Posted on 08/01/2016 8:12:33 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Donald Trumps campaign on Sunday defended his wifes old nude photos as an artful celebration of the human body and added that the Republican presidential nominee isnt upset by their publication in The Post.
Trump spokesman Jason Miller noted that the shots of Melania Trump were taken before the couple knew each other.
Theyre a celebration of the human body as art, and [theres] nothing to be embarrassed about with the photos. Shes a beautiful woman, Miller told CNNs Reliable Sources.
In March, Trump retweeted an unflattering photo of rival Sen. Ted Cruzs wife, Heidi, in response to a pro-Cruz group circulating a shot of Melania posing in the buff as a model.
Asked whether Trump was upset over the release of the latest images, Miller said the billionaire was a little more focused on the direction of the country and what we need to do to get it turned around.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The same thing one notices with Hillary and The Mooch.
I just had this conversation with my mom who went to a Catholic Art College back in the 1950's. One day Sister Helene showed a painting depicting two women, one clothed while the other one nude. The question was which one was "sinful". The answer was that the clothed one was. If the nude one had been wearing any adornment such as earrings, then she would have been sinful also because she would have added something to God's creation. She added nothing so she was sinless. The clothed one was hiding God's creation completely, thus she was sinful.
When Adam and Eve sinned, they hid and clothed themselves.
If evangelicals have a problem with Melania, they should reread the Bible again. Much nudity there.
Trump had seen these pics before for sure so what in the world is there for him to be upset about? It was 2 decades ago. MSM fail.
Vote Trump 2016
That tight, sleeveless sheath was a terrible dress choice for a slightly heavy, post-childbirth woman with flabby arms and no Spanx. You could see her navel dent and a love handle at the back of her waist. Clearly she is either delusional, or not her own (cis)woman, since this choice was slavish to the current fashion for much more perfectly formed females who spend their lives in the gym.
Don’t think it is the Evangelicals who have the problem with Mrs. Trump. It is the harridans around Mrs. Clinton.
"My hands just got bigger."
Good response by Trump. It was sleazy to release those photos now, but Trump handled it well.
See post 84.
Yes, I agree. With her stolen wealth, she could have had a nice dress designed that didn’t cling to her body. For a young woman, and yes, I know she’s had a kid, she’s really quite flabby. She’s like her mother - no dress sense.
Excellent points.
Guilty.
In all the ways you can think of looking at the picture.
.....
Okay, not guilty decision for the dog.
5.56mm
ROFL!!!
Indeed, sir .... But THAT particular imagery is ... is... just ghastly.
Brrr... (he shuddered, as a chill ran up his spine...)
Once was bad enough, then you put it up again! I am SO glad I already ate lunch. Now to keep it down...
While it’s unfortunate the photos are out there, Trump was correct in refusing to be dragged into another distracting tit for tat.
Here’s hoping the beautiful Mrs. Trump will raise her necklines a couple of inches, more befitting a First Lady.
The lib media would love to catch a nip slip.
[Once was bad enough, then you put it up again!]
I HAD to because someone said I had manipulated the first one to make her obese, old body larger.
Murdoch is not a friend to the RNC
Those photos were not Stanley Ann Dunham. Some were from an “exotic model” magazine published in 1958 when SAD was a VERY homely junior in high school; photos of her in that year are on FR. Plus when the two faces are lined up - nope, different person.
Plus, SAD ain’t his mother anyway.
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.