If my other half did even 1% of the shit Donald Trump has done, I'd cut him out of my life.
I agree with that, but inconveniences in character and unexpected career moves of the caught billionaire are all part of the game, just as being dumped when the body starts to age to much. So not so much sympathy from my side for the first lady. She knew what role is expected from her, to access the luxury life and money.
I'm certainly not trying to say she's some sort of hero. I'm just saying I think she is ONLY a gold digger, and it is a huge waste to direct any anti-Trump hatred her way. It's the least productive thing liberals can do during this presidency relative to how many people do it. Essentially all other forms of liberal activism are more productive than attacking the first lady.
More sympathy than the two previous cheated-on-and-discarded wives? Well, I suppose she IS still married to the turd... but, honestly, there's an entire planet full of humans that are almost certainly more deserving of sympathy than she is.
Anti 45 hatred should be redirected to extra political activity. Put on the walking shoes and start the fieldwork to get people to vote Democrats in the midterm elections and in 2020 when America might have the last chance to save democracy as they know it now.
I don't care if she's a gold-digger. She made her choice. Whatever.
The thing is, for a long time, anti-Trump hatred was mostly not directed at her. People felt sorry for her. There was a lot of pushback about her being "classy" after the hatred that was spewed at Michelle Obama, since she has posed in nude and proactive photos (of which there is no shame in and of itself, but the racist hypocrisy was staggering). The anger being directed at her now is actually about what she has done (or stood by and silently let happen) while she has been first lady. She has earned the scorn she is receiving.
Yes! That jacket thing? She claims it wasn't a big deal basically because the children themselves didn't see it, because she only wore it to and from the plane.
A public figure of obscene privilege is on TV saying they are one of the most bullied people in the world and she's getting criticised for it, and your take away is that they just don't like her husband?
There was always a lot of venom being directed at her. And A lot of what I'm trying to say here is that no, she didn't "let" anything happen. She was never empowered to control her husband. You can certainly make the case she should have left, but she's really ONLY his gold digger and not any kind of shot caller.
Her hyperbole was silly, and she's obviously cracking. She's not as strong as previous first ladies. She's guilty of being a gold digger, and guilty of being fragile. I don't agree she is guilty of much more than that. But what I'm really trying to say is this what Sid said:
YES. Everything else liberals talk about doing against Trump is more productive than worrying about the first lady being a special snowflake.
Riciiculous. I'm not at all about her being this powerless person. Granted he is an utter asshole and unlikely to stop what he does if she were to pressure him, but I'm not willing to see her as completely powerless. She *could* make his bullying an issue, should she choose to do so. She *could* choose to focus upon real victims, not herslf. But she doesn't. Why? Because she is fine with it. She IS guilty. She doesn't justt sit quietly in the background. She claims a special victimhood for herself, rather than those she claims to support.
I'll agree with this.
I agree with this. But in response to both of you, so what? At worst, she is a very out of touch, selfish, privileged rich person. there are plenty of those around. The people who actually run the administration might be a serious threat to the system itself, and compared to that, the first lady is just... really annoying.
Umm...let me put it to you this way. What has she done in her "cyber-bullying" campaign that actually helps those who are victims of it? She's not just annoying, imo, she is just more of poor-me, little rich white girl, rather than attempting any REAL change. Remember that, even in her role as First Lady, she could make a difference if she so chose, rather than focusing on her own victimhood. Others have done so. Eleanor Roosevelt comes to mind.
You keep saying gold digger as though it's a magic title that grants some kind of impunity from adult responsibility. She's an adult woman, knowingly married to a fascist crook, and this says something about the type of person she is. You can be a gold digger and not marry a fascist crook.
You gave a good argument that she's useless and annoying. I don't think you've made a good argument that she is an important THREAT. I don't think you've established why going after her is really a good use of time with all of the more important issues out there. How big of a list could we make of more important issues than how useless she is?
Hmm...you seem to still be confusing issues with him versus issues with her. Did I ever say she was a threat? No, rather, people are responding to her own words/her own claimed goals and her own claimed victimhood. Now, you are changing the goalposts in this entire conversation. You seem to be making out that we can't criticize her OWN, personal views versus that of her husband. That, surely we have better things to do in relation to all the bad that he is doing. Of course, we are doing what we can to stem his evils, but that doesn't mean we can't address her shortcomings.
Not quite whataboutism, but an annoying debate tactic nonetheless.
This post of yours is fair, BUT, if you really do have issues with her that aren't meshed with her husband, then is she really any more important than any other snoody rich person with a silver spoon? Notice basically everyone else on this thread, including the post I have quoted below, are constantly linking her to her husband's more serious evils. As you said:
I of course agree she has not taken any kind of principled stand. We agree she's not helped anything. But if you want to say she's an "active participant" and not just a hanger on, I think the burden of proof is on you.
