I don’t intend to defend Trump, but for once he might just be telling the truth. Everybody assumes he has exactly zero. There just *might * actually be a loose molecule or two in there somewhere
Or at least he’s learning the value of faking that as well as faking everything else.
You make some very good points. Let’s hear more, I am intrigued. But the real question is is Melania hotter than Cicciolina and Alessandra Mussolini. If we’re going to have porn star political figures we want to have the best ones.
Can you link to this evidence? Please be aware of the two-click rule for NSFW links here. (Also, I don’t think I get the “polka dots” reference. Can you explain what that means?)
How do you get from “person who has appeared in pornography” to “whore”? There’s a rather large gap between “professional model, married, who allows nude pictures of her body to be sold,” and “woman who sells her body for sex to different guys.”
I have zero opinions about any of Trump’s wives (except that I think less of them for their choice of a husband), but this is ridiculous.
It’s kind of cute that you think they’re Satanists, though.
I think he meant that the fact of her marriage might indicate that she is willing to have sex for (access to) money, which was an angle I hadn’t thought of.
There are many, many, reasons I won’t vote for Mr. Trump. Having a pretty wife who has been photographed nude isn’t one of them. Not going to church (if he would own it rather than lie about it) would be a plus.
A little off-topic here but let’s talk sexuality and politicians for a moment.
When God said to Adam and Eve “Be fruitful and multiply” there were no qualifiers on that statement to suggest they were forbidden from doing it in front of an audience. There was just the command to do it. No expiry date and no specifics as to what they could do or how they could do it. And this is the same God that made Adam name every animal that existed. This is the same God the specified you can have any fruit you want except for those ones right there on that single special tree. God can be specific when it suits him. In the case of sex, it did not suit him to be specific. Pornography is meaningless to God.
Now if a good Christian is confronted by their child who has found a nude picture of FLOTUS, the reasonable response would be to educate their child about human sexuality and the uselessness of shame. You have a body, God gave it to you and the idea that your body is an impure, shameful thing is a social construct created by man. You (humans) were created naked and you (a single human) were born naked. That was how God wanted it to be (although when God dresses Adam and Eve up he puts them in leather. I’m not joking- Genesis 3:21!). So a picture of a naked body is a picture of how God intended you to be. The only shame should go to parents who try to make their children disgusted and ashamed of what God gave them.
Now you ask if there will be a rallying cry about the “first whore” of the White House. Why is she a whore? A “shame and stain on America”? The woman in the picture is obviously not ashamed. So why are you? Explain this shame. Explain the value of shame and how it improves us in God’s eyes. And on America? Your country all of a sudden cares what others think? Is this even a real concern? Has this ever happened? Other countries won’t deal with America because of the sex life of a politician’s wife? I don’t think it works like that.
Where is the media you ask? They’re busy dressing their hosts in red leather miniskirts and having them repeatedly cross their legs while pointed directly at the camera. Fox News, being stalwart defenders of Christian values always remembers Genesis 3:21 when they dress their hosts up. See here as one of many examples:
These are the people you expect to be America’s enforcers of shame?
Now what are these “devil signals” of which you speak? Are you trying to suggest there’s some sneaky signs one can make that imbues a person with Satan’s power? And that God somehow has a weakness to this? That sounds blasphemous to me.
(disclaimer: I am not a believer. I simply think that if you’re going to life in fear of a fictional character’s wrath you should at least know what actually offends this being. And if God is as generally described - all knowing, all loving, etc then it should be impossible to offend such a being. Being able to offend God means having power over God and I don’t think that is how it would work. But power over God was never the point. The concept of sin is for the purpose of enforcing social order, not pleasing a deity that can take care of His own business.)
