You’re going to need to provide a citation on that, as I certainly can’t find one.
My understanding, as well as that of every citation I found in my precursory search on the matter, is that the scale as a whole moved to the right–leaving the center further to the right but still between the two opposing ends.
We have a first lady? Coulda fooled me.
Melania is certainly more of a lady than you’ll ever be, Helena.
Though I don’t care in the least what this “Bow Wow” person may have said, I think I’ll periodically check this thread just to be amused by ckalli’s faux-indignation.
USA insanity does not equal global reality.
In other words, you are correct (almost by definition), but the other poster was looking at the bigger picture and deeper meanings of these labels.
What has Melania accomplished other than being attractive enough to be a shallow old man’s trophy wife?
What a rude little child you are.
Yes, that one attack on Melania (by someone most of us don’t remember) was far too rude. I condemn it. What Feminist sites that you frequent have commended it?
Melania is in no way “remarkable.” She chose marriage to a rich boor to avoid “working.” This Presidency thing has allowed her to limit his access to her bed. I don’t blame her for avoiding him–but it’s a drag on the national budget when her sugar daddy’s budget threatens draconian cuts. If she were truly “Christian”–her place would be at his side.
I understand that, but even in the grand scheme of things, I can’t find a citation that puts the US Democratic Party to the right of Center.
Further, given that their post is correcting the OP about a US politician’s position with regard to Center, it’d be the US position that’s relevant. As you said, practically by definition, that correction would appear incorrect–hence the request for a cite.
If that shallow old man becomes President of the United States, then his trophy wife has met every single criteria of First Lady.
Heck, it wasn’t until recent history that the First Lady “did” anything other than exist. Much like the Vice Presidency, the role is defined by the person holding it, rather than its own virtues.
Regardless of how she opts to treat it, Melania meets every requirement to hold it.
That’s what Donald says.
I have a feeling that he’d say something different with regard to the first half.
That’s just way too much power.
Miseed the edit window: This thread marks the first time I’ve ever heard of Mr. Wow. His maiden voyage on the sea of my awareness leaves him looking like a bit of a jackass. I suspect that he’s trying to parlay his minor celebrity status into some Kanye West-level attention. Not looking good for him.
nm. Duplicate.
When you can’t deny the substantive, emphasise the formal.
Or to put it another way, I don’t think anyone here is denying that Melania is in every technical sense the “First Lady”. I think what people are saying is she did nothing particularly worthy to get the role.
I’ll direct you to my second, third, and fourth sentence in the post you replied to.
She did literally the same thing to get the role as practically every First Lady before her. Of them, a majority did nothing with the role except, as I mentioned, exist. It’s not until relatively recently that the First Lady had a position more substantive than “housewife with a powerful husband”.
So regardless of what she has done or will do, she is, at the very least, on par with most who came before her simply by breathing and not getting divorced.
Whether the role of First Lady deserves the notoriety it receives is a worthwhile topic, but to discuss it solely in terms of a single holder of the title strikes me as disingenuous, regardless of who that person is & the reputation that she and her husband have.
Nah, nice try, but nah.
This actually started with someone insulting a poster on the basis that Melania was more of a lady than the poster would ever be, at which point someone pointed out she (Melania) hadn’t accomplished anything much.
You may be right she hasn’t accomplished anything more than any other First Lady. So? What has that got to do with whether she is or is not any more of a lady than the poster who was being insulted?
Or to put it another way, when you can’t deny the substantive, try a strawman.
Bullshit.
Frankly, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
This is the post I replied to (hence my quoting of it):
What she did to earn the role & what she did with the role has everything to do with what I’m talking about, as that’s the topic I replied to. I said nothing about another poster (and the person I replied to didn’t either).
You can call it a strawman all you want, but you’re either using a weird definition or you’re way off base. The argument I’m discussing is the argument I’m quoting–no more, no less.
Oh, I get it. Snoop Dogg has a nephew whose name is a dogg’s bark. He bloviates on Twitter to get attention, just like the president. Instead of “Grab 'em by the pussy,” he says “pimp Melania out.” I hate him already.
I came into this thread wondering “what the fuck is a Bow Wow?” and now that I know, I’m wondering why the fuck I should care.
Does anyone with a political opinion have to have to express an opinion on every single thing that ever happens anywhere in the world? What he said wasn’t cool but I really don’t have time to care any more than that what some guy named Bow Wow tweeted.
The general standard of when you should call someone out is:
If you set a new standard–you must condemn anyone, no matter how two-bit and unknown that person is, for their shitty words–then you’re setting yourself up to be very, very busy.
Not that that’s a problem. ckalli, I konw you don’t want to be a hypocrite, so let’s make this thread the place where you show your integrity. There are already a lot of statements by Trump that you need to condemn; now that we’ve condemned Bow Wow (FTR, I condemn him), we’ll list all the people you need to condemn, and we expect you to condemn each individually.
Let’s start with Trump’s statements. Go!