maybe she did, and if so, so what? That’s not the definition of “gold-digger”, first of all. Both Hillary and Bill had successful professional careers in their own right and neither was enormously enriching themselves financially by marrying the other. If Hillary avoided divorce for the sake of image and her political career, that speaks more about the quality of their marriage than about her political qualifications. If true it also speaks to her ambition, but that’s no secret, and not necessarily a negative.
Who are you to judge a consensual relationship?
I certainly wouldn’t! I wish them happiness and joy.
Melania would be the first foreign-born First Lady since Louisa Adams, wife of John Quincy Adams, who was born in England.
It might be a tough bullet to bite for Donald’s nativist base.
Yes, I know the plan has been for her to help run her father’s businesses while he’s in office. But since she’s turning out to be quite an asset on the campaign trail and in television appearances I’m thinking it’s becoming apparent she could perform a more important role once Trump’s in office.
I don’t know that Melania is all that much of a gold-digger. IIRC, she had become quite wealthy on her own from modeling, plus she has apparently built a successful jewelry business of her own. Trump has a history of relationships with attractive women who, despite the fact the could leave him and still rake in multi-millions, stay with him until he eventually moves on himself. So I can’t help but think there’s more to the guy as a husband than is apparent on the outside. Of course there’s still a cache to being Mrs. Donald Trump that isn’t there as a divorcee, but Melania doesn’t seen to be much of a social butterfly so I doubt that’s of much importance to her either.
All of this is just speculation of my part of course.
All true, but I think you’re greatly understating the impact it would have.
Louisa Adams can be practically ruled out as a precedent – she was British-born at a time when 80% of the population was of British descent. And “nativist” is rather understating the fact that at least some significant percentage of Trump’s base are raving xenophobes. The thought of how Trump’s base would react to a First Lady with such a clear foreign-born heritage and an accent more suggestive of a Russian spy than the First Lady of the United States provides me with some mild amusement. 
Don’t you think Trump’s base is already aware of who his wife is?
You might want to rethink some of your presumptions vis-a-vis Trump’s allegedly raging xenophobic base.
I think all but the most dedicated of xenophobes would make an exception for a really hot foreign wife.
Trump’s base is barely aware, much less aware of things.
Exactly.
Precisely zero voters vote or don’t vote for a candidate based on the candidate’s spouse.
At least until we get our first same-sex couple where one of the two is running for President. And even then folks won’t give a hoot about the spouse; it’d be all about the sexual preference of the candidate.
I don’t think being foreign-born per se would matter much. She is, after all, European non-Muslim. Maybe if she were from “Russia”, it would touch off his nativist base since some of them might have a knee-jerk reaction to the mere name of our historical enemy, but I don’t think even many blazing xenophobes mind too much of one or two rich white Europeans move to America.
Now, that isn’t to say if Sanders had a Slovenian wife that those same people wouldn’t give her crap for it.
So if only the spouse was gay, no one would complain?
Sure, but that wasn’t my point. My perverted sense of humor is just tickled by how Trump’s xenophobic base would react following his hypothetical election when the First Lady and wife of the newly elected hero steps out and starts talking, and what the xenophobes hear sounds to them like either a Bond movie spy or Natasha Nogoodnick from Rocky and Bullwinkle. Let’s not forget that these are the folks still insisting that Obama is illegitimate because … mumble mumble … black … mumble … Kenya … mumble … Muslim …
Rants belong in The BBQ Pit, but I will be nice and send this ti IMHO. This is rewally not an election debate.
[ /Moderating ]