Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, random chance said:

I also suspect he wants to keep the press diverted from their son, who is probably autistic, not that there's anything wrong with that but I bet DT doesn't feel that way. He's the kind of parent who will actually say out loud that he's prouder of some of his children than others.

According to Tony Schwartz Trump had zero interest in any of his children as children. I don't think there needs to be anything specific about Barron to make Trump think it's a good idea to have him be in NY, especially if Melania suggested they'd both prefer it. He probably sees no reason to want to deal with either of them in the WH. The press would stay away from Barron since he's a kid, I think, but Melania's obviously not up to all the scrutiny and duties of First Lady so she'd just be an annoyance, probably. He's got Ivanka in there to help him make money of the President scam instead. 

Writing that makes me remember people criticizing Hillary for saying something about her grandchildren. They were like, "Right, like SHE spends time with those kids." Like not only is the woman expected to be doing most of the child-rearing, but even as a grandmother she's going to get judged for not spending enough time with the kid she's not actually raising. Meanwhile, Trump by all accounts has little to do with his kids until it's time for them to be followers.

2 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

President-Elect Donald Trump is apparently still having serious trouble getting A-listers to his upcoming inauguration. The Wrap is reporting that his team has even gone so far as to offer ambassadorships to at least two talent bookers, in addition to large amounts of cash and potential diplomatic positions.

I'm even more impressed at the inability to get school marching bands there. It doesn't surprise me that many teenagers would see all too clearly what he represents and reject it. 

 

1 hour ago, Lunata said:

According to Robert Reich, the stock market has risen because Donald Trump has presented a tax initiative that supposedly will help the people at the lower end of the income bracket. when in fact, it will help the top 10%, not the lower income families

Honestly, I know very little about economics but I just assumed this to be true. Trump's made it clear that he's making decisions based on money for rich people and corporations--why wouldn't people be jumping on that bandwagon?

 

1 hour ago, Lunata said:

Payrolls are the biggest single cost on most companies’ balance sheets, so cutting jobs and wages will continue to be the easiest way to boost profits and share prices.

And this will continue to be blamed on unions for being "greedy" in demanding a living wage. They're just forcing their kind job-creating employers to replace them with robots! Tillerson's actively worked against the interests of the US and world peace in favor of money for Exxon shareholders. Exxon is the real America here!

But it's hard to imagine what it would take to wake people up. I think Bill Maher once pointed out that we've got two states that experimented with the general economic ideas of both parties. California and Kansas. California did great. Kansas is completely bankrupt and can't run basic services. Unfortunately there's a lot of people out there who just are not evidence-based. 

LOL! Just as I was writing this I got something in my inbox from a conservative thing that always sends me things. The headline? "Americans are hopeful again." It's complaining that the mainstream media is not presenting the giddiness of millions of Americans at Trump's election and instead suggest falsely that Trump supporters are racists and even white supremacists. It's not their fault their giddiness presents as hate crimes! Trump's just focusing on jobs and cleverly avoiding those liberal filters by communicating directly to the American people (i.e., petty Tweets!). 

Edited December 15, 2016 by sistermagpie

[SoSueMe]

14 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

I'm not sure we will ever see Melania again. She's a stay at home Mom with 1 11 year old child. She won't move 1 child to Washington till June( and I don't think she's moving then either). Meanwhile Ivanka has 3 children under 7 and runs a business of her own besides her Dads. Ivanka is moving them all to Washington and taking on the First Lady duties, while keeping her own business and not ( supposedly) living in the White House. Which means a commute daily. Which means nannies for 3 kids- while Barron gets his Mom.  Pretty darn insulting to those who thought (not me) Melania would be a classy First Lady.  

To me, FLOTUS is the spouse unless she is physically incapable or the President is single.  

Yes.

And one of Ivanka's kids was born during the campaign. Not a "family first" kind of family apparently. Makes you wonder about Melania, breaking with tradition like that. Unless we do have a special needs situation, as has been rumored.

As for classy, that ship sailed a while ago. Money and looks don't automatically make one classy. Grace, intelligence, a conscience, and generosity are part of the equation, imo.  

[BBDi]

2 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

Somehow, I'm not surprised by this.  There has been a quiet observation here for some time that the hotels are not filling up as quickly for the Drumpf coronation as they did for president-elect Obama's inauguration.  I saw this item today about the D.C. marching bands, and wondered how many other marching bands from other states would follow suit.  

The atmosphere is just so different this time around.  I mentioned before how quickly people began clamoring to get to D.C. by hook or crook to witness history.  The hotel rooms were snatched up so quickly that DC area residents placed classified ads in the newspapers offering to rent out their homes at overly inflated prices, which visitors happily paid.  Some residents offered rooms, basement apartments, in-law suites and a place to sleep on their living room floors.  Not to mention the clamoring for tickets to one of several of the inaugural balls around town.  I received my own share of phone calls from out-of-town relatives and friends begging me to use whatever "influence" I had to get them tickets.  All I could do was laugh and say, "Child...what influence are you talking about?  If I  had it like that, don't you think I would get tickets for myself?"  We were even warned by officials that the subways would be unusually crowded on Inauguration Day and to plan accordingly because they were expecting over a 1 million riders.  People actually started arriving the week before with backpacks, suitcases and whatever they could carry their clothes and personal items in.  There was an excitement in the air that was palpable everywhere I went.  Parents and grandparents even took their children along for a once-in-a-lifetime event.  My mother's senior center even held a special luncheon that day where the inauguration was aired.  Many of them, including my mother, grew up in a segregated South and this was a big deal.   I tuned in to C-SPAN at 4 a.m. that day and was astounded by the sheer number of tour buses and people who were already lined up to get onto the Mall.   

Now?  It's like there has been a death in the family especially now that the Obamas are vacating the White House.  If anything, I am hearing more about people who are interested in protesting and the various organizations who have applied for permits to march in protest.  This apparent lack of interest could also explain why the Narcissist-in-Chief is staging these "thank you" tours.  Not only do these tours feed his narcissism, but they ensure that he won't be totally humiliated.

Now, about that bitch face of Melania's, I would have a permanent bitch face, too, if it became public knowledge that my sponsor was planning to replace me with my stepdaughter and openly lusts after her.  I know it; she knows it; and the American people know it.

I think like-minded people and businesses should festoon their homes and businesses with black funeral bunting for the inauguration. And sport black armbands. 

[backformore]

7 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

According to Tony Schwartz Trump had zero interest in any of his children as children. I don't think there needs to be anything specific about Barron to make Trump think it's a good idea to have him be in NY, especially if Milania suggested they'd both prefer it. He probably sees no reason to want to deal with either of them in the WH. The press would stay away from Barron since he's a kid, I think, but Milania's obviously not up to all the scrutiny and duties of First Lady so she'd just be an annoyance, probably. He's got Ivanka in there to help him make money of the President scam instead. 

Writing that makes me remember people criticizing Hillary for saying something about her grandchildren. They were like, "Right, like SHE spends time with those kids." Like not only is the woman expected to be doing most of the child-rearing, but even as a grandmother she's going to get judged for not spending enough time with the kid she's not actually raising. Meanwhile, Trump by all accounts has little to do with his kids until it's time for them to be followers.

I think I posted this before, but Marla Maples was on The View in the past year or so.  When asked about how Donald Trump was as a father, she replied that Tiffany knew that any time she needed anything, she knew she could call her father.   And he would write a check.   Marla said it as praise, but the underlying meaning was pretty clear.   She was not willing to say anything overtly negative, but confirmed what everyone has always said - Trump's role as father was purely to pay the bills, until such time as he could have his kids work for him.  Trump himself had said something about when men tend to children, they think they're the wives.

[mythoughtis]

14 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

Unless we do have a special needs situation, as has been rumored

If this was the case( and I think you are correct)- wouldn't it be classy to choose the diagnosis as your special FLOTUS  interest? Think of all the wonderful progress  that could result. 

Edited December 15, 2016 by mythoughtis

[Lunata]

44 minutes ago, BBDi said:

I think like-minded people and businesses should festoon their homes and businesses with black funeral bunting for the inauguration. And sport black armbands. 

This is my fantasy of January 20th in Washington D.C. To have a blizzard of epic proportions. See? There's only one Trump supporter that could make it there, and he had to be there, he's security and he's also Hispanic. Oh well, wishful thinking.

                                  Trump Inauguration Day, Jan 2017

                                      President Obama's inauguration January, 2009

Edited December 15, 2016 by Lunata

[BBDi]

2 minutes ago, Lunata said:

This is my fantasy of January 20th in Washington D.C. To have a blizzard of epic proportions. See? There's only one Trump supporter that could make it there, and he had to be there, he's security and he's also Hispanic. Oh well, wishful thinking.

President Obama's inauguration January, 2009

I'm holding out for God to actually smite Twitler during the swearing in. 

[film noire]

23 minutes ago, BBDi said:

I think like-minded people and businesses should festoon their homes and businesses with black funeral bunting for the inauguration. And sport black armbands. 

My dream: that we have an anti-inaugural online (real time tracking Trump's ceremony) with Alec Baldwin playing Trump taking the oath of office  and McKinnon as HRC holding the bible ("Zdravstvujtye, Vlad!") -- take all the attention away from Washington and put it where it belongs; on the farce that is this election.

Edited December 15, 2016 by film noire

[parisprincess]

Quote

I think like-minded people and businesses should festoon their homes and businesses with black funeral bunting for the inauguration. And sport black armbands. 

Personally, I decided on November 8th that I would be clad in black from head to toe on inauguration day. May not be a big thing, but will make me feel better and, no, I won't be watching that disgusting ceremony on TV.  Instead, I'll probably climb into my wine bottle and dream about what could have been.

eta: Luna, I LOVE the idea of a blizzard (the biggest in the history of the world) hitting Washington, starting the night before and continuing all through the day of the inauguration. Gotta start praying to the snow gods!

Edited December 15, 2016 by parisprincess

[potatoradio]

The fall of democracy starts in North Carolina.

Bitter soon to be ex Guv McToilet has called a special session hellbent on gutting the incoming Dem governor's power and consolidating all state power to the white supremacists/rethugs/Teabaggers. This session was called to discuss funding for hurricane funding, but funny how a huge number of bills are being introduced that will undermine any appearance of government for the people. I couldn't even read the first few paragraphs without breaking down.

I will bet any amount of money that this is a model for what's going to happen once Tubby gets inaugurated, minus the attempts to limit executive power (which they're not doing only because Tubby doesn't give a fuck and will want to get back to twittering). 

Which is why I ,too, will be wearing total black the day Tubby is sworn in. 

I'm back to choosing which will happen first: civil or nuclear war? Fun times. 

[izabella]

When you have a weak President Puppet, it's up to the states to defend the rights of their people, at least.  The states each have Constitutions and can prevent our human and civil rights from being taken away, at least in that state.  The states can choose not to discriminate against their citizens based on race, gender, etc.  The states can choose to fund Medicare and SS on their own plans.  The states can do a lot to protect people - see California.  Or the states can roll over and show their bellies to Trumputin. 

[Padma]

Re: inauguration. I am hoping that Trumpers from all over the country--his most loyal and devoted fans who think he cares so much about them--will decide to see their hero sworn in and call Trump International for a reservation. ("But that can't be right! He's a man of the people! How can the cheapest single room be $750? Are you sure that's not for the month?")

Re: states v. Trump.  Our (CA) governor yesterday said that since Trump plans to gut NASA and destroy the satellites doing climate research, "We'll build our own damn satellites."

We could do it, too (6th largest economy in the world.) Also says "f-u" re: sanctuary cities.

The liberal states (California awesomely has a filibuster proof legislature in both Houses) and the courts may be the only thing that helps ward off Trump & Ryan's plans.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Padma

[Lunata]

12 minutes ago, Padma said:

Re: inauguration. I am hoping that Trumpers from all over the country--his most loyal and devoted fans who think he cares so much about them--will decide to see their hero sworn in and call Trump International for a reservation. ("But that can't be right! He's a man of the people! How can the cheapest single room be $750? Are you sure that's not for the month?")

His Washington hotel is just blocks from the White House The most expensive suite, the Trump Townhouse, costs $20,000 per night, while the Presidential Suite costs $15,000 per night. But the hotel's 'schleppy' rooms for almost-normal people go for $750 a night and they have been reduced to $500 a night because they're having a problem filling up that hotel.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Lunata

[numbnut]

1 hour ago, Lunata said:

This is my fantasy of January 20th in Washington D.C. To have a blizzard of epic proportions. See? There's only one Trump supporter that could make it there, and he had to be there, he's security and he's also Hispanic. Oh well, wishful thinking.

If there's a blizzard, the Twitter twit will blame the low turnout on bad weather. I want the world to see the stark contrast between the massive crowds for Obama's inauguration and the dregs that show up for T/P. I also hope there's wide coverage of the protests.

[kassa]

3 hours ago, backformore said:

Vanity Fair magazine gave the Trump Grill - a steakhouse in the basement of Trump Tower - a very negative review, based on service, atmosphere and food quality.   So Trump has to fight back:

Graydon Carter, for the record, is a guy who, 20+ years ago, wrote a piece for Spy magazine and called Trump a "short-fingered vulgarian".  Trump has never forgotten that.   He claims that Trump had sent him photos of his hands, after that, with his fingers circled (he says in a gold sharpie) and written on the photo, "see!  Not short."  It seems that was the beginning of the "Trump has small hands"  thing, which only took off because Trump reacts to it.

Ah, I remember Spy magazine, and the "short fingered vulgarian" references went on for years.  He was their favorite whipping boy.  

The restaurant review is hilarious -- and not necessarily really about the food.

Quote

Renowned butcher Pat LaFrieda once dared me to eat an eyeball that he himself popped out of the skull of a roasted pig. That eyeball tasted better than the Trump Grill’s (Grille’s) Gold Label Burger, a Pat LaFrieda–branded short-rib burger blend molded into a sad little meat thing, sitting in the center of a massive, rapidly staling brioche bun, hiding its shame under a slice of melted orange cheese. It came with overcooked woody batons called “fries”—how can someone mess up fries?—and ketchup masquerading as Heinz. If the cheeseburger is a quintessential part of America’s identity, Trump’s pledge to “make America great again” suddenly appeared not very promising.

[sistermagpie]

NPR asked journalists what they would ask Trump if they could. http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505630205/6-questions-we-would-have-asked-donald-trump-at-his-canceled-press-conference?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

 

Interesting question about Carrier which just points out that the money they got for Trump is going to, you guessed it, automation and therefore fewer jobs:

 

From Mara Liasson, national political correspondent

5. The Carrier company is using the $16.5 million investment in the Indiana plant to automate it, which will lead to more layoffs in the future. Do you have a plan to stop the job-killing effects of automation?

Context: The head of United Technologies, Greg Hayes, told CNBC's Jim Cramer the following:

"We're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now, is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there. What that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs."

As the local Indianapolis ABC affiliate noted:

"Trump's deal will keep 730 union, production line jobs as well as 70 salaried positions in Indianapolis in exchange for $7 million in tax incentives over the next 10 years."

[Silver Raven]

In case you haven't seen it, here is the Vanity Fair restaurant review that got Twumpy Wumpy's knickers in a twist:

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review

[stillshimpy]

Here's my inauguration fantasy:  It doesn't happen.  At all.  I'm over here practically getting ready to sacrifice chickens (I'm a pescetarian) and bathe in the blood (wholly unpleasant, but for my country?  Carrie me, o' universe)  inventing gods to pray to and beseeching any and all powers that be:  We still have time.  Quick, hit the reset button.  

[theredhead77]

5 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

Wow

I wonder if this is on the level.

From the link:

President-Elect Donald Trump is apparently still having serious trouble getting A-listers to his upcoming inauguration. The Wrap is reporting that his team has even gone so far as to offer ambassadorships to at least two talent bookers, in addition to large amounts of cash and potential diplomatic positions.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/trump-inauguration-performers-quest

Meet Kayne and Kim, our newest ambassadors to Genovia!

[HunterHunted]

2 hours ago, backformore said:

I think I posted this before, but Marla Maples was on The View in the past year or so.  When asked about how Donald Trump was as a father, she replied that Tiffany knew that any time she needed anything, she knew she could call her father.   And he would write a check.   Marla said it as praise, but the underlying meaning was pretty clear.   She was not willing to say anything overtly negative, but confirmed what everyone has always said - Trump's role as father was purely to pay the bills, until such time as he could have his kids work for him.  Trump himself had said something about when men tend to children, they think they're the wives.

By all accounts, Marla hates him. She's suspected to be the source of the one tax return that was leaked. She's also implied that if Donald had his way there'd be no Tiffany Trump. He apparently put up no resistance when Marla moved to California with Tiffany.

My hope for the inauguration is that it has no halfway decent entertainment, which will irritate Donald. But the thing that would drive him around the bend is if the ratings were abysmal.

President Obama's second inauguration was watched by 20 million. For Trump's, I want CW ratings: 1 million, 1.4 million, something so terribly low that it makes him wonder if there is a rerun of Storage Wars that had better ratings. He's such a thin skinned toddler that garbage ratings might actually drive him insane.

If he weren't still an executive producer of the Apprentice, I would suggest that people watch that. Monster ratings for the program that he's not on and terrible ratings for the inauguration would cause him to lose it.

Edited December 15, 2016 by HunterHunted

[Padma]

41 minutes ago, kassa said:

Ah, I remember Spy magazine, and the "short fingered vulgarian" references went on for years.  He was their favorite whipping boy.  

The restaurant review is hilarious -- and not necessarily really about the food.

And yet, with all the bad blood, Trump was at that wonderful 2011  WHCD as the guest of .... Graydon Carter.  

[ruby24]

It'll definitely make him mad if they can't get a single A-list performer. Just refusals down the line. I hope it happens.

[Keepitmoving]

You mean to tell me he can't get any big country music stars to perform? Other than Ted Nugent of course. Now, if he can't even get big country to show up, well, I'll be impressed. I think I did read that Garth Brooks turned down and invitation.

[MulletorHater]

40 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

In case you haven't seen it, here is the Vanity Fair restaurant review that got Twumpy Wumpy's knickers in a twist:

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review

LOL!  This is the funniest shit I've read ALL day!  I can only aspire  to Joe Biden, Dominique Deveraux and Alexis Colby's levels of pettiness.  But, Tina Nguyen's bitchery is a thing of beauty!  At first I thought she was kidding, but then she had to go and include pictures of that sad sack meal to prove her point.  I found this particular paragraph delicious [pun intended]:

Quote

“This is on me,” said our waiter, who must have noticed that we sent barely touched plates back to the kitchen, as he slipped us a tiny chocolate cake buried under whipped cream and anxious drizzles of caramel with our check, and my heart broke. It’s not his fault that he has to run garbage food back and forth, from a slammed kitchen behind a door marked “TRUMP EMPLOYEES ONLY,” to a table waiting an agonizing half hour just to close the check. It’s not his fault that the only way he can make it up to us is with a free cake, still frozen in the center, that tastes like Tums."

To which I ask, how in the world do you fuck up a piece of chocolate cake?  A small piece at that?  But, I guess that tiny piece of chocolate cake buried beneath all that whipped cream and caramel is the perfect metaphor to what a Drump presidency would be like.  All showy, with razzle and dazzle until you get to the core and discover that it's not what it promises to be.

[numbnut]

31 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Here's my inauguration fantasy:  It doesn't happen.  At all.  I'm over here practically getting ready to sacrifice chickens (I'm a pescetarian) and bathe in the blood (wholly unpleasant, but for my country?  Carrie me, o' universe)  inventing gods to pray to and beseeching any and all powers that be:  We still have time.  Quick, hit the reset button.  

I know the faithless elector scenario is a long shot but it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside that Twit is (privately) embarrassed that there are now at least 20 electors turning against him (despite having their careers threatened by the Twit camp). It's probably closer to 30 electors if you count the ones who won't publicly admit their plan to write in another name. It would be fun to see Twit's issue with "Hamilton" ironically turn around to bite him in the ass on Monday. His admiration for Nixon could also have an ironic twist down the road.

[Padma]

13 minutes ago, numbnut said:

I know the faithless elector scenario is a long shot but it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside that Twit is (privately) embarrassed that there are now at least 20 electors turning against him (despite having their careers threatened by the Twit camp). It's probably closer to 30 electors if you count the ones who won't publicly admit their plan to write in another name. It would be fun to see Twit's issue with "Hamilton" ironically turn around to bite him in the ass on Monday. His admiration for Nixon could also have an ironic twist down the road.

Are they 20 Trump electors who are going to do that? I had heard 20 electors (HRC ones) wanted a CIA briefing. Hadn't heard that more than 1 Texan were ready to vote against him. That would be great--even dropping his total below 300 would have a nice ring to it (though apparently even with 271 he'll still be claiming "an historic landslide").

[izabella]

7 minutes ago, Padma said:

I had heard 20 electors (HRC ones) wanted a CIA briefing.

It's up to 68 Electors now who have signed the Open Letter requesting a briefing on the Russian election hacking.

[numbnut]

12 minutes ago, Padma said:

Are they 20 Trump electors who are going to do that? I had heard 20 electors (HRC ones) wanted a CIA briefing. Hadn't heard that more than 1 Texan were ready to vote against him. That would be great--even dropping his total below 300 would have a nice ring to it (though apparently even with 271 he'll still be claiming "an historic landslide").

The RNC claims that Suprun is the only rogue elector while Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig says there are 20 anti-Twit electors.

“Larry Lessig, a Harvard University constitutional law professor who made a brief run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, claimed Tuesday that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering voting against Donald Trump, a figure that would put anti-Trump activists more than halfway toward stalling Trump’s election. Lessig’s anti-Trump group, “Electors Trust,” has been offering pro bono legal counsel to Republican presidential electors considering ditching Trump and has been acting as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions. “Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote,” Lessig said. Lessig’s claims contradict the assertions of Republican National Committee sources who report that a GOP whip operation intended to ensure Republican electors remain loyal to Trump found only one elector — Chris Suprun of Texas — would defy Trump.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-electors-lessig-232598

Edited December 15, 2016 by numbnut

[Ocean Chick]

5 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

 

Plus, part of how this all happened is that culturally we don't merely feel free to attack women based on their faces, bodies, body parts and gender, we're actively encouraged to do so.  It is one of the ways of participating in viewing woman as second-class citizens.  I don't like or dislike the woman, I know next to nothing about her.  She's beautiful, she used that beauty to make a life for herself and she made her own bargains, but just as it is reductive and sexist to say that Hillary Clinton should smile more, it is reductive and sexist to say that anyone woman's character is revealed by her facial expression.  

 I don't blame her for not wanting to be part of this shit-show in D.C.   She did what a lot of beautiful women do, she used that beauty as currency but when doing that, frequently personal power is traded away in the bargain....and worse still...the personal power of her beauty will be eroded by time.  I cannot imagine Twitler being married to her for many minutes past her fiftieth birthday.    She's likely got a shelf-life, she more than likely knows it and she's tasked with trying to combat that Thing's parental influence on a kid who does not seem to enjoy the limelight. 

I have no sympathy for her.  She knew what he was when she agreed to marry him.  For money.  If she had any dignity at all, she would have earned her OWN money.  She had a modeling career.  She had family money.  She could have modeled to keep a roof over her head while she worked on a plan for her post-modeling career.  She didn't.  She took the "easy money".  Sucks to be her, but she chose to tie herself to this tool.  That's why I have no problem calling her Melanoma.  She married for money?  She's a prostitute.

[stillshimpy]

Dude, I take no issue with you disliking her.  It's gendered terms that are the problem.  Slurs based in gender are problematic because they damage all women, not just the intended target.  Like or dislike who you feel called to like or dislike, my comment was about people lobbing out gendered insults.  Insult away, but we rope in everyone with the same body parts if it includes a gendered insult.  

We have really significant reasons to believe that the unthinking misogyny so often encountered in America (and elsewhere) has caused a metric fuckton of damage already and it's not done yet.  

She did marry for money that's pretty clear.   In the talent pool what she got was a rocking body and a highly photogenic face.   The fact that she doesn't actually want to live with the Tangerine Terror is actually the first thing that ever made me think, "Huh, maybe she's actually bright?" 

Edited December 15, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Padma]

10 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Dude, I take no issue with you disliking her.  It's gendered terms that are the problem.  Slurs based in gender are problematic because they damage all women, not just the intended target.  Like or dislike who you feel called to like or dislike, my comment was about people lobbing out gendered insults.  Insult away, but we rope in everyone with the same body parts if it includes a gendered insult.  

We have really significant reasons to believe that the unthinking misogyny so often encountered in America (and elsewhere) has caused a metric fuckton of damage already and it's not done yet.  

She did marry for money that's pretty clear.   In the talent pool what she got was a rocking body and a highly photogenic face.   The fact that she doesn't actually want to live with the Tangerine Terror is actually the first thing that ever made me think, "Huh, maybe she's actually bright?" 

I have to agree with you about trying to take the misogyny out of our language. I suppose that applies to describing Melania as having "resting bitch face" (which she surely does, imo), but other than using that slur, it's hard to think of how to describe her.

Maybe I'm naïve, but I'm not even convinced she married for money. Trump can be very charming and he's undeniably powerful. Supposedly, she didn't even give him her phone number the first time he asked (at a party).

I don't like to speculate on a woman's reasons for getting married because its hard to tell. She apparently has a business, but I don't like to speculate on her private life either--or how much or how hard she works at whatever she has to do as part of their marriage.

The only thing that actually concerns me about Melania is that she signed on when he ran for President. If she wasn't planning to do the job of FLOTUS--and it was going to be Ivanka instead--they really should have told that to the public, especially as it will apparently cost us HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to accommodate Melania and Barron remaining in Trump Tower (and, no, they're not going to the WH in June).

That was dishonest. Also, imo, the decision to opt out of life in the WH is disrespectful of the office and history of the presidency. I -do- hold that against her and her husband (though he's got a whole lot more baggage than that, of course.) 

If they refuse to serve in the role, okay. But then pay for the cost of staying in Trump Tower yourselves. I don't see why WE, the taxpayer, should have to carry that burden (it's bad enough how much inconvenience and economic impact it already has on the people living in NYC). 

You want that cushy Trump Tower lifestyle that's not part of the deal of becoming president & FF?  Then pay for it yourself!!!

[Ocean Chick]

Well, cancer doesn't discriminate between male and female, so Melanoma is remains.  : )

[BBDi]

11 minutes ago, Padma said:

I have to agree with you about trying to take the misogyny out of our language. I suppose that applies to describing Melania as having "resting bitch face" (which she surely does, imo), but other than using that slur, it's hard to think of how to describe her.

Maybe I'm naïve, but I'm not even convinced she married for money. Trump can be very charming and he's undeniably powerful. Supposedly, she didn't even give him her phone number the first time he asked (at a party).

I don't like to speculate on a woman's reasons for getting married because its hard to tell. She apparently has a business, but I don't like to speculate on her private life either--or how much or how hard she works at whatever she has to do as part of their marriage.

The only thing that actually concerns me about Melania is that she signed on when he ran for President. If she wasn't planning to do the job of FLOTUS--and it was going to be Ivanka instead--they really should have told that to the public, especially as it will apparently cost us HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to accommodate Melania and Barron remaining in Trump Tower (and, no, they're not going to the WH in June).

That was dishonest. Also, imo, the decision to opt out of life in the WH is disrespectful of the office and history of the presidency. I -do- hold that against her and her husband (though he's got a whole lot more baggage than that, of course.) 

If they refuse to serve in the role, okay. But then pay for the cost of staying in Trump Tower yourselves. I don't see why WE, the taxpayer, should have to carry that burden (it's bad enough how much inconvenience and economic impact it already has on the people living in NYC). 

You want that cushy Trump Tower lifestyle that's not part of the deal of becoming president & FF?  Then pay for it yourself!!!

Yes, agree on several points. Sadly, the rich man/hot woman pairing has existed since the beginning of time and they are just another example. 

He shows an utter lack of respect for the office and her sequestration in NYC is just a part of that. But I do think it's a strong possibility that it was decided that Melania is not up to the task, and she doesn't want it anyway, so there you are. 

[Toomuchsoap]

7 hours ago, numbnut said:

Michael Shannon certainly didn't hold back on his opinion of T/P voters on NY Magazine's Vulture blog. (He's from Kentucky btw.)

“This country’s filled with ignorant jackasses. The big red dildo running through the middle of our country needs to be annexed to be its own country of moronic assholes. You can call it the United States of Moronic Fucking Assholes. I don’t know how people got so goddamn stupid. But it’s really weird, because it’s like the last eight years, now it feels like a lie. Like, this has been festering underneath the whole time. Racists, sexists. And a lot of these people, they don’t know why the fuck they’re alive. It’s the worst thing that’s ever happened. It’s the worst. This guy is going to destroy civilization as we know it, and the earth, and all because of these people who don’t have any idea why they’re alive.”

“There’s a lot of old people who need to realize they’ve had a nice life, and it’s time for them to move on because they’re the ones who go out and vote for these assholes. If you look at the young people, between 18 and 25, if it was up to them, Hillary would have been president. No offense to the seniors out there. My mom’s a senior citizen. But if you’re voting for Trump, it’s time for the urn.” And if your parents voted for Trump? “Fuck ’em. You’re an orphan now. Don’t go home. Don’t go home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Don’t talk to them at all. Silence speaks volumes.”

Wow. That's about as refreshing a thing as I've ever heard. I guess I've heard a few people who are livid and apoplectic on a rant. I go on one daily, but it's mostly just to myself (or, for course, you kind people here). There's one thing he wished for that's about to come true, and that's the part about the senior citizens that voted for tRump and it being "time for the urn": it's probably going to happen and incredibly, stunningly rapidly. Not all of these dildoheads, of course, those with the luxurious pensions and private healthcare plans. But for all the others who rely on Social Security and Medicare, they're about to find out what their great, great grandparents lived through during the Great Depression - and all the centuries before that. Of course, the ones who are currently on Medicare probably will be exempted from outright voucherization now, but those people nearing 60 and beyond, they're well and truly fucked. Start saving every penny and try to pay off that credit card debt that's going to get harder to pay. As if you'll have any money to save. People will be working until they literally drop dead. I guess this has always been the ultimate wet dream of every rethug that lived since FDR established the beginning of the social safety net back in the 30s, and now Vladputin has delivered their long-wished for Christmas present, special delivered by his orange errand boy straight from Moscow and tied up with a great big old red bow.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Toomuchsoap

[stillshimpy]

Completely fair, Ocean Chick.   

Quote

I have to agree with you about trying to take the misogyny out of our language. I suppose that applies to describing Melania as having "resting bitch face" (which she surely does, imo), but other than using that slur, it's hard to think of how to describe her.

 

 

It is stuff like that but please understand, I'm not attempting to criticize you.  It's a commonly used term, it  just is worthy of being retired.   It's a rich and diverse language, there are many ways to say that someone looks permanently vexed without bringing in an insult that started out as comparing women, women as a group, to ill-tempered, female dogs.   I'm not the boss of anyone else's language, clearly but I don't think any of us would ever use a racial slur, so why are we so comfortable with sexist ones?     

It's partly because for whatever reason, they are still culturally and societally accepted.  Hell, half the insults lobbed at men rope in gendered terms that are about being female....because being called female, possessing the body parts of a woman, is considered an insult in and of itself.  It's done actual damage in this election alone.    The easy way to get that to stop is stop participating in it ourselves and objecting to it as it happens.   

I'm genuinely not trying to scold anyone here.  We've just taken a GIANT step backward in feminism.  Reproductive rights are being fought over again, dominion over our own bodies is being raised as an allegedly reasonable thing to do.   I can't help but wonder, if we'd just used individual insults, rather than grouping ones for the past decades, would that be any different?  There's no way to know, but gendered insults are damaging.  They allow huge groups of people to view women as an unpleasant monolith, rather than individuals with rights and inherent dignity. 

Not everyone will have dignity, or be worthy of respect.  Have at!! Insult away!!  I don't get to determine for anyone else how they will speak, but this election proved that the rampant sexism and misogyny in this country is hurting us.  All of us.  

Edited December 15, 2016 by stillshimpy

[tenativelyyours]

29 minutes ago, Ocean Chick said:

I have no sympathy for her.  She knew what he was when she agreed to marry him.  For money.  If she had any dignity at all, she would have earned her OWN money.  She had a modeling career.  She had family money.  She could have modeled to keep a roof over her head while she worked on a plan for her post-modeling career.  She didn't.  She took the "easy money".  Sucks to be her, but she chose to tie herself to this tool.  That's why I have no problem calling her Melanoma.  She married for money?  She's a prostitute.

 

Did she really though?  I know she was "modelling" but how much of a career was it actually?  When we were introduced to her via The Apprentice, I know on TWOP there were plenty who pointed out she had almost no known portfolio of actual campaigns.  I think there was even speculation that she was a champagne girl (at upper end type business events -- think boat or car show models but ones that go around and make sure business men are 'charmed').  I don't mean this as a slam and I think that champagne girls or boat models shouldn't be looked at as something low and cheap.  But I think he would and would always rewrite her professional life to enhance his own.  For instance, he has called her a super model and claims along with Ivanka how to designers all over the world have begged them to walk the runway for them.  And while the true super model no longer exists except in the form of Naomi Campbell, Christy Turlington and Kate Moss not going anywhere and hasn't existed as a career since those women and their peers initially stepped away from being all things fashion decades ago.  To even pretend to the title, you would have to have walk the runway during fashion week at least in two of the major three cities, you would have to be a multi-cover model on the likes of Vogue and Harpers Bazaar and Marie Claire.  You would have to had a major campaign that saw you in print and tv, like Maybelline, Loreal etc.  All of her major magazine covers came after she was his official well publicized concubine and then bride to be.  And even look at the amount of plastic surgery this woman has had.  If you do google her pictures, the pre-work ones are almost joke level bad.  Like they are from an early Tracey Ullman sketch about Eastern European models.  You can follow how much work she had done and why her eyes can barely stay open now.  There was a huge amount done to make her concubine worthy.  And then if you see the profiles she had shortly after they were married and how she looks now?  Yikes!

 I'm going slightly off tangent it seems, but my real point is that like a lot of things in the Creature's life, his current trophy wife is not something that I suspect stands up to any real scrutiny in terms of what he has presented us with.  I don't think for an instant that she didn't marry him to stay in the country and establish herself since I doubt the modeling was paying the bills.  And I even wonder how long the marriage would have lasted had he not been looking at politics all the way back in 2012.  She served her purpose.  And oddly it was not to present the life of a stable family man.  It was to show, really, that he is That Rich.  To afford a wife that "beautiful".  The comment in the article above about how he has presented himself as the kind of Rich man, people with no idea about true wealth want to be it so spot on.  He still presents himself as this Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and clearly doesn't have a good grasp of real wealth.  And never really has.  He is richer than most, but his power has always been in perception, not actual financial influence. 

But I think a good reason she is staying in NYC is that the less the public now thinks about Melania, the better.  I think he does not want anyone looking too closely into her bona fides.  And again I don't mean that as a slam against her but rather the false mythology that he keeps spinning.   She was never much of a model, let alone a super model.  She wasn't a legal immigrant initially and it still remains to be seen if she ever actually was by the definitions he himself had declared more than once in his defense of his own illegal hirings and the definitions he applies to the people he promises to deport or keep out. 

And I also find him such a cheap little money grabber that he sees her being in NYC a way to "double bill" us for the upkeep.  He will try to charge things to his company and to the building as necessary for the "First Lady"'s safety and maintenance.  Keeping her in NYC also suggests to me, well even more than I initially thought, that he does not see her as part of the Family Brand in the same way that he does Ivanka.  For many reasons.  But I think, again, one of the reasons  is that he does not look at their marriage as being a thing with long legs (no pun intended).  Even though he is not near the young man his hair, trusses, fake tan, new eye job (seriously is anyone in the media going to comment on how his new facade got to where it is or is that off limits too?) try to sell him as,  I definitely can see him tossing her aside when he has the whole President thing locked up if, god forbid, he is re-elected in 2020.  And not letting her get too comfortable in the White House family quarters makes that a bit easier.  She has and will be nothing but a mirror to reflect his own delusions of glory.  And with the Title of US President, the constant attention that will get him, the still hoped for parade of groveling celebrities, top professional athletes* and all the rest of the adulation he is so clearly hoping to get, he doesn't need a clinging trophy he, to me at least, clearly leased for a set period of time.

 

*I'm already calling it.  When the visiting winning team of the NCAA football championship or the Super Bowl, whichever is scheduled first during his administration, he will be unable to make the typical ridiculous statement about how he was once told he would be the greatest football player ever had he decided to go that way.  But he didn't.  And to be fair, no one told him he would either.  But he will make that claim.  Somehow, in some way.

[Bastet]

stillshimpy, you've already said everything I was composing in my head as I read this discussion, so I won't take up space repeating it.  But I will offer this, written by Eleanor Clift in Newsweek's Inauguration 2009 issue, since she could just add in some extra names and write the same exact thing now, eight years later: “Hillary's [2008 presidential] campaign illustrates how far we’ve come, and how far we haven’t come.  The tone and tenor of the debate around Hillary, and around Sarah Palin, was far more personal and mocking than toward their male counterparts.  Maybe the material was richer, but there was no attempt to dance around gender issues the way there is with race.  As a society, we still condone sexism; we view it as part of nature, a given that isn’t worth bothering our pretty heads about.”

[SoSueMe]

2 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

In case you haven't seen it, here is the Vanity Fair restaurant review that got Twumpy Wumpy's knickers in a twist:

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review

Hah! From your link: "a cheap version of rich"

Pretty much describes Trump overall if you ask me :)

[callmebetty]

22 minutes ago, tenativelyyours said:

 

But I think a good reason she is staying in NYC is that the less the public now thinks about Melania, the better.

 

 

I think this is the reason.  Melania is following one of the most loved FLOTUS in a long time. Hell even Melania cribbed her for her speech. Melania is not down to earth, she is not going to be rolling up her sleeves and working in the garden or going on Jimmy Fallon doing mom dances.  Not that she has to, she could be more on the vein of Jackie Kennedy giving virtual tours of the White House. But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school. But obviously by her own design or that choice being directed for her she is only going to be FLOTUS in name only. Is it not right or weird ?Certainly. But everything that has happened and is happening is not right and weird. 

[millennium]

51 minutes ago, Padma said:

I have to agree with you about trying to take the misogyny out of our language.

Misogyny is kind of one sided.   How about all of the uncivility in political discussions, whether directed at women or men?  

Sometimes I find it hard to read this thread specifically for the reason that so many personal insults are lobbed at Trump and anyone connected to him, including but not limited to pejorative nicknames and other insulting monikers (usually associated with his appearance).   It's too bad, because sometimes the people doing the name-calling make legitimate points about what's going on in our country right now but IMHO they do themselves and the readership a disservice because those points are tainted with such animus that the legitimacy of what is posted is automatically called into question.   It becomes obvious the writer has a personal axe to grind and that always makes me wonder how much of what they write is fact and how much is editorial.

Trump was roundly criticized for name-calling and ridicule during the election.   If his opponents assumed the high ground then, shouldn't they still be holding the high ground now and acting accordingly?    If it wasn't right for Trump to ridicule the appearance of Mrs. Clinton and other opponents, then it's not right for the other side to direct the same kind of behavior at him.

Nothing speaks more critically of Trump than his own actions.   Ad hominems and name-calling only obscure and distract from those actions.  

JMHO.

[Padma]

9 minutes ago, millennium said:

Misogyny is kind of one sided.   How about all of the uncivility in political discussions, whether directed at women or men?  

Sometimes I find it hard to read this thread specifically for the reason that so many personal insults are lobbed at Trump and anyone connected to him, including but not limited to pejorative nicknames and other insulting monikers (usually associated with his appearance).   It's too bad, because sometimes the people doing the name-calling make legitimate points about what's going on in our country right now but IMHO they do themselves and the readership a disservice because those points are tainted with such animus that the legitimacy of what is posted is automatically called into question.   It becomes obvious the writer has a personal axe to grind and that always makes me wonder how much of what they write is fact and how much is editorial.

Trump was roundly criticized for name-calling and ridicule during the election.   If his opponents assumed the high ground then, shouldn't they still be holding the high ground now and acting accordingly?    If it wasn't right for Trump to ridicule the appearance of Mrs. Clinton and other opponents, then it's not right for the other side to direct the same kind of behavior at him.

Nothing speaks more critically of Trump than his own actions.   Ad hominems and name-calling only obscure and distract from those actions.  

JMHO.

millennium, I am so moved by your post that I am going to give up calling him "Tubby" from now on. (It wasn't because I think he's fat, but because he is known to hate fat people and--like so many things with Trump--"pot meet kettle".  He's such a hypocrite. That's what "Tubby" means to me.)

I don't make up fake facts in my posts, though, just because I despise him.  And the editorial parts are pretty obvious, I'm sure, to one and all regardless of whether its his name used or a nickname.  Nicknames for him, unlike the ones he always used for others, they're a (very small) act of rebellion, not a power trip.

Nevertheless, "Trump" it will be.

[Keepitmoving]

16 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

I think this is the reason.  Melania is following one of the most loved FLOTUS in a long time. Hell even Melania cribbed her for her speech. Melania is not down to earth, she is not going to be rolling up her sleeves and working in the garden or going on Jimmy Fallon doing mom dances.  Not that she has to, she could be more on the vein of Jackie Kennedy giving virtual tours of the White House. But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school. But obviously by her own design or that choice being directed for her she is only going to be FLOTUS in name only. Is it not right or weird ?Certainly. But everything that has happened and is happening is not right and weird. 

Well if Trump's idol is Putin, then we definitely won't be seeing Melania as we're about to turn into Russia. There's no first lady standing along side Putin. He's got girlfriends right?  As a matter a fact, wasn't Trump's girlfriend Ivanka, I mean daughter, vacationing with Vlad's girlfriend some months ago?

Edited December 16, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[SoSueMe]

@KIMBERLYANN11

Thanks for parsing out my thoughts on the Trump thread. I am so grateful for this forum, I can't tell you. I have had to more or less  cut ties with another board because, as you say, the ignorance was affecting my daily life. (one of the more sane posters there is also a Kimberly, btw).

I try to post civilly, but it is stunning to me that Trump is cut so much slack, I vicariously enjoy the less than complimentary monikers.   

[Pixel]

If you go to Vanity Fair, their subscription ads say things like, "The magazine Trump doesn't want you to read. Subscribe!"  

I'm tempted. 

1 minute ago, SoSueMe said:

@KIMBERLYANN11

Thanks for parsing out my thoughts on the Trump thread. I am so grateful for this forum, I can't tell you. I have had to more or less  cut ties with another board because, as you say, the ignorance was affecting my daily life. (one of the more sane posters there is also a Kimberly, btw).

I try to post civilly, but it is stunning to me that Trump is cut so much slack, I vicariously enjoy the less than complimentary monikers.   

Me too. I particularly like Twitler. It's not appearance based, and it's accurate. 

[KIMBERLYANN11]

1 minute ago, millennium said:

Everybody has to do what's right for them, and I fully support that.   I was just adding my POV to the earlier discussion about name-calling and misogyny.

And I appreciate your viewpoint.  

I am glad you don't seem to be taking the last paragraph as being mean or sarcastic.  I mean it sincerely.  I used to think everyone has a voice and should be heard but the older and more curmudgeonly I get - the more nonchalant I am with the ignore feature.  Sometimes I will have a fit of cheerfulness and let some of them out of their cages, but in general I am happy to converse with those like-minded souls who share my views.

[stillshimpy]

I'm going to take this one on because it is one of the few times I've actually engaged in calling anyone appearance based names:  

Quote

It's too bad, because sometimes the people doing the name-calling make legitimate points about what's going on in our country right now but IMHO they do themselves and the readership a disservice because those points are tainted with such animus that the legitimacy of what is posted is automatically called into question.   It becomes obvious the writer has a personal axe to grind and that always makes me wonder how much of what they write is fact and how much is editorial.

 

 

 

 

I call him Twitler.  I call him the Tangerine Terror.  I call him the Orange Menace and here's why:  I despise him entirely.   I will not extend the respect I reserve for every other human being to Donald Trump.  Not now.  Not ever.  The way he has talked about women makes him my enemy on that basis alone.  The way he has spoken about and to the disabled makes him the enemy of compassion, of decency, of kindness.  

I value kindness above all else in people.  I'm not exaggerating that by even one iota.  A person can be functionally illiterate, have a sentence structure that would cause a grammarian to actually weep, and I will never care.   That's usually just a mark of someone's socioeconomic place in life and absolutely nothing to do with their character.    

I very much judge people by the content of their character.  Now, if the true test of someone's character lies not in how they treat people they like, but in how they approach people they do not like, then I am in fact failing The Good Person Test.   In this one instance, I am granting permission to let fly and here's why:  He's dangerous.  He will hurt people.   Lots of people.  

I'd have called Hitler a shitload of unflattering names too.  There is one test of character that runs towards how one addresses those we do not respect.  I invite you to view my entire posting history (and suggest you bring snacks, a pillow, a yoga video because stretching will help prevent blood clots) going back at least ten years and if you can find any evidence that I insult anyone's appearance,  I will be astounded.  Truly fucking astounded. 

But Donald Trump is a dangerous man who will harm people.  He's already on record with some things about Muslims that make it clear, I may have to die for my beliefs.  No one is rounding up my neighbors, latino or otherwise, on my watch.  

For the man who may require that I sacrifice my actual life to try and defend others?  Fuck him.  Orange Turd.  

Also, right on, Bastet.  

Edited December 16, 2016 by stillshimpy

[FormerMod-a1]

While we do encourage the use of the Ignore feature (really, please use it) do not talk about what you're doing with it here.  Take it PM if curious, it's off topic here.

[GaT]

1 hour ago, callmebetty said:

I think this is the reason.  Melania is following one of the most loved FLOTUS in a long time. Hell even Melania cribbed her for her speech. Melania is not down to earth, she is not going to be rolling up her sleeves and working in the garden or going on Jimmy Fallon doing mom dances.  Not that she has to, she could be more on the vein of Jackie Kennedy giving virtual tours of the White House. But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school. But obviously by her own design or that choice being directed for her she is only going to be FLOTUS in name only. Is it not right or weird ?Certainly. But everything that has happened and is happening is not right and weird. 

Melania has a skincare line & I think also a jewelry line. I think (and this is just my opinion) one of the reasons she's keeping low is that she's not giving up any businesses she has & they are trying to keep it quiet. Also, she posed nude, so the less people think about Melania, the less they're going to think about her nude photos. 

[Lunata]

1 hour ago, callmebetty said:

I think this is the reason.  Melania is following one of the most loved FLOTUS in a long time. Hell even Melania cribbed her for her speech. Melania is not down to earth, she is not going to be rolling up her sleeves and working in the garden or going on Jimmy Fallon doing mom dances.  Not that she has to, she could be more on the vein of Jackie Kennedy giving virtual tours of the White House. But I don't think that's who she is. I don't know what occupies her days while Barron is in school. But obviously by her own design or that choice being directed for her she is only going to be FLOTUS in name only. Is it not right or weird ?Certainly. But everything that has happened and is happening is not right and weird. 

'Future first lady Melania Trump appeared in a Maryland courtroom this past Monday in her defamation case against Britain’s Daily Mail and blogger Webster Tarpley. Mrs. Trump filed a lawsuit in September, claiming they published false articles alleging she had worked as an escort, and saying that she suffered a nervous breakdown during the campaign. The stories were later retracted.'

In addition to this lawsuit, I think that Melania's reluctance to put herself in the White House is that it's going to draw a lot of attention to their son Barron. She made a point to talk about cyber-bullying and it all stemmed from the numerous social media rumors about Barron possibly being autistic. There's videos on YouTube and many posts on social media from people who genuinely were concerned that he's somewhere on the autism spectrum. Barron is her life, not Donald. I think Melania and Donald have a marriage of convenience and that's all. Everything she has done in the past has been for Barron including slathering him up with her caviar lotion after his baths, and that was quoted when he was around 8 years old. She no longer has that line of caviar cosmetics. I think she just wants to protect Barron and keep him safe from all that scrutiny that they would have if she lived at the White House.

[tenativelyyours]

She might be reaping unintended benefits to not being in the White House.  She might even be entirely happy with what the plans are.  But in no way shape or form can anyone convince me that this is her doing.  Whatever role she has post inauguration, whatever presence she has in the White House, it is at his order and his wish.  There is no way if he wanted her there by his side and taking up residence there, it wouldn't be happening.  I have a hard time believing he didn't just send someone to tell her how it was going to be since I think they live rather separate lives outside of the PR appearances.   But I'd have to be present to see and hear her walk into whatever gilded travesty of a room he was in at the apartment and inform him she was staying in NYC and would do a few social events as needed in the years to come.  And after I saw and heard such a conversation take place I'd first get my hearing and sight checked and then I would commit myself for observation, clearly suffering from delusions or possibly having suffered a stroke.