-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bizarre: Melania Trump suddenly comes out as pro-choice?
- Thread starter Copernicus
- Start date
No, this is just not true. Trump is definitely does not have early onset dementia.
He is 78 years old. That is way too old to call it "early onset".
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Agreed. She was and is one of the finest first lady's I had ever seen. My opinion at first wasn't much, but it turned into really a nice surprise on how graciously and eloquently she carried herself.
gotti
*Banned*
Yeah I think it's a matter of taste.
I love anti-hero types and Melania never deserved the **** she went through simply for choosing a specific lifestyle - it's ironic that the people who beat up on her the most are people who apparently believe they're fighting some good fight for people who want to get on with their lives without hurting anyone regardless of how they might be perceived by others. So, yeah - Melania is awesome for this.
That being said -
The idea that the spouse of the POTUS should be shoved into the spotlight and forced into a federal political role is completely absurd to me.
Former First Ladies have both capitalized on it (Michelle Obama was an absolute disgrace on this) and been vilified for it totally unjustified - it's completely unfair and unfounded. No one who's ever occupied the position has copped it worse than Melania did either. I actually have a lot of sympathy for her. She's gangsta. And it's cool that she seems the most comfortable with being estranged or in an unconventional relationship with her husband than any other former First Lady.
And I single out Michelle because she became more of a pop-culture icon than any other First Lady I can think of and wrote that atrocious book glorifying herself for not really doing anything - actually, she didn't even write it; it was actually ghostwritten for her (she was that lazy in her attempt to glorify herself by way of the opportunity Obama's election granted her). Michelle's schtick was making sure everyone knows how wonderful Michelle is.
I prefer to illuminate the character of someone like Melania who withstood the kind of adversity she has and managed to maintain autonomy and arrive at this: a place where she's actively going against her presidential candidate husband's beliefs, actions and voter base in order to stand up for what she believes is right. That shows true character and strength. I love stories like that.
Michelle's an opportunistic dolt by comparison. Dull as dishwater. Getting married isn't an accomplishment.
We Never Know
No Slack
Looks like you posted this in the wrong thread.And here is the best the opposition is hawking to people.....
Home
Official Harris Walz Merchandise Store Campaign 2024 Store. Purchase is a donation to the Harris Victory Fund, Kamala Harris 2024 Store.harriswalzmerchandise.com
Some shoes of their own.....
Yep. They have their own coins.....
2024 VP Kamala Harris 1 Ounce Silver Proof Coin With Capsule
A first! Privately minted 1 ounce 99.9% silver coin marks the 2024 Harris campaign with portrait and Presidential seal. Crystal clear capsule.www.hamiltoncollection.com
Scottsdale mint coins! .....
Shop 2024 Presidential Election - Kamala Harris 1 oz Silver Color Bar
2024 Presidential Campaign bar for Kamala Harris on a colored bar, a 1 oz .999 Silver Barwww.scottsdalemint.com
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Bingo. I'd be sick of it all myself.
Meanwhile I will watch all the brouhaha from the sidelines.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Naw that was just a counter to post 18.
We Never Know
No Slack
My bad. You didn't reply to a post and mentioned hawking so I thought you maybe meant it for the Trump hawking thread.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except that was private stuff and not her own hawking crap like Trump is.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I think it's to help pay his bills. They're adding up and he's cash poor and doesn't dare start selling property and assets because that will be the crack that shatters his facade of being among the wealthiest people alive. The sales of the Bibles is at least $300,000 and the sheos at least $399,000. Sure, I don't know what the profit is, but even production costs were probably paid by ithers the way he's frequently begging people for mony.Even Trump is smart enough to see that's a significant chunk of what he owes to keep his image afloat.
He's got wealth, no doubt, but my bets on he doesn't have much cash.
esmith
Veteran Member
So she is in favor of a womans right to choose, so what; at least she has her own opinion about things unlike many of the braiwahed liberals that toe the party line. Yes I agree there are conservaties that toe the party line it is just that it seems the Democrats are considerably more in lock-step with the party.
Why don't we just take her at her word, and thank her for her stand?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
This opinion is consistent with sending abortion back to the States to decide. That approach is more Democratic, than a centralized Government, making that decision for all. The Big Government approach is too much like Socialism. Back to the States means more people get to vote and more opinion counts. It also means both sides get to win some of the battles. It is not winner takes all due the heavy hand of government leaning on the scale either way.
This also places the burden of abortion finance, just on the states that want it. Liberals will have to pay more for abortion, and they can no longer, via Big Government, rip off Conservatives taxes to help pay for an issue Conservatives do not support. This is far more Democratic. You want it, you pay for it.
The Constitution says the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Provide and promote are two different verbs. Provide for the common defense; military, border security, police, courts, etc., means to give resources and this would come out of a general tax fund like is currently done. But all the promotional things like abortion, illegal immigration can be sent back to the States to let more people have opinions on these issues ands decisions.
If Liberal states want to be sanctuary states, they have to pay the tab. If Conservative states do not want it, they have no obligation and can even make laws to direct illegal immigrant to the Lefty states, whose votes implies they will foot the entire tab. Both will have more choices and Democratic votes will count for more people.
I'd imagine you shouldn't assume something about a woman just because of who she is married to.
It would to a Maga.
But from the perspective of loathing both parties,
only the Republicans are under the sway of a cult
leader who has members believing the most
outrageous falsehoods, eg, Haitian pet eating,
stolen election.
I often wonder how it helps people get along and work together for everybody's good to constantly make references like "brainwashed liberals."
And then there's the irony of the claim too.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Democrats absolutely loath independent thought. It's the collective mindset or you are their enemy.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I don't. We know more about her than just who she is married to. What I said in the OP is that I didn't really know what to make of the breaking news--the very first line in the OP. This story doesn't seem to be making a huge splash in the news, given all of the other more important events taking place. However, it is interesting that Trump brags about having overturned Roe v Wade, and the Republican party is pretty much in lockstep with government regulation of pregnancies. The First Lady, which is traditionally an important political figure in American politics, publicly opposes their signature policy, claiming that women should have a choice on how to mange their pregnancies, not the government.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Nonsense. Her publicly stated opinion is consistent with state governments not having the power to control women's reproductive choices at all. That's what the slogan "My body. My choice." means. She endorsed that slogan. But your twisty rhetorical backflip to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion is worthy of an Olympic medal. I especially enjoyed the way you simultaneously endorse and condemn "the heavy hand of government" in the lives of women in a single paragraph.
Right. It's all about the money. Because raising a child yields a net profit for the mother, her family, and the government, even after all of the expenses for healthcare during pregnancy and delivery of the baby. I never thought of it that way.
Logic chopping over the meaning of verbs now? So you've invented a category of "promotional things" that, when decided on by state governments, as opposed to the federal government, actually results in more people having opinions than they would when the federal government passes a law. I'm not sure how you do the math on that one, but somehow you seem to think that the Constitution mandates that the feds are supposed to do "providing" and the states are supposed to do "promoting", even though the language of the document doesn't actually say that.
Look, the federal government includes the combined population of all the states. That's why our country calls itself the "United States". There is no way for you to actually get more people involved by having state legislatures pass laws instead of Congress. The number of people represented by the Federal government and state governments are the same people. The Constitution is about forming a "more perfect union", not dividing the country up into warring factions of lefties and righties.
Last edited: