# Ivanka's new NON-position in the White House **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704 "2017-03-21T17:54:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/101 "2017-03-23T23:52:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Obamas can live anywhere they want without having to give a reason. They’ve left public service and are no longer answerable to the American people. > > The same is not true for the Trumps. The First Lady may not be an official elected position but it does exist in reality. By choosing to live in Manhattan rather than Washington, Mrs Trump is creating a hole in the administration. And she’s requiring the American people to foot the expense of maintaining two presidential households instead of one. Her husband chose to run for President; that creates obligations for her as well. I love your authority in announcing these rules. Truth is, I’m so envious I’ve decided to run against you for this job you have of Rules Creator. Where do I register? Having sarcastically addressed the idea that I, or anyone, needs to accept your pronouncement that the husband’s job choices must create obligations for the wife, I’ll quote Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was asked to recuse himself from judging a same-sex marriage case because his wife was Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which had publicly supported similar same-sex marriage initiatives. Reinhardt’s speaking specifically about recusal, of course, but makes a more general point about wives and husbands in this century: > [@](#): > > Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses. When I joined this court in 1980 (well before my wife and I were married), the ethics rules promulgated by the Judicial Conference stated that judges should ensure that their wives not participate in politics. I wrote the ethics committee and suggested that this advice did not reflect the realities of modern marriage–that even if it were desirable for judges to control their wives, I did not know many judges who could actually do so (I further suggested that the Committee would do better to say “spouses” than “wives,” as by then we had as members of our court Judge Mary Schroeder, Judge Betty Fletcher, and Judge Dorothy Nelson). The committee thanked me for my letter and sometime later changed the rule. That time has passed, and rightly so. In 2011, my wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them. It is her view, and I agree, that she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers. If Ramona Ripston (the wife in question) can pursue her professional duties, its seems beyond cavil that Ms. Trump can pursue her personal ones. I have no idea how expensive Secret Service protection was to support Dr. Jill Biden’s decision to teach community college as a full-time job while her husband served as Vice-President, but I assure you I never once contemplated an assertion that she was somehow bound by Joe’s position to not do so. If Mrs. Clinton had won, would you have insisted that Bill live in DC? I hope not, as that, too, would have been an area in which you had no business asserting any rules at all. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/102 "2017-03-24T01:30:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I love your authority in announcing these rules. > > Truth is, I’m so envious I’ve decided to run against you for this job you have of Rules Creator. > > Where do I register? I didn’t claim that I was creating a rule. I was stating my opinion. I’ll defend my opinion and offer reasons why I hold it. Other people are free to state opposing opinions and defend and explain those. If I had to pick somebody on this board who frequently posts as if he can make a statement and everyone else has to accept his authority without any explanations offered or further discussion allowed, it would be you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/103 "2017-03-24T01:42:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I didn’t claim that I was creating a rule. I was stating my opinion. I’ll defend my opinion and offer reasons why I hold it. Other people are free to state opposing opinions and defend and explain those. > > If I had to pick somebody on this board who frequently posts as if he can make a statement and everyone else has to accept his authority without any explanations offered or further discussion allowed, it would be you. That’s not my impression. If I’m discussing the law, I might well make definitive statements, but typically with citation to case law. Other than that, I usually caveat what I say with phrases like, “In my view,” or “In my opinion,” or “As I see it…” In contrast to: > [@](#): > > The same is not true for the Trumps. The First Lady may not be an official elected position but it does exist in reality. By choosing to live in Manhattan rather than Washington, Mrs Trump is creating a hole in the administration. And she’s requiring the American people to foot the expense of maintaining two presidential households instead of one. Her husband chose to run for President; that creates obligations for her as well. But perhaps I’m blind to my own excess. Can you cite a couple of the recent examples of my posts that bespoke of “…everyone else has to accept [my] authority without any explanations offered or further discussion allowed?” I am eager to learn of my flaws. (No snark – I don’t wish to offer such definitive uncited statements.) ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/104 "2017-03-27T06:09:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Apparently Daughter Dearest [received a security clearance, a secured phone and is getting her own office](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-white-house-office_us_58d056ffe4b00705db520f50?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009)…without actually holding any particular job or title. So what the fuck is she supposedly doing, who does she report to…and who is supposed to report to _her_? > Is there any precedent for this? Had Hillary been elected, perhaps Bill would have served in a similar role. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/105 "2017-03-27T11:53:21Z")
[Trump can’t let Ivanka’s husband sit home all day.](https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-plans-office-bring-business-ideas-government-032811311--finance.html) > [@](#): > > President Donald Trump is set to announce a new White House office run by his son-in-law that will seek to overhaul government functions using ideas from the business sector. > > A senior administration official said Trump on Monday will announce the White House Office of American Innovation. The official sought anonymity to discuss the office in advance of the formal rollout. > > The plans for the office were first reported by The Washington Post. > > The innovation office will be led by Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to Trump, and will report directly to the president. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/106 "2017-03-27T12:04:44Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Had Hillary been elected, perhaps Bill would have served in a similar role. “They would have done it too!” is even lamer than “They do it too!”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/107 "2017-03-27T14:21:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But perhaps I’m blind to my own excess. Can you cite a couple of the recent examples of my posts that bespoke of “…everyone else has to accept [my] authority without any explanations offered or further discussion allowed?” I am eager to learn of my flaws. (No snark – I don’t wish to offer such definitive uncited statements.) Okay, two recent examples for comparison. From [Failed Trump casino sues over alleged theft of “TRUMP” sign](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822036) [My post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20080566&postcount=4): > [@](#): > > I think the Trump organization is in the right and should win the lawsuit. They signed a contract to have the signs destroyed not resold. The company then chose to resell a sign anyway. Palmieri was wrong to resell the sign and RUMP, while it did not violate the contract, didn’t have legal ownership of the sign and isn’t entitled to make money by selling it. From [Trump cleared of Conflict of Interest with the Washington D.C. hotel](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822340) [Your post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20090124&postcount=2): > [@](#): > > Correct decision. First off, I didn’t say _“the Trump organization is in the right”_; I said _“I think the Trump organization is in the right.”_ Second, I explained the legal principles that I felt justified my opinion. Your post did not do this. You simply said the decision was correct without offering any reason why it was correct. The implication seemed to be that we should accept that this decision was correct because you were telling us it was correct. And that the rest of us were either incapable of understanding the reasons why this was so or didn’t deserve that information. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/108 "2017-03-27T14:35:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Okay, two recent examples for comparison. > > From [Failed Trump casino sues over alleged theft of “TRUMP” sign](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822036) > > [My post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20080566&postcount=4): > > From [Trump cleared of Conflict of Interest with the Washington D.C. hotel](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822340) > > [Your post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20090124&postcount=2): > > First off, I didn’t say _“the Trump organization is in the right”_; I said _“I think the Trump organization is in the right.”_ Second, I explained the legal principles that I felt justified my opinion. > > Your post did not do this. You simply said the decision was correct without offering any reason why it was correct. The implication seemed to be that we should accept that this decision was correct because you were telling us it was correct. And that the rest of us were either incapable of understanding the reasons why this was so or didn’t deserve that information. So you would have been okay if \*\*Bricker \*\*had said _“I agree”_ instead of _“Correct decision”_? Would _“I think that was the correct decision”_ have been okay? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/109 "2017-03-27T15:11:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Okay, two recent examples for comparison. > > From [Failed Trump casino sues over alleged theft of “TRUMP” sign](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822036) > > [My post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20080566&postcount=4): > > From [Trump cleared of Conflict of Interest with the Washington D.C. hotel](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822340) > > [Your post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20090124&postcount=2): > > First off, I didn’t say _“the Trump organization is in the right”_; I said _“I think the Trump organization is in the right.”_ Second, I explained the legal principles that I felt justified my opinion. > > Your post did not do this. You simply said the decision was correct without offering any reason why it was correct. The implication seemed to be that we should accept that this decision was correct because you were telling us it was correct. And that the rest of us were either incapable of understanding the reasons why this was so or didn’t deserve that information. and my post 10? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/110 "2017-03-27T16:09:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > and my post 10? That post (#10) only seems to be a response to others asking for an explanation of your “Correct decision” post (mine included) I was actually surprised that “Correct decision” was your entire post, since I knew of THIS topic where you posted that you put “In my opinion” or “according to case law” in any posts where you are offering an opinion In any event, I always assume that a post is someone’s opinion, unless they have actual sites attached to their posts, even if they don’t use “In my opinion” explicitly. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/111 "2017-03-27T16:24:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “They would have done it too!” is even lamer than “They do it too!”. These sort of protests — ‘_So **what** if we do it: doesn’t excuse what we accuse you of doing_’ always come off as saying: ‘_ **We can do what we want** — anyone else doing it is wicked_’. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander: when America bombs hospitals it loses the power to rebuke Russia or anyone else for bombing hospitals. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/112 "2017-03-27T16:32:48Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > These sort of protests — ‘_So **what** if we do it: doesn’t excuse what we accuse you of doing_’ always come off as saying: ‘_ **We can do what we want** — anyone else doing it is wicked_’. > What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander: when America bombs hospitals it loses the power to rebuke Russia or anyone else for bombing hospitals. We are neither geese nor ganders. Either words and/or actions can be justified on their own or they cannot because, short of the entire annihilation of the Earth, you can always find someone else who “did it tooooo!!”. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/113 "2017-03-27T16:33:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not my impression. If I’m discussing the law, I might well make definitive statements, but typically with citation to case law. Other than that, I usually caveat what I say with phrases like, “In my view,” or “In my opinion,” or “As I see it…” Well, Fuck Ivanka doggy-style & call her my daughter-wife. How about that…? I never noticed these easter eggs before. I need to bookmark this post & remind people of their false impressions every time you make these caveats. Thanks…! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/114 "2017-03-27T21:43:17Z")
Boy, there sure seems to be a lot of assumptions here that Ivanka is just some socialite airhead without skills living off her daddy’s money, a la Paris Hilton. Along with a number of more sexist comments. Somehow, I expected better. I never gave more than a moment’s thought about Ivanka before now. I don’t like Trump, and had no opinion about Ivanka at all. So I decided to do a little reading about her before forming an opinion. More of you should try it. If you did, you might be changing your tune about her. For one thing, she is clearly a Democrat. Her best friend is Chelsea Clinton. She was a major fundraiser for Cory Booker. Having a liberal in the White House who Trump depends on for advice should worry Republicans and make Democrats a little more comfortable. Also, she’s reasonably qualified as an advisor, even if she wasn’t a Trump. She attended Georgetown, and she has a degree with honors in Economics from Wharton. She has been running her own businesses for ten years, and by all accounts I could find she’s much better at it than her Dad. No wonder he relies on her. I have reqd things, mostly by liberals, which make her sound pretty impressive. And I couldn’t find anythng negative said about her by people who have actually dealt with her. If Hillary had won I don’t think anyone here would have complained if Chelsea had been given a similar position. As others have said, there are lots of more important things to worry about with a Trump administration. Having Ivanka in the mix is probably an improvement to the entire situation. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/115 "2017-03-27T23:35:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … > If Hillary had won I don’t think anyone here would have complained if Chelsea had been given a similar position. … You are obviously a thoughtful, reasonable person who thinks well of his fellow human beings and tends to give people the benefit of the doubt. But this…um…no. If Hillary had gotten elected and given Chelsea an office in the West Wing the outcry from all factions of the Republican party would have raised the roof on the Capitol building. Are you kidding?? I imagine a Congressional investigation would probably have been launched immediately. With a special prosecutor or something. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/116 "2017-03-27T23:41:46Z")
In terms of the normalisation of Trump - in the context of European politics, this is an out and out freak show. You’re Merkel or Abe and you want to meet with the President of the USA, and his daughter the hand bag designer is sitting in? Beyond fucking parody. It’s Yoko Ono Land. Give the woman a tambourine, ffs. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/117 "2017-03-28T00:19:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So maybe she’ll end up being the 21st century Edith Wilson, after Trump’s sundowning becomes a problem. Yup. She’s there to calm him down, when necessary. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704/118 "2017-03-28T01:07:27Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > . > > Also, she’s reasonably qualified as an advisor, even if she wasn’t a Trump. She attended Georgetown, and she has a degree with honors in Economics from Wharton. She has been running her own businesses for ten years, and by all accounts I could find she’s much better at it than her Dad. No wonder he relies on her. I have reqd things, mostly by liberals, which make her sound pretty impressive. And I couldn’t find anythng negative said about her by people who have actually dealt with her. I really don’t have a problem with her but you are setting one seriously low bar for “reasonably qualified” to be a Presidential advisor. She probably is a good choice though because she is not a nutty ideologue and her advice might be the only one sticks past breakfast with the Donald. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ivankas-new-non-position-in-the-white-house/782704.md?page=5)