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:
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.
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:
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.)
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.
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.
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!!”.
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.
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.
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.
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.