Posted on 04/20/2024 4:08:59 PM PDT by SteveH
Barf ... she and her granddaughter wore colors representing the Uke flag, to the Coronation.
Makes me dislike that garb, even more!
They are SUCH a bunch of damned PHONY, VIRTUE SIGNALLING, CORRUPT,LOW CLASS/NO CLASS arsehole!
Waving!!!
Your ignorance is showing, as per usual.
Melania undeniably is a support of the homosexual agenda. And it is very common for spouses to attend trials. She does the bare minimum for PDJT.
No one who supports President Trump is required to admire Melania. It would help him a lot if she would attend trials, as many spouses do.
The cut and the neckline of that 2 piece blue outfit are not flattering at all-I don’t think they would work for anyone unless they were going to stand up all the time they wore it. I’m just a redneck woman-no fancy broad when it comes to clothes, but even I know that an outfit is not flattering unless the material is designed and cut so that it moves WITH you-Jill’s dress looks as if it is being squashed at the midriff and waist, while the bodice is holding her boobs in place-it is distracting and looks very uncomfortable to wear...
Nothing she wears is as bad as Michelle Obama’s wardrobe-I believe a pair of drapes were used for every garish, tasteless dress she wore. These women have access to any designer they want just about-why don’t they choose one who does not hate them and want them to look ridiculous?
What next, claiming that every member of his immediate family should show up for these kangaroo, Kafkaesque trials, to "show their support"?
Trump supporters don't care and many probably don't think that she should be there and those who DON'T support him, would have a field day mocking, smearing, and casting aspersions on her for showing up.
As usual, it it YOUR ignorance, arrogant petulance, puerile mentality on full display here, for all to see.
And YOU "get it"!
One doesn't have to be someone who buys/wears these kinds of clothes EVER, to be able to recognize when an outfit fits, is suitable to an event, flatters or does NOT flatter the person wearing it. You are to be commended!
I notice you always ignore her RINO beliefs. Very telling.
I don’t care whether she comes or not. But it would help her husband with squishy women who are uncommitted if she would publicly support him more with her presence. It’s good that she remains silent mostly. That’s one thing she is doing correctly.
Squishy women, who hate "mean tweets", and/or whatever else stupid excuses they claim as a reason for not wanting to vote for Trump, will NOT be "impressed"/change their minds about Trump should Melania turn up at one or more of his KANGAROO, USSR, COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS, POLITICAL WITCH HUNT trials.
Her being there just might even actually prove to be a detriment to him.
And besides which 1) she hates to be involved 2) is the mother of a boy who is still in high school, has/had finals, is graduating or has just graduated, and whom she dotes on 3) doesn't want the publicity 4) does NOT need to show the public that she supports her husband.
Pat Nixon was almost NEVER seen and was NOT heard from, ever.
No, Nixon was not put through these kinds of non-federal trials; however, he was, even from the time he was Ike's VEEP, publicly persecuted, bedeviled, harassed, and vilified by Dems and actual COMMIES in our government!
Do I really have to give examples of ALL of the previous First Ladies/those who were married to men who ran for the presidency but lost, or spouses AFTER their husbands were no loner and not running again, for any of this to break through to you?
The defendant was a big, ugly brute who was an enforcer for mobster Mickey Cohen. Looking at the man was enough to sway anyone toward conviction, and the prosecution had a solid case. The jury though acquitted him.
Why? Sitting immediately behind the defendant throughout the trial was a beautiful blond woman with three angelic looking daughters with long blond hair. At every break in the trial, the woman and her children would whisper and touch or even hug the defendant. The jury was present for these scenes of tender affection for the defendant.
Obviously, as bad as the defendant looked and as strong as the case was against him, he had a lovely family who contradicted his fearful appearance and the testimony against him.
When the jury came back with a verdict of acquittal, the woman and children were unaccountably absent, so his lawyer -- later my law professor -- asked about them. The defendant smiled and said that he did not really know them. She was an actress whom Mickey had hired.
The lesson my law professor offered was that everything and anything that happens in a court room can sway a jury. Be on guard for how you and your client act and for everything else so that you can make sure that you get a fair shake or better.
What that WOULD garner are a bunch of derogatory, disgusting articles, vile name calling, and the impugnation and defamation of both Melania and Barron, the likes of which would be obscene!
> The lesson my law professor offered was that everything and anything that happens in a court room can sway a jury. Be on guard for how you and your client act and for everything else so that you can make sure that you get a fair shake or better.
Thanks. BTW, this sounds like an example of exactly the kind of consideration that was going through my mind when reading the trial comments that suddenly popped up on this thread.
How many die hard DEM New York City voters have you had a close, personal relationship with, for many decades?
Do you read the N.Y. Times, the Daily News, AND the N.Y. Post daily, as well as watch the local NYC news shows every night?
How many Freepers with severe TDS are YOU in communication with on a daily or even weekly basis?
And actually, I did, many, many decades ago, have jury duty IN MANHATTAN, when NYC was a calm, safe, wonderful place to live, work, and be on jury duty in.
And I want Trump to be found INNOCENT, for ALL of these LAWFARE trials to disappear, and for him to be re-elected president, so your ridiculous assumption about me, are fallacious, puerile, patently ridiculous in the extreme, as well as particularly laughable!
Did you pay attention to the circus trials of E. Jean Carrol? If you did, HOW IN THE WORLD any New Yorkers found him guilty of anything, that IMPOSSIBLE, is beyond me, but they DID!
And on the threads about THAT mess, I explained, over and over again, in explicit detail, just WHY and HOW it was IMPOSSIBLE for her story to be true! But that jury, while NOT finding him guilty of RAPE", found him GUILTY of sexual aggression or some such idiotic thing.
When it comes down to what I fear, I FEAR people like YOU, who do NOT know what they are talking about, demand that they are correct, and when told the truth, decide that they KNOW what I am all about, even though the assumption is THE farthest thing from factual TRUTH there is!
And WHY do I fear such people? Because they/you are blinkered and blinded and deaf to reality, by their own delusions.
I agree with you. But juries can sometimes act against their own settled inclinations. Even with the deck stacked against Trump, he has to play the best hand that he can. And having Melania with him in court is likely to appeal to the jury and to the wider audience of American public opinion.
What’s load of bovine excrement! Wake up, at least attempt to see reality and not your 11year old girlie delusion bathed in glitter and pink lights, with the hopes and dreams of a Disney hack job of a fairy tale ending!
hi there and thanks for yur inputs.
i was not initially focused on the trial(s) in my original post.
prospective melania support in trump trials might better be considered in a separate post to allow better focused discussion (someone else is welcome to start it).
i think some of us might have gotten a little bit sidetracked.
sorry about having played a part in that.
I expect Trump to be convicted, with a lesser chance of a hung jury. If the jury did not reach a verdict, it would be a tactical victory for Trump.
Trump’s not going to win over any liberal women voters. They’re hard wired to go against strong men like Trump. Women always have been wired that way. They’ve always been the peacenik’s if you will, afraid the strong man will start fights when they want everyone to get along. It’s way worse these days because liberal women are spoiled rotten.
Liberal women, especially the white middle class one’s are so locked in on the Marxist, anti-patriarchy model that they’ll crawl on broken glass to vote for democrats and they’re stubborn as bulls about it.
> Trump’s not going to win over any liberal women voters. They’re hard wired to go against strong men like Trump. Women always have been wired that way. They’ve always been the peacenik’s if you will, afraid the strong man will start fights when they want everyone to get along. It’s way worse these days because liberal women are spoiled rotten.
> Liberal women, especially the white middle class one’s are so locked in on the Marxist, anti-patriarchy model that they’ll crawl on broken glass to vote for democrats and they’re stubborn as bulls about it.
I would have thought that women would be hard-wired to follow strong male leaders.
In the old days, at least so I recollect the theory goes, a tribal chieftain would rule the tribe from his teepee or cave or whatever. the chieftain would ostracize anyone who does not like it, until he dies or a stronger chieftain displaces him. (This would be true for all but a small number of amazonian tribes with female leaders.)
In the current case, the deep state takes the place of the tribal chieftain. Trump is the underdog challenger. The women chose the strong-person (deep state) over Trump. The MSM helps reinforce the notion of the deep state as chieftain and Trump as a would-be chieftain loser.
The women are relatively easy to manipulate because in modern US history they are rarely called upon to conduct war or witness firsthand the effects of war. Reason (in particular the ability to predict outcomes based on proposed defense policies) thus becomes less effective than instinct.
Something similar happens for the national equivalent of checkbook balancing. The Big Guy talks, the women listen, as with chieftains of old.
As a side effect of all this, presumably, women voluntarily yield their natural rights to the (all-powerful and seemingly benevolent) state.
Men are instinctively distrustful. This reflects their ancient role in tribal societies, that of the hunter. One cannot afford to be wrong in planning when trying to kill a mammoth for protein for the tribe. The modern day equivalent would be something along the lines of an armed society is a polite society. Women can and frequently do talk big because they are almost totally excused from being held responsible for the outcomes of big talk (at least until a mistake is too late to correct, and a war is lost, or inflation becomes out of control).
(Note: I am not a woman, so IRL I can only guess at their normal rationale for voting the way they apparently do.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.