Any thoughts on SE Cupp's take on Hillary and Melania?

[brewer]

I'll admit I've held this thought against Hillary.

[Anomalocaris]

Another pig with lipstick.

[henryp]

My take is it's none of my fucking business. I think Melania should do whatever she wants to do. I think Hillary should do whatever she wants to do.

I hope we find out one day Hillary was fucking a slew of 23yo pool boys on the down low all this time. And that our nosy half-baked opinions on her being some weak victim was just a bunch of uninformed bullshit. Well, our opinions are definitely uninformed bullshit no matter what the truth is. But it'd be very satisfying if the 23yo thing were the case.

[Minimalist]

I'm sure she has her rea$ons for sticking with the WLB.  In both cases, it is a private matter between husband and wife.

[Anomalocaris]

When will the opposition learn the game is not about publicized self reflection. It is about Having the chutzpah to associate the other side with one's own most disgraceful misteps.

[vorlon13]

I'm sure she has her rea$ons for sticking with the WLB.  In both cases, it is a private matter between husband and wife.

Well . . . .

Not quite. Trump IS pandering to the religious folks, and the religious folks have rules and commandments and dogma and strictures and laws and edicts on all manner of topics. One might expect Trump to comport himself perhaps a little better to save his followers and voters and supporters embarrassment and charges of hypocrisy. The pandering thing SHOULD work both ways, after all.

I also note, while unlikely, should the US congress deem Ivana Trump First Lady over Melania, Biblically, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It would be interesting to see the fundamentalists and evangelicals reaction to such a pro-Bible move from our other wise base and corrupt congress. I presume Donald Trump's reaction would be interesting too.

[vorlon13]

From Wiki, here's the definition of pandering:

Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values.


Why would we give a pandering politician any kind of a pass for such conduct ?

Additionally, any group, PANDERED to, that does not object to being pandered to especially on matters of Godly important, needs their noses rubbed in the feces.


It's why we're here.

[Whateverist]

I'm sure she has her rea$ons for sticking with the WLB.  In both cases, it is a private matter between husband and wife.

Well . . . .

Not quite. Trump IS pandering to the religious folks, and the religious folks have rules and commandments and dogma and strictures and laws and edicts on all manner of topics. One might expect Trump to comport himself perhaps a little better to save his followers and voters and supporters embarrassment and charges of hypocrisy. The pandering thing SHOULD work both ways, after all.

I also note, while unlikely, should the US congress deem Ivana Trump First Lady over Melania, Biblically, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It would be interesting to see the fundamentalists and evangelicals reaction to such a pro-Bible move from our other wise base and corrupt congress. I presume Donald Trump's reaction would be interesting too.

But surely you don’t really think xtians are moral? They’re i it for the sin and forgiveness. Shame is for the people they disagree with.

[vorlon13]

They think they are.

Good enough to rub their noses in their Donald's shit.


Goes back to the 2 master thing. If they can't serve God and Trump at the same time, and they give precedence to Trump, it is evidence of their DISBELIEF in God.


That's a win for our side.