What The Hell Is The Point of Melania Trump?

[Angela Channing]

It might just be because here in the UK we don't get all the details of the activities of the First Lady but is Melania doing anything other than looking miserable?

In the past First Ladies of The United States have used their position to raise awareness of an important issue or cause. For example, Michele Obama promoted health and exercise issues and was a advocate for education and more opportunities for girls, both Laura and Barbara Bush promoted literacy campaigns, Hilary Clinton worked on expanding health insurance coverage and Nancy Reagan promoted programs that aimed to reduce drug and alcohol abuse amongst young people. However, what the hell is Melania doing?

 

[Zable]

To answer your last question: attend funerals from which her husband stays away.
http://time.com/5250307/barbara-bush-obama-clinton-trump-funeral-photo/

To your second question: she can do 'smile' quite naturally.

To your first: she was born.

Melania Trump does not need to be an advocate for anything to have a point to her very existence.
If playing the role of a ceremonial First Lady suits her best, that's fine by me. If she doesn't want to sound off her POVs, not an issue. I already knew early on that she was against online bullying, particularly of children. And she has said very simply: "No child should ever feel hungry, stalked, frightened, terrorized, bullied, isolated or afraid, with no where to turn. We must teach each child the values of empathy, kindness, mindfulness, integrity and leadership, which can only be taught by example." Her whole life has been a lesson for what's behind what she says. And, she's had first-hand knowledge of how children who haven't had some of those 'safety-nets' might turn out to be. Obviously, she's not wanting families have that be a recurring pattern. I don't demand that she have intellectual rigour articulating her feelings. Who wrote the rule book that the Frist Lady must be a vocal speaker and have a worthy pet project to promote?

 

[Frank Underwood]

To your first: she was born.

Melania Trump does not need to be an advocate for anything to have a point to her very existence.
If playing the role of a ceremonial First Lady suits her best, that's fine by me. If she doesn't want to sound off her POVs, not an issue. I already knew early on that she was against online bullying, particularly of children. And she has said very simply: "No child should ever feel hungry, stalked, frightened, terrorized, bullied, isolated or afraid, with no where to turn. We must teach each child the values of empathy, kindness, mindfulness, integrity and leadership, which can only be taught by example." Her whole life has been a lesson for what's behind what she says. And, she's had first-hand knowledge of how children who haven't had some of those 'safety-nets' might turn out to be. Obviously, she's not wanting families have that be a recurring pattern. I don't demand that she have intellectual rigour articulating her feelings. Who wrote the rule book that the Frist Lady must be a vocal speaker and have a worthy pet project to promote?

Yes, I've always found it odd that the first lady is practically expected to champion some cause. It just seems like an unnecessary tradition to me. Let them do what they want.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

What’s the point of Melania? Three words: Trump’s Trophy Wife, which is the same function his first two wives served. They just kept getting progressively younger until he finally ended up with one young enough to be his daughter. Of course, he may very well dispose of her for one young enough to be his granddaughter. His supporters would undoubtedly not bat an eye.

 

[Angela Channing]

It just seems like a total wasted opportunity. Melania has a platform to do some good but chooses not to use it.

 

[Ome]

doing anything other than looking miserable?

To be fair, look what she's married to.

 

[Maryann]

That is a good question, didn't other first ladies publicly did something that benefits society or some kind of activism by now?

 

[Frank Underwood]

It just seems like a total wasted opportunity. Melania has a platform to do some good but chooses not to use it.

Being first lady doesn't come with any job requirements. The first lady is simply the wife of the guy elected president.

It's great if they use their position to promote a cause, but I can also understand if they want to remain low key.

 

[Mazzilli]

She is one of the faces of the "wounded warrior project" And she is a philanthropist ..

What the hell is the point of this thread?

 

[SueEllenRules!]

That is a good question, didn't other first ladies publicly did something that benefits society or some kind of activism by now?

Yes, all modern First Ladies going back to at least Jackie Kennedy. The only cause I’ve heard Melania express any interest in is (ironically) cyberbullying, but I’m not aware of any initiative she’s actually taken. Her first mission should be getting her troll of a husband off Twitter.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

She is one of the faces of the "wounded warrior project"

How exactly does one become a ‘face’ of the Wounded Warrior Project?

And she is a philanthropist ..

With Trump’s money? Why do I find that hard to believe?

What the hell is the point of this thread?

That her time as First Lady might be better served doing something besides wearing designer clothes and sky-high heels?

 

[Angela Channing]

What the hell is the point of this thread?

I was curious to find out what she is doing after all the US tax payer is funding her office and paying for her flights between New York and DC (which I believe cost £0.5 million last year alone) so I would have thought she would be doing something useful with her role and profile but apparently she isn't.

 

[Mazzilli]

People don’t have principles anymore they have party affiliations

 

[SueEllenRules!]

People don’t have principles anymore they have party affiliations

Which explains how 81% of evangelical Christians voted for pu$$y-grabbing Trump.

 

[Mazzilli]

Or why the tide pod eating, condom snorting millenials voted for Hillary. :drops mic:

 

[Mazzilli]

I was curious to find out what she is doing after all the US tax payer is funding her office and paying for her flights between New York and DC (which I believe cost £0.5 million last year alone) so I would have thought she would be doing something useful with her role and profile but apparently she isn't.

Oh yes, the old (My side does it but it only concerns me when the other side does it game)

And philanthropy means nothing to you unless she only champions one project.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Or why the tide pod eating, condom snorting millenials voted for Hillary. :drops mic:

You mean every demographic group under the age of 40, the majority of which voted for Hillary? So most Americans under 40 are Tide-pod-eating condom snorters (what-the-f**k-ever a condom snorter is )? You have any ridiculous assertions to make about women, people of color, unmarried people, Jews, gays, college graduates, and the poor since Hillary won most of their votes, too?

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Oh yes, the old (My side does it but it only concerns me when the other side does it game)

Who said anything about sides? Every modern First Lady before her, both Republican and Democrat, has made some use of the role, which AC pointed out with extensive examples in his first post. He also made the quite valid point that as long as the taxpayers are funding her office and travel expenses, she could at least make some effort to be useful. You are the one who tried to make it about sides.

And philanthropy means nothing to you unless she only champions one project.

Oh, please, tell us exactly which charity Trump allows Melania to donate his money to! I'm dying to know! From what I've heard, he's contributed little to nothing to any charity in years.

 

[Zable]

(Some functions here don't seem to be working for me right now)

@Angela Channing

It just seems like a total wasted opportunity. Melania has a platform to do some good but chooses not to use it. .... I was curious to find out what she is doing after all the US tax payer is funding her office and paying for her flights between New York and DC (which I believe cost £0.5 million last year alone) so I would have thought she would be doing something useful with her role and profile but apparently she isn't.

Jimmy Carter signed the Office of the First Lady into being, with permanent staff positions and federal funding to boot. I guess he had his reasons, and vision.

It's been more than 40 years since then. Let’s peek into a week in the life of FLOTUS Melania Trump…. Per CNN, in March of this year:

This week has been a busy one for the first lady, who gave remarks about the opioid crisis in New Hampshire as well as met with representatives from the internet to discuss kids and social media at the White House on Tuesday. Just this afternoon she delivered a speech at the State Department as part of the International Women of Courage awards' ceremony.​

Last year, Melania Trump's air travel costs were bloated because she was juggling her roles as FLOTUS, with the Office of the First Lady in DC, and as a mum to a school-going child in a different state.

Do you think that American taxpayers should (a) protest the waste of their money on a FLOTUS who is not perpetually busy week-on-week being FLOTUS and (b) lobby to have her office shut down? After all, you say she “apparently isn’t” doing “something useful with her role and profile”. (Am also curious to know if you think that CNN's use of the word "busy" to describe that particular week quoted is justified -- just trying to get a sense of what folk think is a proper workload for a FLOTUS who has a child not yet an adult.

 

[Angela Channing]

(Some functions here don't seem to be working for me right now)

@Angela Channing

Jimmy Carter signed the Office of the First Lady into being, with permanent staff positions and federal funding to boot. I guess he had his reasons, and vision.

It's been more than 40 years since then. Let’s peek into a week in the life of FLOTUS Melania Trump…. Per CNN, in March of this year:

This week has been a busy one for the first lady, who gave remarks about the opioid crisis in New Hampshire as well as met with representatives from the internet to discuss kids and social media at the White House on Tuesday. Just this afternoon she delivered a speech at the State Department as part of the International Women of Courage awards' ceremony.​

Last year, Melania Trump's air travel costs were bloated because she was juggling her roles as FLOTUS, with the Office of the First Lady in DC, and as a mum to a school-going child in a different state.

Do you think that American taxpayers should (a) protest the waste of their money on a FLOTUS who is not perpetually busy week-on-week being FLOTUS and (b) lobby to have her office shut down? After all, you say she “apparently isn’t” doing “something useful with her role and profile”. (Am also curious to know if you think that CNN's use of the word "busy" to describe that particular week quoted is justified -- just trying to get a sense of what folk think is a proper workload for a FLOTUS who has a child not yet an adult.

I don't think that at all but I do think it's legitimate to ask what she is doing with her time as she is spending public money.

If that's what is considered to be a busy week I dread to think what a light one is like. Maybe as a guide people should look at a typical day for a mother who may have more than one child, holds down a full time job and doesn't have home help.