"Top dollar". "Wine dark sea". "No quid pro quo". "Only the best people".Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Poetry.
Printable View
"Top dollar". "Wine dark sea". "No quid pro quo". "Only the best people".Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Poetry.
Sanctimonious high dudgeon noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Also, Melania is a public figure. See "First Lady."
Well, we all have different standards of conduct. I guess some of us have stronger stomachs than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Considering her past I don’t think we have to worry about ruining her good name:))
Womyn hating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
In reality I have no idea if Melania Trump is out of the media limelight because I don’t pay attention to secondary headline news. But I was happy when The Donald first took office that she stayed in New York to finish out her child’s school year because that seems to set a precedent of low involvement for a President’s spouse. She is not an elected official. Of course, I hated it when it seem to cost tons of money for security and her New York abode.
What about her past causes you to look down on her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
I am not hating. She was a soft porn star, married for money and brought her family here. I was trying to give her a break until she wore that jacket saying she doesn’t care when visiting the kids. It then occurred to me that she cares about only her own and probably as vile as Trump.
I always thought of slut-shaming as a particularly low form of polemic. What argument does it advance? What policy does it support? It is simply aimed at hurting or humiliating someone you don’t like or someone close to them. It is petty spite pretending to be something more than it is.
You look at all the other First Lady’s and they all had legitimate causes and worked for them. She chose bullying because she lives with it and hasn’t done a thing. Yea, she is awesome ��
Maybe she should take away school children's lunches, then she'd be awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Melania Trump said about the jacket
“It's obvious I didn't wear the jacket for the children. I wore the jacket to go on the plane and off the plane," the First Lady told ABC News on Friday Night. "And it was for the people and for the left-wing media who are criticizing me."
I think it’s a dumb thing to wear but if you think that message was directed towards the children or their situation, you are wrong.
I think she is soulless and a embarrassment like her husband. She worships money.
Hear ye, Hear ye. I'm about to do a 180 from my Men's Rights Group stance. I say she's earned every penny she will get in the divorce. I can not blame her one bit considering who she married for money and what she has had to put up with for money. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
You're very confident in your assertion about this. Do you have something to back up your assertion or are you just going all beery mckavanaugh on the assumption that if you're bitchy/aggressive enough people will let you slide?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
This is what she said. Makes sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Slut shame much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
From the beginning, we have had this odd First Lady social construct that really has no practical relevance beyond the seeming urge some of us have for some sort of aristocracy. Sometimes the occasion for pearl-clutching moral posturing and sometimes the occasion for sycophancy. I wonder why we feel the need to do that?
In that case i guess she’s just either really stupid, really insensitive or both. Alternatively, I suppose, she could just be dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
In the current role the present first lady plays, I find her irrelevant to most all things that matter.
She didn't want this to happen. The last thing she wanted was to be First Lady. According to Michael Wolfe's book, when the media announced that Trump won, Trump himself was shocked and Melania was crying. This was a big publicity stunt that went haywire. She was never positioned to be First Lady. I don't blame her for wanting to hole herself away with her son and wake up when it's all over.
I would argue that all First Ladies are no more relevant than the Poet Laureate. Unless perhaps they serve a need for malicious gossip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Most other recent First Ladies have been leaders in social causes. The first that comes to mind is Lady Bird's beautification America projects. However the Poet Laureate has not held much meaning for me ever since Ted Kooser.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Melania is apparently filling the desire for gossip, though.
They are just political props, with no more real power than the Princess of Wales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I suppose that will be your belief until there's a First Gentleman.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Your supposition is incorrect. There’s no reason a man can’t serve as a political prop with the same useless frivolity as any woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
First Ladies of the recent past have advocated and spoken up for Beauty, Nature, Health, Literacy, Human Rights--hardly frivolous pursuits. If Melania came out with pole dancing as her platform, I might agree with you, but your opinion that First Ladies have supported their husbands with nothing more than frivolous activity is as demeaning as those old-fashioned, out-of-date, condescending notions about the 50s "little lady in the kitchen."Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
ETA: https://www.thoughtco.com/top-most-i...-ladies-105458
The concept of President Buttigieg might require a new attitude about first "other"? I noticed he is up in the polls and is my current favorite.
"Other"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Isn't he married? Wouldn't his spouse simply be First Husband?
I assume a more fitting title would be first gentleman.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Once again, you’re imposing attitudes on me to fit some kind of narrative. It’s not a feminist or anti-feminist thing. It is the fact that it’s s psuedo position on the fringes of politics for which the only qualification is to be somebody’s spouse. But the beauty of a pseudo position on the fringes of politics is that it can be filled by virtually anybody of any gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
It has no more credibility than you or I or anyone else in support of any given issue. If people wish to honor the pretense that they are in some way important, I guess that’s just show biz.
What would the gender neutral equivalent be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
First partner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
You can’t use “first spouse” because they may not be married.
The problem is, there have only been "First Ladies" so far, and women are used to being characterized as superfluous appendages to so forgive my sensitivity if I was wrong about your attitude... but I still maintain that women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton have stepped way outside of their "supremely more important" spouses's shadows. Your comments seem to discount that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
There have always been celebrities who parlay their status as entertainers, socialites, or spouses into real influence. Some even become president. That doesn’t mean the spouse of a president occupies some sort of office we are to take seriously. It just means they get a jolt of celebrity by association.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
The First Person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Would a first person account of something then become an ordinary person account?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Could we borrow from royalty and call it “Executive Consort”? That would capture the flavor of appointment-by-relationship without respect to gender.
I like it!Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Unlike other immigrants, her parents were given a fast-track admittance as citizens. That is a double standard! Others cannot bring their family here.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Except for the 800,000 or so chain migration immigrants we welcome each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one