CDZ Would you think it okay for a President's spouse to continue to work in their career?

[OldLady]

If I were to take your question seriously, and not just a slam on Melania Trump which it probably is, I would say that it might be hard to keep "conflict of interest" stuff out of it and the secret service would have an additional big job on its hands. I don't profess to know details, but I have heard in passing that Trump needs to bow out of his businesses while he is in the White House. The whole management has been turned over to the kids while he is in office, if that happens. Now, if the Pres is not supposed to be working outside the WH, why would his wife be allowed to (or her husband, if Clinton becomes President)? Did I get that wrong?

 

[I amso IR]

Fair enough, as you are the OP. In my personal opinion, absolutely, the spouse should be free to pursue their chosen profession as long as incidentals such as family and children are not overlooked.

You may be very first person I've ever observed refer to family and children as "incidentals."

Tony, that was a tongue in cheek remark with reference to "incidentals". Granted, with older presidents not so much, but Mr. Obama was an exception to the "old guy/gal" rule. It can happen again and in fact the Trump's have a young man in the family. Not that there are not enough family to mind the store. My point is that there is a time either mom or dad need to be fully involved with underage family matters. A female will leave that up to a male and as history has proven time and again where children are involved the wife has assumed the duties. Also we cannot overlook nannies, so on and so forth. But back to the original question, yes, the spouse should be allowed to pursue their chosen life style and profession when the other half of the marriage is fully employed as President of this Nation.

 

[320 Years of History]

Tony, that was a tongue in cheek remark with reference to "incidentals".

Okay. Fair enough. Understood.

 

[I amso IR]

Tony, that was a tongue in cheek remark with reference to "incidentals".

Okay. Fair enough. Understood.

I am here, on USMB, as an outlet, not because I want to be. I will not discuss specifics as they are none of anyones business. However, when someone is up to the ears in alligators, it is very easy to lose sight of the swamp. After all, that was the original charge, to drain the swamp. I am neither pleading nor asking, as I myself will find resolution, one way or the other. I befriended you here on USMB. What you stated proved me incorrect in my basic understanding. I accept that and, well, accept that fact. However, my thought that who ever designs a system, shares in the need of correcting portions which may prove less than desireable, still stands. I rest my case with the decision of the FCC to require the telecommunications industry to require their involvement in stopping rag heads from other nations from bilking unsuspecting citizens of this nation of large sums of money. And, thankfully so, it is working. I want you to know, in general terms, I am not the enemy. I am an AMERICAN, with no respect to heritage, simply an American. I believe in America and have devoted my life to America. When my fore fathers left "wherever", they left "wherever" and called this home. I expect the same response from every person who is here. If someone cannot do something as simple as that, they do not need to be here. Be one or be none! It is that simple. Don't like it, leave! That is my thinking and that is how it is. I am a fifth generation American, and quite simply, screw the rest. Don't like it, bye bye. America is just that, Americans, pure and simple. Screw the rest! While my verbage and sentence structure may be faulty, my intent is not. And that is an American trait. Bold, daring and unafraid. Piss on everyone else. Talk to you when I sober up, if I sober up!

 

[320 Years of History]

Talk to you when I sober up

I was truly fixin' to reply to some of your comments. I'm thankful that you concluded with the remark above. I'll wait for you to sober up and then consider whether you care to revise your remarks. It's definitely not clear to me what a large share of them have to do with the topic at hand. So may I suggest you re-work them at least to make that much of a correspondence? I'm certainly not going to respond substantively to anyone's admittedly inebriated ramblings.

Enjoy your buzz. Speaking of that, as a native born and lifelong Washingtonian, it's my opinion that GOP parties are generally more lavish, but Democrat ones are more fun. To that end, I hope you picked up your buzz in Philly -- there were some great parties there last night -- and I hope you find yourself posting on USMB from the comfort of chartered flight/private coach home.

TTYL

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Good Lord, can you imagine if Trump wins and that woman decides to go back into the "modeling" semi-nude business?

Why would she do that? She's retired from that life and by all accounts loves being a full time mother.

 

[OldLady]

Since no one answered my question, I grudgingly stirred my lazy butt to Google whether the president can run businesses while in office. The answer is, he can. Presidents, though,have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from their private wealth making enterprises while in office to avoid the appearance of "conflict of interest." An example of that not working so well is the Clinton's foundation, which is and has been pointed to as a pay to play scheme and is now being investigated. The doubts and aspersions cast by Clinton's political adversaries will not dry up even after an investigation, however. It is going to be yet another storm cloud over her head that will not dissipate.
So even though it's true that the Presidency is not a money-making position, presidents in the past century have not been poor before or after their term, and it seems to me that although a President and therefore First Spouse are allowed to work/run a business, it is not worth the headaches of continual questions about conflict of interest.

 

[I amso IR]

Talk to you when I sober up

I was truly fixin' to reply to some of your comments. I'm thankful that you concluded with the remark above. I'll wait for you to sober up and then consider whether you care to revise your remarks. It's definitely not clear to me what a large share of them have to do with the topic at hand. So may I suggest you re-work them at least to make that much of a correspondence? I'm certainly not going to respond substantively to anyone's admittedly inebriated ramblings.

Enjoy your buzz. Speaking of that, as a native born and lifelong Washingtonian, it's my opinion that GOP parties are generally more lavish, but Democrat ones are more fun. To that end, I hope you picked up your buzz in Philly -- there were some great parties there last night -- and I hope you find yourself posting on USMB from the comfort of chartered flight/private coach home.

TTYL

We are not familiar with one another to the point we can assume what the other is saying when those reckless moments of abandon strike. I have read and reread my post to you, made while in another state of mind. I agree that the post in question, #24, has nothing to do with the topic being discussed in this link. Please accept my humble apology for for writing it. However, the second point associated with my post, #24 stands. It may have had something to do with the statement by the gentleman and his wife, at the D convention, who have suffered the loss of their son while serving in the United States Army in Iraq. The statement was not directed at them personally but towards some of the remarks of others. So in a point of fact, I was venting towards those who do not serve and yet have much to say and more importantly have no intention of serving this nation. I will leave my response at that and ask you to simply accept my statement as unfounded as I am apt to do at any time. I apologize to anyone I may have offended. However I will never apologize for my love of MY country, The United States of America.