Melania: define bully

[GoblinCampFollower]

Not quite whataboutism, but an annoying debate tactic nonetheless.

People are perfectly capable pointing out how tone deaf she is, how hysterically hypocritical her anti bullying campaign is, while still acknowledging other threats in the world.

It’s not like making a post on a forum about Melania uses up a persons ability to think or act on other topics like Russian meddling or Kavanaugh.

whataboutism would be to try to say Michelle Obama was just as bad.

I think it is completely on topic to point out that no one would care about Melania if not for the association with infinitely more important issues. I don't believe anyone here honestly cares that much about her silly interview for it's own sake.

I noticed some posters here are trying to separate Melania from the issues I mentioned, and others are trying to say she's an active participant. If she is an active participant, than she deserves what she gets, but if she has no association from the bigger issues, then why do we care at all?

 

[Cristiano]

I don't think people really cared about Melania until she inserted herself into an incredibly important issue - her husband's administration locking children in fucking cages. Her only statement about it was to wear that ridiculous jacket, and she earned a tremendous amount of scorn because of it. Her revisionist explanation now is stupid. You are right, if she weren't FLOTUS in an administration doing evil things on a daily basis (which does make her complicit, regardless of how much power you think she wields), she would be nothing more than an overly snatched looking trophy wife with a shitbag for a husband.

That's not the case, though. While she doesn't make policy decisions, she could be out there screaming from the rooftops about how horrible separating children from their families is to bring attention to it, but she didn't do that. She made a lame publicity stunt and showed what a callous asshole she is, like the rest of the family. Even her "be best" initiative is a complete flop because it's stupid. Again, fuck her. I have zero sympathy. She's not bullied - she's no victim.

 

[Ishina]

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.

You don't get to be the wife of a crook, and spend the money, and live in the houses, and enjoy the lap of luxury, and not be involved.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I don't think people really cared about Melania until she inserted herself into an incredibly important issue - her husband's administration locking children in fucking cages. Her only statement about it was to wear that ridiculous jacket, and she earned a tremendous amount of scorn because of it. Her revisionist explanation now is stupid. You are right, if she weren't FLOTUS in an administration doing evil things on a daily basis (which does make her complicit, regardless of how much power you think she wields), she would be nothing more than an overly snatched looking trophy wife with a shitbag for a husband.

That's not the case, though. While she doesn't make policy decisions, she could be out there screaming from the rooftops about how horrible separating children from their families is to bring attention to it, but she didn't do that. She made a lame publicity stunt and showed what a callous asshole she is, like the rest of the family. Even her "be best" initiative is a complete flop because it's stupid. Again, fuck her. I have zero sympathy. She's not bullied - she's no victim.

This post is fair.

Maybe our biggest disagreement is that I think you underestimate how much abuse she got before that stupid stunt. I don't know what was going through her head, but it was horribly stupid. I agree she is complicit. But to demonstrate my point, I think she gets a great deal more venom than Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and a few others that have much more clear, and important roles in the administration.

What's bigger than Melania is that first ladies in general always get a lot of automatic hatred from the opposing party.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

This post is fair.

Maybe our biggest disagreement is that I think you underestimate how much abuse she got before that stupid stunt. I don't know what was going through her head, but it was horribly stupid. I agree she is complicit. But to demonstrate my point, I think she gets a great deal more venom than Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and a few others that have much more clear, and important roles in the administration.

What's bigger than Melania is that first ladies in general always get a lot of automatic hatred from the opposing party.

Except that, in Melania's case, nobody really cared much about her. As far as anyone was concerned, she was either a gold digger or the unfortunate wife of an asshole, but beyond that, nobody really gave her much thought. Until she wore that damned jacket, plagiarized Michelle Obama, came up with that idiotic "be best" campaign, and came out as being the most bullied person on earth. Then she got scorned, and rightfully so. She deserves all the contempt she is getting. She brought it all on herself.

 

[Cristiano]

What's bigger than Melania is that first ladies in general always get a lot of automatic hatred from the opposing party.

I don't think that is the case. Barbara Bush and Laura Bush didn't get "automatic hatred" from the left. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama were inundated with it. Trying to make the case that both sides do it, and that's why the left doesn't like Melania doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Cristiano]

Hell, even compare the way the Bush twins were treated compared to Chelsea Clinton and the Obama children. The toxicity is definitely on the right, not the left related to families of the president.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Hell, even compare the way the Bush twins were treated compared to Chelsea Clinton and the Obama children. The toxicity is definitely on the right, not the left related to families of the president.

You remember what was said about Baron?

I do see your point though, since nobody got more undeserved flak than Michelle Obama.

 

[Cristiano]

You remember what was said about Baron?

I do see your point though, since nobody got more undeserved flak than Michelle Obama.

What I have seen is huge pushback by the left if anyone said anything critical or below the belt about Baron. That child has mainly been used as a prop by Trump anyway to avoid criticism. There are always going to be assholes. However, it is not even close to comparable. See Malia Obama vs. Baron Trump.

As far as Michelle Obama, she was called a n* whore for daring to expose her arms. Melania Trump posed in naked lesbian photos, but to the inbred racist supporters of Trump, they are happy to finally have a classy (read: not black) first lady. That she is wank material to them is just a bonus.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

What I have seen is huge pushback by the left if anyone said anything critical or below the belt about Baron. That child has mainly been used as a prop by Trump anyway to avoid criticism. There are always going to be assholes. However, it is not even close to comparable. See Malia Obama vs. Baron Trump.

I'd be curious to see a more thorough study, since I'm not sure the contrast is as strong as you think. All of the google searches of Malia were positive unless I added qualifiers. Even then, most results were defending her from the minority of horrible people. I've seen quite a few creepy things aid about Baron, so I'm not immediately sure that was so trivial.

As far as Michelle Obama, she was called a n* whore for daring to expose her arms. Melania Trump posed in naked lesbian photos, but to the inbred racist supporters of Trump, they are happy to finally have a classy (read: not black) first lady. That she is wank material to them is just a bonus.

We agree here. I think the left has a stronger tendency to go after the family than you think, but nothing was worse than what was said about Michelle for effectively no reason. I'll agree the right is worse than the left for that reason alone.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Between the rags to riches based on genetic luck, the shameless plagiarism, the stupid jacket, the self-pitying claim of bullying, the pathetic but temporary inclusion of her business products on the tax payer paid for white House website, her un-first-lady-like behavior in public, ... I'm not seeing a "sympathetic person" there that I'm capable of feeling sorry for.

Sure, she's due at least the basic respect due to even the worst human being, but she's a terrible first lady, and doesn't deserve any slack from any of us for it.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

You left out how she used to claim she graduated from college in her official bio until the University confirmed that she did not complete her first year.

 

[Nika Talaj]

if she has no association from the bigger issues, then why do we care at all?

Why do we care? I only know why I care.

I don't think we Americans have much experience with dictators and oligarchs, so we don't grok how power is wielded by them. I think I get insight into how the administration is working by understanding Trump's relationships that precede the presidency. For example, to me, Melania's character and motivations and Mitch McConnell's now have some startling similarities, which have enabled Trump to USE them both. Like Putin, Trump does not attempt to utterly dominate the people he uses; Melania and McConnell are permitted a lot of independent action. But so long as they agree to never oppose Trump, he can exploit the needs and urges he shares with them. Perhaps I have been uniquely naive in not understanding this from the get-go.

This dynamic works on larger scales as well. Putin doesn't have to outlaw homosexuality; he just has to make it known that he will not oppose anyone who attacks LGBT persons, and voila, LGBT lives become so acutely miserable that many re-closet or simply leave the country, if possible. Trump is attempting to mold his followers, and parts of the government, into the same sort of de facto militia.

So I have been very interested to learn that Melania is the same sort of conscienceless, amoral person that Michael Cohen, Jared Kushner, Tom Price and others whom Trump has elevated into positions of unmerited power are. She fits the mold, and that pattern is interesting to me, and helps me mull over possible changes to the US Constitution to prevent this aberration from occurring again.

What's bigger than Melania is that first ladies in general always get a lot of automatic hatred from the opposing party.

Simply not true. I think we all have to be careful about asserting things that we've told ourselves are true, but have never verified. Nowadays, if I know a portion of a person's argument is blatantly false, I tend to toss the rest of their argument into the 'probably false' bin. There is so much blatant lying around nowadays that simply being mistaken can cost one a lot of credibility.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I don't think that is the case. Barbara Bush and Laura Bush didn't get "automatic hatred" from the left. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama were inundated with it. Trying to make the case that both sides do it, and that's why the left doesn't like Melania doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

This is true. I could not stand GWB, but I really, really liked Laura's initiative for reading. Perhaps, I didn't hate it because she actually did something. She didn't cry that evil democrats or the press were keeping her from teaching people to read, spreading books and the like. The changes she made weren't exactly earth-shattering and it didn't lead to millions suddenly being literate, yet I never once doubted her motives and goals, and overall she did good, if even on a small scale. If she had her way, all would have been true. She didn't ask for special recognition, she didn't claim some were out to get her. She quietly went about her work.

If Melania showed half the interest, true interest, in stopping bullying, I'd be behind her 100%. Instead I hear her saying that she is the most bullied person in the word.

See the difference?

One cared about outcome, the other herself. I'll leave it to you as to which is which.

If she wants to be known as the First Lady who did something about bullying, she is going to have to earn it, like anyone else. Not just, again, fake-ass title. Even if she couldn't stop her freak of a chosen husband from being a bully, even if she couldn't save EVERY child. I'd just like to know that she saved some children. I don't expect the world. I expect effort.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

. If she is an active participant, than she deserves what she gets, but if she has no association from the bigger issues, then why do we care at all?

The First Lady is a national role model. Whether they're active participants or not. What kind of 'example' is she setting for conservative women, by being a frosty, aloof, dishonest, petulant, plagiarizing, uninvolved, self-absorbed First Lady who still sounds like she's fresh out of Slovenia, despite being here for 15 years?

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

The only thing I recall comment wise about Baron is he's likely to be the first homeschool shooter; again, more a comment about his parents than him.

Also, if Melania isn't as bad as her spouse, then she'd being doing what Elanore Roosevelt did, and it was more because she had the freedom to say her -her- spouse couldn't, in regard the New Deal excluding non-whites and other racism issues. FDR had his hands tied; he needed the support of the conservative, racist southern Democrats. Her hands weren't.

Melania, if she did care [she doesn't, she says so herself], she could speak up against her spouse, and against the current BS going on. But, she doesn't.

Baron and Tiffany are the only Trumps I feel are off limits; Baron is still a child, and Tiffany is just not involved. The other kids? They are adults and they are involved.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Is there a statutory or constitutional basis for the role of "First Lady" or any statutory definition of that person's duties and responsibilities? If not, I'm not at all sure that it's accurate to describe it as a "public office."

That might be an interesting question but there is an office of the first lady. The exact responsibilities change with each administration though.

On a tangent, this was something that came up when it was thought Hillary would win. Bill would be the first male to occupy the office so there was a bit of a debate if he should be called the First Gentleman or if the bullet should have been bitten now and just call it 'the first spouse' (or something like that). It would also have been strange having a former president in that role, not only because he would still have retained the title of president.

 

[Kara Spengler]

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.

At protests before the coat she used to be seen as a victim. Nobody has any sympathy for her now.

 

[Nika Talaj]

You remember what was said about Baron?

No, I guess I don't, enlighten me. Unless you mean Peter Fonda's late-night meltdown about separation of children at the border, where he tweeted that 12-year old Baron should be ripped away from his mother and locked in a cage with pedophiles "AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO. "

As Fonda stated in his apology the next day, that was "highly inappropriate and vulgar". He met with condemnation from just about the entire world.

Of course, many immigrant children (most younger than Baron) HAVE been taken away from their mothers, locked up in cages and abused. That's reality, that's actual pain and trauma, not late-night bullshit. I don't hear Trump and Sessions apologizing publicly.

Is that what you were referring to?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I do agree that Baron should be off-limits. He is a child. He doesn't have a platform, as Melania does. Anyone who attacks him, is well..not well. I feel like the goalposts are changing, again.

Where does Baron fit into this discussion? Are we not talking about Melania and her own personal choices, her own chosen agenda?