Hell, she could move in at the state department…I understand whole floors of their admin building are empty, waiting for the President to appoint folks (and waiting for their budgets to get cut to the bone)…
I find it ironic how all of the Trump supporters are cheering because he’s going to “run government like a business”, but I’ve personally never known a CEO who appointed family to VP positions as advisors… well, except for shitty little mom and pop businesses. Large corporations seem to know better. So now I’m wondering, are we going to run the country like Proctor&Gamble (picking a random large corporation) or like Joebob’s Appliance Repair?
There is that, but I’d still like a little clarification by what the WH lawyer meant when he said she would be his “eyes and ears”…and I’d bet no small amount that others working in the WH are wondering the same thing.
- Zampolit*.
Now, now…Yoko Ono only broke up The Beatles, which was a catastrophe for pop music (or so I’m told). Ivanka is going to be blamed for breaking up NATO, the United States, or perhaps modern civilization.
Trump is going to Twitter out classified information. It doesn’t make it better that his chief adorationist and apple of his creepy, “Look at the rack on my daughter!” eye is now ensconced near the seat of power like a cut-rate Cersei Lannister with a Zombie Gregor Clegane glowering in the corner, but it still doesn’t even make the Late Show Top Ten List of fucked up things about this administration so far.
Stranger
How many large companies and their CEOs are you familiar with?? Several I can think of off the top of my head have had sons take over for fathers (Ford springs to mind) or are run by families down the line. And a lot of corporations I’m familiar with have CEOs who have friends or family members as advisors exactly like this seems to be headed. She won’t be in a comparable position to a VP btw or anything like that, so that’s not a very valid comparison to what we are doing.
This too was predicted:
First daughter, whoever she is, likely to remain a key advisor ADN 28/JU/2016
*The once and perhaps future first daughter was in direct competition with longtime friend Ivanka Trump, who emerged as the star of last week’s Republican convention. Even die-hard Democrats were impressed by the performance of the glamorous and well-spoken businesswoman often referred to as “Trump’s better half.” Tweeted Mia Farrow, “When is Ivanka running for President?”
Clinton, who has long been one of her mother’s closest political advisers, is unlikely to give the Democratic nominee as big a boost. *
…
Whoever wins the election in November, America is poised to have its most consequential first daughter since Anna Roosevelt. In 1943, the 37-year-old eldest child of Franklin Roosevelt, who had worked as a journalist for a decade, moved into the White House to serve as her father’s special assistant. She soon became FDR’s “expediter,” as Washington insiders put it, the aide who both got people in to see the president and got the president to do things. Many White House watchers were convinced FDR’s decision to put Harry Truman on the ticket in the summer of 1944 was entirely hers. As Life magazine put it in early 1945, “Daddy’s girl is running Daddy.”
…
*Politically, Ivanka Trump, who last week described herself as neither “Republican or Democrat,” and Chelsea Clinton are not all that far apart. Ivanka’s allusion in Cleveland to the importance of equal pay for equal work seems lifted not from anything her father has ever said, but from one of Clinton’s stump speeches. The major difference between the two is Chelsea, who holds a trio of advance degrees, is more wonkish — she’s an expert on health policy, for example — and seems a bit more uncomfortable in the media spotlight.
*
But both women are dutiful daughters who will keep doing whatever they can to help their parents achieve their professional dreams. In the run-up to the election, while Ivanka is expected to focus on shoring up her father’s support among women, Chelsea is likely to work on humanizing her mother. After January, it’s hard to imagine either daughter would turn down whatever assignment dropped in her lap.
Still, had Hillary succeeded, one knows the Clintonistas would be lauding Chelsea — who was dropped into a well-playing job running her parents’ Foundation — as a splendid choice and a future president.
Bobby Kennedy already had a successful career in the DoJ before he was appointed by his brother though (likewise, John Eisenhower had a long military career before he was given a military liason position in his fathers WH). So while nepotism was obviously part of their appointments, they were also had plenty of previous qualifications. I don’t think those examples are exactly the same as Ivanka, who doesn’t really seem to have much in the way of relevant previous experience.
But the Trump WH is such a bizarre disaster, that I can’t really get that worked up about it. If Trump’s not talking to Ivanka, he’ll be talking to some ex-Nazi conspiracy theorist. As things go, I guess I’d rather him talking to a spoiled NY socialite.
Indeed.
Most of the greatest corporations went for dynastic rule, because it’s the most effective way to continue a business. Du Ponts, Fords, Rockefellers, Astors, Vanderbilts, Rothschilds etc. never let a single dollar out of the reach of the family if they could help it.
And most ordinary businesses were X & Son[s], or even as I’ve seen around here: ** X & Daughter.**
To suggest companies don’t choose their successors from the family is wholly absurd.
And applies just as much to Chelsea’s job I mentioned earlier. Clinton Pere & Clinton Mere had every right to parachute her into the family business.
This country isn’t a corporation, and Presidents don’t get to pick their successors.
This really applies to anyone and everyone, though. He knows more than the generals. He has the best ideas and all the best words.
Not much left for the rest of us to use. 
This has nothing to do with the point that was under discussion. And since, at least afaict, Trump hasn’t attempted to make Ivanka his successor it doesn’t seem to have much bearing on the OP either. What point were you trying to make here? You asked about precedence, and that’s been answered, though I haven’t seen you acknowledge that. Presidents have in the past used various family members in adviser capacities so Trump seems on solid ground doing the same. There is little to like about Trump, and this doesn’t seem a very wise thing either since I also don’t see much in terms of qualifications…but Presidents have decided who their advisers would be based on other things that qualifications in the past, so, again, doesn’t seem like anything he can’t do.
I think you’d be better served asking folks if they think ANY President SHOULD be able to appoint wives and children as advisers if you want to have a reasonable discussion.
It had something to do with the post previous to mine that I was responding to.
Hey! Don’t yell at Bricker! That was me!
Remember when Bill Clinton appointed a brilliant Harvard lawyer to take on health-care reform? What a scandal.
I am no fan of the whole Trump universe, to say the least, but I heard one take on this that comforts me - her presence stabilizes him (sort of like a comfort animal?) So, I am all for it.
Can’t say that I do.
Yea, I suspect that’s her main relevant experience. She has more practice managing her father’s behavior than most other people, and he can’t really fire her.
Right in the middle of that. More like Don’s Bridges.
Slogan: You wanna buy a bridge? Cheap!
Eww.
Not really, since in that I was responding to XT’s correct judgement of corporations he made to another poster.