Trump's wife scores on him

TITLE EDITED


Melania Trump used newfound leverage to redo prenup after election win, new book says

Jane C. Timm and Kristen Welker
June 12, 2020, 7:32 AM PDT

First lady Melania Trump favorably renegotiated her prenuptial agreement after husband Donald Trump won the White House, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Mary Jordan.

Mrs. Trump stayed in New York for months after the president's inauguration, saying publicly it was because she didn’t want to interrupt son Barron’s school year. Privately, Jordan writes in "The Art of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump," she was using the time to cool off and leverage her absence in negotiations — as the president's allies wanted her in Washington to be a calming force for the president.

According to a Post report on the book, Mrs. Trump learned new details about her husband during the scandal-riddled campaign, which was marked by reports of his alleged infidelities and a hot mic tape that captured him describing groping women's genitals and kissing them without consent. Trump has denied the affairs.

Mrs. Trump then used her marriage, the president's longest relationship, and her newfound standing as first lady to rework her initial prenuptial agreement, which the book reports had not been particularly generous.

Mrs. Trump's nearly six month stay in New York as first lady wasn't cheap: Reportedly, her military flights to Washington cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, while guarding her and Barron cost the city millions.

Mrs. Trump referred to the prenup renegotiation as "taking care of Barron," the author writes, according to the Post report, and she sought written assurances that her only child with the president would be treated like his oldest three children when it came to inheritance and financial opportunities.

Jordan’s book, the Post reports, paints a picture of an ambitious Mrs. Trump who embraced and encouraged the president’s political ambitions and is committed to winning a second term for her husband.

In a statement, the first lady's chief of staff, Stephanie Grisham, said: "Yet another book about Mrs. Trump with false information and sources. This book belongs in the fiction genre."

DO NOT use that term in relation to ANY woman
It Is misogynistic and demeaning. Like the term, Ni***r ONLY a woman can use it to another woman, and then as I see it only in a one on one basis.....

Victorismyhero wrote:DO NOT use that term in relation to ANY woman
It Is misogynistic and demeaning. Like the term, Ni***r ONLY a woman can use it to another woman, and then as I see it only in a one on one basis.....

I did it advisedly, to bring you out vic.  This site has recently declassified certain words.  Please remember when someone calls someone a dick, or an asshole, or any other disparaging name, we expect equal justice under the rules.  No more playing favorites, whether with a word, a person, or a political persuasion.  

BTW, I don't mind your changing of the title.  I expected it.

Now, on to the topic, which I find quite relevant to the President's behavior early in his term.  Melania really had him by the balls, and the question is: does she still?

Melania is not a native born American.  Isn't that dangerous, particularly as a president him or herself has to be a native born American?  The first-mate is a powerful influence on the top officer of the land.  Could this be an end-run around the Constitution?

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:DO NOT use that term in relation to ANY woman
It Is misogynistic and demeaning. Like the term, Ni***r ONLY a woman can use it to another woman, and then as I see it only in a one on one basis.....

I did it advisedly, to bring you out vic.  This site has recently declassified certain words.  Please remember when someone calls someone a dick, or an asshole, or any other disparaging name, we expect equal justice under the rules.  No more playing favorites, whether with a word, a person, or a political persuasion.  

BTW, I don't mind your changing of the title.  I expected it.

Now, on to the topic, which I find quite relevant to the President's behavior early in his term.  Melania really had him by the balls, and the question is: does she still?

Melania is not a native born American.  Isn't that dangerous, particularly as a president him or herself has to be a native born American?  The first-mate is a powerful influence on the top officer of the land.  Could this be an end-run around the Constitution?

bullshit...you are simply a misogynist, as can be seen in many of your replies to women on here, and are often guilty of using demeaning terms to them.
and the key is demeaning.....not merely insulting...ffs if as a bloke you cant take "dick"....... grow one. you belong to that ever expanding group of berks that can hand it out but dont like it back..... the term bitch is as bad as, indeed is synonymous with, "whore" and that lovely black culture you associate yourself with specifically uses it in reference to its women, because thats how they SEE their women.....they have as little respect for women as do isis.

+1

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I did it advisedly, to bring you out vic.  This site has recently declassified certain words.  Please remember when someone calls someone a dick, or an asshole, or any other disparaging name, we expect equal justice under the rules.  No more playing favorites, whether with a word, a person, or a political persuasion.  

BTW, I don't mind your changing of the title.  I expected it.

Now, on to the topic, which I find quite relevant to the President's behavior early in his term.  Melania really had him by the balls, and the question is: does she still?

Melania is not a native born American.  Isn't that dangerous, particularly as a president him or herself has to be a native born American?  The first-mate is a powerful influence on the top officer of the land.  Could this be an end-run around the Constitution?

bullshit...you are simply a misogynist, as can be seen in many of your replies to women on here, and are often guilty of using demeaning terms to them.

But: "As you ramble on through life brother, whatever be your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole".  It means, look what I do, and not what I am (mis) quoted for.  For example, I argued vociferously to prevent a gang-rapist (of women) from being appointed to the US Supreme Court.  Just because now-and-then I take the difficult standard, over the easy one, doesn't mean that I'm not right.

Victorismyhero wrote:and the key is demeaning.....not merely insulting...ffs if as a bloke you cant take "dick"....... grow one. you belong to that ever expanding group of berks that can hand it out but dont like it back..... the term bitch is as bad as, indeed is synonymous with, "whore"  and that lovely black culture you associate yourself with specifically uses it in reference to its women, because thats how they SEE their women.....they have as little respect for women as do isis.

Actually, you are being offensive right now, vic.  The real key is: are you censoring a word, or are you censoring an idea?  Some words are offensive language in themselves, as Kant would say.  On the other hand, some of the words that you censor are intended to dissuade certain ideas.  Careful now.  Rules should never ban ideas, or you have just thrown out the very idea of free debate and communication.

You play it extremely close to the line, as an extreme RW'er yourself.  As a result, you have fully changed the ideological tenor of this site, from LW to RW.  You chased off Sassy, and with her, most of the LW'ers.

We are talking facts here, not persuasions.  Please don't be offended by what I say.  Or, if you are, a little introspection might be of some benefit to you.

I did hope that Melania would have hidden depths and not just be there for arm candy....seems maybe she has.

Quill, do you remember when you kept calling her a prostitute?
You never did admit you were wrong, even when she sued the offending publications  and won millions.
You were just repeating as fact the lies they had told about her....and even they had the good grace to apologise and admit that they were lying.

Syl wrote:Quill, do you remember when you kept calling her a prostitute?

I still believe she ran is such circles.  But it's of little consequence.

That talk was squelched, here, because it seemed to be in vogue not to talk about first ladies' past, in the wake of what happened to Hillary Clinton and Michele Obama.

Actually, Melania seems to be quite shrewd, which I admire.  As a lawyer, I like her style...she proceeds quietly, methodically, but lethally, unphased by the bluster and the noise of her husband.  Ultimately, you just know she will prevail.

I am also 50-50 on the chance that she is a Russian spy, implanted as a control running the 'useful idiot' in the White House. She exudes that sort of distant confidence, that says: I don't care, I've got external license to do what I do.

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I did it advisedly, to bring you out vic.  This site has recently declassified certain words.  Please remember when someone calls someone a dick, or an asshole, or any other disparaging name, we expect equal justice under the rules.  No more playing favorites, whether with a word, a person, or a political persuasion.  

BTW, I don't mind your changing of the title.  I expected it.

Now, on to the topic, which I find quite relevant to the President's behavior early in his term.  Melania really had him by the balls, and the question is: does she still?

Melania is not a native born American.  Isn't that dangerous, particularly as a president him or herself has to be a native born American?  The first-mate is a powerful influence on the top officer of the land.  Could this be an end-run around the Constitution?

bullshit...you are simply a misogynist, as can be seen in many of your replies to women on here, and are often guilty of using demeaning terms to them.

But: "As you ramble on through life brother, whatever be your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole".  It means, look what I do, and not what I am (mis) quoted for.  For example, I argued vociferously to prevent a gang-rapist (of women) from being appointed to the US Supreme Court.  Just because now-and-then I take the difficult standard, over the easy one, doesn't mean that I'm not right.

Victorismyhero wrote:and the key is demeaning.....not merely insulting...ffs if as a bloke you cant take "dick"....... grow one. you belong to that ever expanding group of berks that can hand it out but dont like it back..... the term bitch is as bad as, indeed is synonymous with, "whore"  and that lovely black culture you associate yourself with specifically uses it in reference to its women, because thats how they SEE their women.....they have as little respect for women as do isis.

Actually, you are being offensive right now, vic.  The real key is: are you censoring a word, or are you censoring an idea?  Some words are offensive language in themselves, as Kant would say.  On the other hand, some of the words that you censor are intended to dissuade certain ideas.  Careful now.  Rules should never ban ideas, or you have just thrown out the very idea of free debate and communication.

You play it extremely close to the line, as an extreme RW'er yourself.  As a result, you have fully changed the ideological tenor of this site, from LW to RW.  You chased off Sassy, and with her, most of the LW'ers.

We are talking facts here, not persuasions.  Please don't be offended by what I say.  Or, if you are, a little introspection might be of some benefit to you.

And you are talking out of your arse....you wouldnt know an extreme r/w er if one slapped you in the face with a wet fish.....
but to an extent you are correct in that stopping you use the word "bitch" in that context is indeed to dissuade an idea......one which is as poisonous as any of the racism YOU purport to despise, one that devalues women generally and reduces them to nothing more than mere chattles of sexual slavery.....If the word "n****r is offensive to ALL coloured people when used against one even in anger (which it is) then bitch is equally offensive to ALL women to the same degree and for many similar reasons....I repeat YOU are a misogynist.....and all your weasly wordyness wont change anything.....

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Quill, do you remember when you kept calling her a prostitute?

I still believe she ran is such circles.  But it's of little consequence.

That talk was squelched, here, because it seemed to be in vogue not to talk about first ladies' past, in the wake of what happened to Hillary Clinton and Michele Obama.

Actually, Melania seems to be quite shrewd, which I admire.  As a lawyer, I like her style...she proceeds quietly, methodically, but lethally, unphased by the bluster and the noise of her husband.  Ultimately, you just know she will prevail.

and yet you applied that descriptor to her......over here that and your reply to syl would be "Two faced"

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But: "As you ramble on through life brother, whatever be your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole".  It means, look what I do, and not what I am (mis) quoted for.  For example, I argued vociferously to prevent a gang-rapist (of women) from being appointed to the US Supreme Court.  Just because now-and-then I take the difficult standard, over the easy one, doesn't mean that I'm not right.



Actually, you are being offensive right now, vic.  The real key is: are you censoring a word, or are you censoring an idea?  Some words are offensive language in themselves, as Kant would say.  On the other hand, some of the words that you censor are intended to dissuade certain ideas.  Careful now.  Rules should never ban ideas, or you have just thrown out the very idea of free debate and communication.

You play it extremely close to the line, as an extreme RW'er yourself.  As a result, you have fully changed the ideological tenor of this site, from LW to RW.  You chased off Sassy, and with her, most of the LW'ers.

We are talking facts here, not persuasions.  Please don't be offended by what I say.  Or, if you are, a little introspection might be of some benefit to you.

And you are talking out of your arse....you wouldnt know an extreme r/w er if one slapped you in the face with a wet fish.....
but to an extent  you are correct in that stopping you use the word "bitch" in that context is indeed to dissuade an idea......one which is as poisonous as any of the racism YOU purport to despise, one that devalues women generally and reduces them to nothing more than mere chattles of sexual slavery.....If the word "n****r is offensive to ALL coloured people when used against one even in anger (which it is) then bitch is equally offensive to ALL women to the same degree and for many similar reasons....I repeat YOU are a misogynist.....and all your weasly wordyness wont change anything.....

Then get off the subject. This thread is about Melania, not your hurt feelings.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Quill, do you remember when you kept calling her a prostitute?

I still believe she ran is such circles.  But it's of little consequence.

That talk was squelched, here, because it seemed to be in vogue not to talk about first ladies' past, in the wake of what happened to Hillary Clinton and Michele Obama.

Actually, Melania seems to be quite shrewd, which I admire.  As a lawyer, I like her style...she proceeds quietly, methodically, but lethally, unphased by the bluster and the noise of her husband.  Ultimately, you just know she will prevail.

Well you say it's of little consequence, but when a persons name is besmirched, either by slander or libel, it is of great consequence to them, which is why she sued.
I remember our conversations from back then, you were so convinced she wouldn't sue, or if she did she wouldn't win....well she did.

Honestly, the conversations we had about her then had very little to do with Michelle O or Hilary C....they were stand alone convo's about Melania, and none of them were 'squelched'...….you just never would admit you were wrong.


The search function here is not very good, but I'm sure they are still on here somewhere.

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I still believe she ran is such circles.  But it's of little consequence.

That talk was squelched, here, because it seemed to be in vogue not to talk about first ladies' past, in the wake of what happened to Hillary Clinton and Michele Obama.

Actually, Melania seems to be quite shrewd, which I admire.  As a lawyer, I like her style...she proceeds quietly, methodically, but lethally, unphased by the bluster and the noise of her husband.  Ultimately, you just know she will prevail.

and yet you applied that descriptor to her......over here that and your reply to syl would be "Two faced"  

Calling a woman a prostitute is of some serious consequence. He knows that.

The dude is talking out of both sides of his mouth and believes that if he piles on unrelated verbiage he looks less guilty.  

He's just vomiting all over the screen, per as usual.

I just feel sympathy for Melania.

Who can imagine the horror of being impaled by such an abhorrent ,grotesque and obese individual such as Trump. God, his sweat must have nearly downed her.

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But: "As you ramble on through life brother, whatever be your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole".  It means, look what I do, and not what I am (mis) quoted for.  For example, I argued vociferously to prevent a gang-rapist (of women) from being appointed to the US Supreme Court.  Just because now-and-then I take the difficult standard, over the easy one, doesn't mean that I'm not right.



Actually, you are being offensive right now, vic.  The real key is: are you censoring a word, or are you censoring an idea?  Some words are offensive language in themselves, as Kant would say.  On the other hand, some of the words that you censor are intended to dissuade certain ideas.  Careful now.  Rules should never ban ideas, or you have just thrown out the very idea of free debate and communication.

You play it extremely close to the line, as an extreme RW'er yourself.  As a result, you have fully changed the ideological tenor of this site, from LW to RW.  You chased off Sassy, and with her, most of the LW'ers.

We are talking facts here, not persuasions.  Please don't be offended by what I say.  Or, if you are, a little introspection might be of some benefit to you.

And you are talking out of your arse....you wouldnt know an extreme r/w er if one slapped you in the face with a wet fish.....
but to an extent  you are correct in that stopping you use the word "bitch" in that context is indeed to dissuade an idea......one which is as poisonous as any of the racism YOU purport to despise, one that devalues women generally and reduces them to nothing more than mere chattles of sexual slavery.....If the word "n****r is offensive to ALL coloured people when used against one even in anger (which it is) then bitch is equally offensive to ALL women to the same degree and for many similar reasons....I repeat YOU are a misogynist.....and all your weasly wordyness wont change anything.....

Then get off the subject.  This thread is about Melania, not your hurt feelings.

YOU are the one trying to make it about me.....

just admit you were wrong before you end up looking an even bigger fool.

Brutus wrote:I just feel sympathy for Melania.

Who can imagine the horror of being impaled by such an abhorrent ,grotesque and obese individual such as Trump. God, his sweat must have nearly downed her.

Now that I can agree with.....but you know what they say...whatever floats yer boat

Any man who allows some creep to talk to his wife to be like this deserves to be stitched up by her....however long it takes.
At the time she was 22 he was 52.

As I said, above:

Original Quill wrote:I am also 50-50 on the chance that she is a Russian spy, implanted as a control running the 'useful idiot' in the White House. She exudes that sort of distant confidence, that says: I don't care, I've got external license to do what I do.

Russians are quite adept at using prostitutes as hookers, not the usual meaning of the term, but in essence: to snag and reel in an unwitting fool. Putin used prostitutes with Trump in 2013, at the Moscow Ritz Carlton, in the making of the infamous "pee tape". It is a well-known gambit with eastern Europeans, as they are neck deep in the prostitution trade, and they understand well the trade tactics.

It would make sense, if Putin were aiming to put hooks into Trump, and run him for president, to implant a ‘control’ by arranging a marriage to a beautiful woman. Trump likes eastern European women. It would be easy to arrange. And eastern Europeans were (are?) beholding to Putin, who once ruled the underworld of all of eastern Europe as head of the KGB.

Again, nothing I say is misogynistic, as I am talking about trade-craft of the espionage business. I’m telling you…this gambit is a classic for Russians.

Syl wrote:Any man who allows some creep to talk to his wife to be like this deserves to be stitched up by her....however long it takes.
At the time she was 22 he was 52.

Not to brag, but to say I agree with you...I am the one who turned you on to that clip, if you recall, back during the 2016 campaign.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Any man who allows some creep to talk to his wife to be like this deserves to be stitched up by her....however long it takes.
At the time she was 22 he was 52.

Not to brag, but to say I agree with you...I am the one who turned you on to that clip, if you recall, back during the 2016 campaign.

You did Quill, and we discussed it at length.
You actually posted it to back up your claim that she was a prostitute, I argued that she was manipulated and possibly, being young not to mention foreign, didn't 'get' half of what Stern was implying.
We had a few lively debates about her back then...….but you still never admitted you were wrong.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not to brag, but to say I agree with you...I am the one who turned you on to that clip, if you recall, back during the 2016 campaign.

You did Quill, and we discussed it at length.
You actually posted it to back up your claim that she was a prostitute, I argued that she was manipulated and possibly, being young not to mention foreign, didn't 'get' half of what Stern was implying.
We had a few lively debates about her back then...….but you still never admitted you were wrong.

I don't recall it that way. We had two issues: 1) the prostitution matter; and 2) the abuse of Melania by her husband.

The first we had qualified differences on; the second we were in total agreement on. Do you remember, I also sent you clips about Trump (during the inauguration) turning and snapping at Melania? It was during that exchange.

Well, it was four year ago. Memories fade.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not to brag, but to say I agree with you...I am the one who turned you on to that clip, if you recall, back during the 2016 campaign.

You did Quill, and we discussed it at length.
You actually posted it to back up your claim that she was a prostitute, I argued that she was manipulated and possibly, being young not to mention foreign, didn't 'get' half of what Stern was implying.
We had a few lively debates about her back then...….but you still never admitted you were wrong.

Wrong?

The dude is Trumpian in his inability to admit to being wrong.

Your making up Words Quill , Trumpian ?

nicko wrote: Your making up Words Quill , Trumpian ?

I made up that word. Put your glasses on.

Well, Quill, the original title of your post seems to have distracted significantly from the message of your post.

I must be getting senile, [it has been mentioned]

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, Quill, the original title of your post seems to have distracted significantly from the message of your post.

Only by vic.  But that was intentional, and only momentary.  The original theme dovetails nicely with discussions that Syl and I had some four years ago...ie, Trump's misogyny--particularly as to his wife, Melania.

A fitting finish to that discussion would be for Melania to turn the tables, and take all his money.   (It would be nice if she could simultaneously aid in his imprisonment, by giving testimony, but that might conflict with her role as control of her principal, if it is so.)  It looks like she is moving in a positive direction.  The woman knows leverage when she has it.  I like the way she is calmly twisting his nuts, to get a co-equal piece of the pie for herself and her son.

BTW...so much attention to re-crafting the prenup this late in the game?  It must mean she has a contemporary plan to toss the guy as soon as his stint in the WH is over.  Watch closely: Trump will have to reveal his net worth, including all the indentures to Putin, in any contested property arrangement.  That's precisely what Trump has been trying to avoid with hiding his tax returns.  She could have him in a genuine choke-hold.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

You did Quill, and we discussed it at length.
You actually posted it to back up your claim that she was a prostitute, I argued that she was manipulated and possibly, being young not to mention foreign, didn't 'get' half of what Stern was implying.
We had a few lively debates about her back then...….but you still never admitted you were wrong.

I don't recall it that way.  We had two issues: 1) the prostitution matter; and 2) the abuse of Melania by her husband.

The first we had qualified differences on; the second we were in total agreement on.  Do you remember, I also sent you clips about Trump (during the inauguration) turning and snapping at Melania?  It was during that exchange.

Well, it was four year ago.  Memories fade.

I remember it clearly,  and also  the way he treated her compared to the way outgoing president Barack Obama treated his wife on the White House steps on inauguration day.

It was 4 years ago, but some threads and discussions  stay clear in the mind.

I hope, having bided her time, the new and improved prenup will make up for the public humiliations she has suffered, and God knows what the private ones are....from Trump.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't recall it that way.  We had two issues: 1) the prostitution matter; and 2) the abuse of Melania by her husband.

The first we had qualified differences on; the second we were in total agreement on.  Do you remember, I also sent you clips about Trump (during the inauguration) turning and snapping at Melania?  It was during that exchange.

Well, it was four year ago.  Memories fade.

I remember it clearly,  and also  the way he treated her compared to the way outgoing president Barack Obama treated his wife on the White House steps on inauguration day.

It was 4 years ago, but some threads and discussions  stay clear in the mind.

Exactly.

Nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

eddie wrote:Nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

I know. Especially with Trump. But you can make out hints in the shadows. I'll bet this matter bears close watching.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
I remember it clearly,  and also  the way he treated her compared to the way outgoing president Barack Obama treated his wife on the White House steps on inauguration day.

It was 4 years ago, but some threads and discussions  stay clear in the mind.

Exactly.

Found this, not the original thread we had about her, but you may enjoy reading a follow up one from after she won damages.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t20335-melania-wins-damages-from-paper-who-called-her-a-prostitute?highlight=melania#392756

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly.

Found this, not the original thread we had about her, but you may enjoy reading a follow up one from after she won damages.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t20335-melania-wins-damages-from-paper-who-called-her-a-prostitute?highlight=melania#392756

That was mainly a discussion about whether eddie is a conservative. (She is. ) I don't think the mention of Melania in there was ever concluded.

Nor does it go to the point raised in this thread: Melania versus Trump. Mark my word, for later recall, I think this is a big event. Melania is setting her husband up for a bigger fall than his loss in the pending appointment in November.

There will be no divorce. Either he will die, through natural causes or she will, in suspicious circumstances.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Found this, not the original thread we had about her, but you may enjoy reading a follow up one from after she won damages.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t20335-melania-wins-damages-from-paper-who-called-her-a-prostitute?highlight=melania#392756

That was mainly a discussion about whether eddie is a conservative.  (She is.    )  I don't think the mention of Melania in there was ever concluded.

Nor does it go to the point raised in this thread: Melania versus Trump.  Mark my word, for later recall, I think this is a big event.  Melania is setting her husband up for a bigger fall than his loss in the pending appointment in November.

The old thread I linked to was about Melania not Eddie..

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That was mainly a discussion about whether eddie is a conservative.  (She is.    )  I don't think the mention of Melania in there was ever concluded.

Nor does it go to the point raised in this thread: Melania versus Trump.  Mark my word, for later recall, I think this is a big event.  Melania is setting her husband up for a bigger fall than his loss in the pending appointment in November.

The old thread I linked to was about Melania not Eddie..

I know, but what you raised was a side-bar between eds and myself, within that thread.

Nevertheless, I know the discussion you mean. We never came to agreement on the point, so I'm not sure that anything is gained by raising it. As I recall, you were saying I was stubborn, and I was saying that the lawsuit against the Mail was a disingenuous, phony move to make a statement.

Brutus wrote:There will be no divorce. Either he will die,  through natural causes or she will, in suspicious circumstances.

Very interesting, in light of what happened to Jeffery Epstein. It quite possibly shows that Trump is not reluctant to use extra-legal means to quiet a troublemaker.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That was mainly a discussion about whether eddie is a conservative.  (She is.    )  I don't think the mention of Melania in there was ever concluded.

Nor does it go to the point raised in this thread: Melania versus Trump.  Mark my word, for later recall, I think this is a big event.  Melania is setting her husband up for a bigger fall than his loss in the pending appointment in November.

The old thread I linked to was about Melania not Eddie..

Along with diarrhea of the mouth, he suffers from myopia.

One could say he tries to gaslight people too.

It's why discussions with him are a waste of time. He cant accept what he says, and will instead try to convince you that you didnt read what you just read.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly.

Found this, not the original thread we had about her, but you may enjoy reading a follow up one from after she won damages.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t20335-melania-wins-damages-from-paper-who-called-her-a-prostitute?highlight=melania#392756

That was mainly a discussion about whether eddie is a conservative.  (She is.    )

Don't know how you can make that claim; she always gets "left-libertarian" on the Political Compass test (same as me).

My ears were burning....

Pfffff Quill. Every time we have taken a political test on here I’ve come up as more left than Wolf...twice!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That was mainly a discussion about whether eddie is a conservative.  (She is.    )

Don't know how you can make that claim; she always gets "left-libertarian" on the Political Compass test (same as me).

She's always on the RW side of things.  You can trick tests, but not on-going acquaintances.
Oh, she likes to dabble in conspiracy theory, but so do RW'ers: Johnson killed Kennedy, and all that.

I would point this out to you as we go along, but it would just prolong the debate and detract from the point of the thread.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Don't know how you can make that claim; she always gets "left-libertarian" on the Political Compass test (same as me).

She's always on the RW side of things.  You can trick tests, but not on-going acquaintances.
Oh, she likes to dabble in conspiracy theory, but so do RW'ers: Johnson killed Kennedy, and all that.

I would point this out to you as we go along, but it would just prolong the debate and detract from the point of the thread.

Would Ben not have a better idea than Quill of where Eddie's political persuasions lie?
Just a thought.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She's always on the RW side of things.  You can trick tests, but not on-going acquaintances.
Oh, she likes to dabble in conspiracy theory, but so do RW'ers: Johnson killed Kennedy, and all that.

I would point this out to you as we go along, but it would just prolong the debate and detract from the point of the thread.

Would Ben not have a better idea than Quill of where Eddie's political persuasions lie?
Just a thought.

Well, his judgment would be colored in one way or another. Look, black is black, and white is white. If you can't recognize a particular persuasion in the arguments to which one subscribes, you are defenseless in a debate.

I don't mean to disparage eddie. I consider her a friend. Syl, you and I have a unique friendship, yet you are RW and I'm LW. We don't confuse the messenger with the message. There are other things in life: your garden is beautiful; your kayaking trips are fun to follow. Life is various; there are other things in life to talk about.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Would Ben not have a better idea than Quill of where Eddie's political persuasions lie?
Just a thought.

Well, his judgment would be colored in one way or another.  Look, black is black, and white is white.  If you can't recognize a particular persuasion in the arguments to which one subscribes, you are defenseless in a debate.

I don't mean to disparage eddie.  I consider her a friend.  Syl, you and I have a unique friendship, yet you are RW and I'm LW.  We don't confuse the messenger with the message.  There are other things in life: your garden is beautiful; your kayaking trips are fun to follow.  Life is various; there are other things in life to talk about.

Thank you Quill, but I am not RW either. I am a lifelong Labour supporter, certainly not extreme LW, but never the less I identify far more L than R.....not that I like to put labels on myself or anyone else come to that. x

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, his judgment would be colored in one way or another.  Look, black is black, and white is white.  If you can't recognize a particular persuasion in the arguments to which one subscribes, you are defenseless in a debate.

I don't mean to disparage eddie.  I consider her a friend.  Syl, you and I have a unique friendship, yet you are RW and I'm LW.  We don't confuse the messenger with the message.  There are other things in life: your garden is beautiful; your kayaking trips are fun to follow.  Life is various; there are other things in life to talk about.

Thank you Quill, but I am not RW either. I am a lifelong Labour supporter, certainly not extreme LW, but never the less I identify far more L than R.....not that I like to put labels on myself or anyone else come to that. x

A lot of people would question that. In fact, some have described you as otherwise on other sites.

But I will grant you one thing, it's harder to tell nowadays. Usually, the RW leans toward the libertarian view--fewer laws, fewer restraints, deregulation and free reign for capitalists--and now, with Trump and BJ, we see an uptick in authoritarianism on the right.

I've often said lately, it must be hard to be a RW'er in these times.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She's always on the RW side of things.  You can trick tests, but not on-going acquaintances.
Oh, she likes to dabble in conspiracy theory, but so do RW'ers: Johnson killed Kennedy, and all that.

I would point this out to you as we go along, but it would just prolong the debate and detract from the point of the thread.

Would Ben not have a better idea than Quill of where Eddie's political persuasions lie?
Just a thought.

Quill is an expert on such matters. Just ask him.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Would Ben not have a better idea than Quill of where Eddie's political persuasions lie?
Just a thought.

Quill is an expert on such matters.  Just ask him.  

Well, I've certainly cross-examined a lot of witnesses who have ulterior motives.

You obviously don't understand that skill, Red. You start slinging shit the moment you appear on the scene, without bothering to find out the topic.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thank you Quill, but I am not RW either. I am a lifelong Labour supporter, certainly not extreme LW, but never the less I identify far more L than R.....not that I like to put labels on myself or anyone else come to that. x

A lot of people would question that.  In fact, some have described you as otherwise on other sites.

But I will grant you one thing, it's harder to tell nowadays.  Usually, the RW leans toward the libertarian view--fewer laws, fewer restraints, deregulation and free reign for capitalists--and now, with Trump and BJ, we see an uptick in authoritarianism on the right.

I've often said lately, it must be hard to be a RW'er in these times.

A lot of people say a lot of thinga about others on forums, I always think it's best to come to your own conclusions and disregard hearsay.

Unless someone is really unmoving and extreme in their views, I think most people can be flexible to a point. I dont understand the ' if you are RW (or LW) you must be wrong' attitude.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A lot of people would question that.  In fact, some have described you as otherwise on other sites.

But I will grant you one thing, it's harder to tell nowadays.  Usually, the RW leans toward the libertarian view--fewer laws, fewer restraints, deregulation and free reign for capitalists--and now, with Trump and BJ, we see an uptick in authoritarianism on the right.

I've often said lately, it must be hard to be a RW'er in these times.

A lot of people say a lot of thinga about others on forums, I always think it's best to come to your own conclusions and disregard hearsay.

Unquestionably, have I ever said you are not a RW'er?

Syl wrote:Unless someone is really unmoving and extreme in their views, I think most people can be flexible to a point. I dont understand the ' if you are RW (or LW) you must be wrong' attitude.

It's a question of core philosophy. I believe that conservatives are grounded in autonomous individualism, which leaves them nowhere to go but to selfishness. Compare that with LW'ers, who have no particular self-interest, but are dedicated to solving societal problems. It comes down to this: Right = special interest. Left = public interest.

People can be flexible in a situational sense, but ultimately people return to their home orientation.