This thread is about Ivanka, and your lame (tired, warmed-over, for the umpteenth time) "rebuttal" is an exhibition of Obsessive Obama Derangement Syndrome? Thanks for the laugh. Oh, and back on tooic, Ivanka is Fair Game.
Each thread represents a record of comments by posters. You can access any thread involving Michelle Obama and see for yourself what they (leftists) thought of criticism of her though you know very well it was considered the lowest of scurrilous attacks and are playing some sort of childish game. Just as you cannot obscure the partisan double standard you try to defend and deny. Since Michelle Obama was fiercely defended as being off limits to partisan attacks Ivanka Trump should get the same treatment from leftists (occupying a similar position as Michelle within the respective administrations of Obama and Trump). But you know and prove that double standards never stopped anyone on the left from doing exactly what they said others should not do.
And why should Ivanka be given a pass again now? Still waiting for an answer that acknowledges the she works for the the taxpayer and citizen and is accountable.
Because guys like you and your ilk demanded that Michelle Obama be immune from ugly partisan attacks, and all criticism actually, even though she was the Obama school lunch czar and directed policy from her White House office through the Department of Education. And Ivanka Trump? Well, she showed up at the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem. For that she was called a "ghoul". So why don't you tell me why Michelle Obama should be off limits to slurs and insults but not Ivanka Trump? How many more times would you like to go over this?
She is STAFF not "family"....if she wants to be "just family" she can leave the White House....but as "staff" she is a genuine target....
Did you say the same thing when Michelle Obama was the School Lunch Czar in the Obama administration? Did you call her a "genuine target"? Did you?
But she is still a government "employee" and is accountable to the taxpayer as she works in the Trump Admin ONLY as the request of her father. Ilk, per you, is just bait as it's irrelevant except to you.
You mean just like Michelle Obama. Right? (except that Ivanka doesn't literally have a White House office and staff from which to institute actual policy that effects school children all over America, as Michelle did) So either Ivanka Trump deserves the same protection from putrid partisan attacks that Michelle was granted by the left, or Michelle was shielded absolutely cynically and, as per usual, hypocritically. So which is it? Was the left lying then? Or are they lying now? You get to choose.
Part of what you say is true enough: It is, indeed, out of bounds for a president--any president--to try to undermine the freedom of the press (which is guaranteed by the First Amendment). But that is not mutually exclusive with what I have noted: To try to drag the president's family into the matter--to go after them--is surely over the line. Can you not hold these two thoughts in your head, at the same time?
(1) By "cons"--a pejorative term, intended to dredge up thoughts of con artists--I would presume that you really mean conservatives. (Anyone who cannot make his point without resorting to innuendo is probably not well armed, with a trenchant argument.) (2) I am really not aware of just what "feeding frenzy" conservatives had over "the Obama clan," during Barack Obama's presidency. If any such thing actually happened, I would vociferously condemn it. But two wrongs do not make one right. (That actually points to a logical fallacy; those who revel in "payback" are guilty of committing this fallacy.) (3) How would you have felt, exactly, if conservatives had described Barack Obama as "the great black hope"? Well, that is rather akin to your describing Donald Trump as our "great orange hope." (4) It is fine for you to dislike Donald Trump's personality and temperament--he is much too arrogant for my taste, also--and to dislike his rather crude (and sometimes rude) remarks, as well; and even to dislike his policies. But those who would like to overturn the 2016 presidential election are not patriots. They are more like insurgents...
So, you believe that the media were going Ivanka Trump, the representative, rather than Ivanka Trump, the family member? This is what you truly believe?
She literally does have an office (in the West Wing,) and a staff, along with security clearance and WH issued communications devices.
Since she is officially part of the administration, she is fair game. It doesn't matter that she's also family.
(1) Are you suggesting, then, that the New York Daily News was targeting Ivanka Trump strictly for the work that she was doing in the Trump administration--and not at all for her being a member of the Trump family? Is this seriously your position? (2) It is most unfortunate that President Trump has said some unseemly things about Senator McCain that are over the line, in my opinion. (And for a White House aide to have said, recently, that Senator McCain's opinion could be dismissed, because he "is dying anyway," is definitely over the line.) (3) I would not speculate as concerning the (supposed) motives of the Trump children. (Actually, the argument from motives is a logical fallacy.)
Butthurt "progressive" losers will be butthurt "progressive" losers... Which reminds me of something P.J. O'Rourke once said: At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.
Oh, I see: The New York Daily News was merely attacking her position as a "staff" member. It was not personal, in the slightest. Got it...
You're only a woman, a homo, a black (wo)man, or an Hispanic if you're a democrat. Nobody else counts, and straight white males are always last in the DNC club unless they're an elected official.
