The First Plastic First Family

[_Gunnar]

What ever else is true about Melania, I don't think she is nearly as villainous as her husband. I get the impression that she is not really a very happy woman and may, in some ways, be more victim than villain. It seems highly likely that the reason she has expressed a desire to dedicate herself to combat bullying while FLOTUS is at least partially because she is a victim of bullying herself at the hands of her husband. She may deserve some blame for whatever unhappiness she is experiencing because of some bad choices she has made, but I can't help viewing her more as a victim of Trump than as being complicit in his villainy. She may not be the brightest or best educated First Lady we have ever had, but I think she may be more intelligent than her detractors are willing to give her credit for.

[_Black Moclips]

And by the way, your gun story is truly moronic. Who wouldn't want to be armed in a violent encounter when the other party has a gun? Yes, snowflakes do feel safer laying down among the other snowflakes. As a concealed carry permit holder, I would rather step up and try to protect others and die doing it than laying down and hoping the shooter doesn't pick me.

Is today, "Moclips proves he's an idiot day" or something?

Yes, please... take your guns into the line of fire. That's would be just dandy. I'm sure you'd be doing everyone a favor.

The word snowflake must be your trigger Schmo. If you think citizens being armed and willing to defend themselves and others idiotic, I doubt I'll change your mind. I truly hope you, nor anyone else ever has to be in that situation to prove it one way or the other.

[_Maksutov]

The problem with the "good guy with a gun" concept is that actual law enforcement, coming upon the chaos of a shooting, cannot easily determine which gun wielder is the "good guy". "Good guys" are not necessarily good or accurate shots, either. LEO may be as likely to shoot the vigilantes as the original criminal, and the more crossfire, the more danger to bystanders.

All of this can be true, absolutely. There are risks to carrying concealed and making a decision to draw and get involved. I've taken classes from experts (former military special forces, law enforcement, etc) they talk about this specifically - what to do after getting involved and how not to get shot by cops. So yes, there are risks, and carrying concealed isn't for everyone. In a nutshell, I'd rather have a choice if ever put in that situation, rather than just being another victim and expecting someone to come save me.

I'm fine with CC, self defense, training and advocacy. I own firearms but not a handgun. What makes me uneasy is the element--small but there--of the gun owners who seem to fantasize about armed rebellion, "watering the tree of liberty", etc. The responsible gun owners need to make it clear that they are not about that.

[_Maksutov]

Is today, "Moclips proves he's an idiot day" or something?

Yes, please... take your guns into the line of fire. That's would be just dandy. I'm sure you'd be doing everyone a favor.

The word snowflake must be your trigger Schmo. If you think citizens being armed and willing to defend themselves and others idiotic, I doubt I'll change your mind. I truly hope you, nor anyone else ever has to be in that situation to prove it one way or the other.

"Snowflake" is the new "pussy". It's a stupid term, just a throwaway sneer of a word. There are plenty of conservative snowflakes who have to have a Disneyland Christian paradise or they throw fits. I don't think Moclips is that. It's kind of like "wingnut", "moonbat", all the extended lexicon of dumb culture war disses. But hey, memes will out and words will buzz.

[_Res Ipsa]

I like your approach, Schmo. I think what you did there is productive. But what you didn't do was shriek about them being hypocrites. I think that makes all the difference.

Well, true. There's something to be said for Obama's suggestion that, if you're tired of talking to people on the Internet, go talk to a real person. There might be a difference.

In my experience, there is.

[_Black Moclips]

I'm fine with CC, self defense, training and advocacy. I own firearms but not a handgun. What makes me uneasy is the element--small but there--of the gun owners who seem to fantasize about armed rebellion, "watering the tree of liberty", etc. The responsible gun owners need to make it clear that they are not about that.

My quote function messes up here sometimes. I write the reply and then I keep hitting submit and the screen refreshes but it doesn't post. Doesn't happen all the time, but its weird. The copy and paste works though.

I agree, though I think there are two separate topics in your comment - 1) being armed as a citizen for self defense purposes, and 2) prepping for armed rebellion or general chaos due to some crazy event. I train for (1) and hope to God it never happens. I have a wife and four kids, and while I'm probably worth more dead, I'd still like to see them grow up and have families. I certainly don't hope or fantasize for (2) either.

[_Res Ipsa]

What ever else is true about Melania, I don't think she is nearly as villainous as her husband. I get the impression that she is not really a very happy woman and may, in some ways, be more victim than villain. It seems highly likely that the reason she has expressed a desire to dedicate herself to combat bullying while FLOTUS is at least partially because she is a victim of bullying herself at the hands of her husband. She may deserve some blame for whatever unhappiness she is experiencing because of some bad choices she has made, but I can't help viewing her more as a victim of Trump than as being complicit in his villainy. She may not be the brightest or best educated First Lady we have ever had, but I think she may be more intelligent than her detractors are willing to give her credit for.

I don't see her as "villainous" at all. If she takes on bullying as her issue as first lady, I would support her efforts. First ladies have to carve out a niche for themselves, and I don't think they develop that niche right away. Right now, she seems focussed on her son, which is fine with me. I'm more than willing to give her a chance to grow into her role as first lady. To date, I don't think we have sufficient information to even guess at what she will do.

[_Gunnar]

I don't see her as "villainous" at all. If she takes on bullying as her issue as first lady, I would support her efforts. First ladies have to carve out a niche for themselves, and I don't think they develop that niche right away. Right now, she seems focussed on her son, which is fine with me. I'm more than willing to give her a chance to grow into her role as first lady. To date, I don't think we have sufficient information to even guess at what she will do.

I have no disagreement with that, and it probably sums up what I was trying to say better and more concisely than I did. Thanks for that!

ETA: And I deplore, as I'm sure you do, the treatment of her son by some in the media, especially the social media.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh god.

What ever else is true about Melania, I don't think she is nearly as villainous as her husband.

Villainous? You're scoring her and her husband according to your perceived degrees of villainous?

This is the same thing you did with her jewelry line being mentioned, Gunnar, you went right for Trump based on one line in a lengthy bio of Melania Trump. She is not an appendage of her husband.

Now you "don't think she is nearly as villainous as her husband."

I get the impression that she is not really a very happy woman and may, in some ways, be more victim than villain.

Oh look at you relying on your intuition instead of critical thinking and objectivity here. I just gotta ask one question. Did the Spirit tell you she's not very happy?

;-)

Because you have exactly no evidence with which to draw these conclusions except your imagination and bias against her husband.

It seems highly likely that the reason she has expressed a desire to dedicate herself to combat bullying while FLOTUS is at least partially because she is a victim of bullying herself at the hands of her husband.

I think (no really I think) that the reason she's interested in fighting bullying is because, as she already SAID, one of her main focuses is on cyber bullying on social media. You know like Barron is autistic type bullying? She's approaching this as a mother, not a wife.

She may deserve some blame for whatever unhappiness she is experiencing because of some bad choices she has made, but I can't help viewing her more as a victim of Trump than as being complicit in his villainy.

Again, you imagine she's unhappy. Based on what, Gunnar? Here you paint a picture of her as a helpless victim of Trump instead of a capable and independent woman, and what, she's stuck with him? She chained up or something? She's a millionaire in her own right for pete sakes.

Oh that poor woman!

She may not be the brightest or best educated First Lady we have ever had, but I think she may be more intelligent than her detractors are willing to give her credit for.

What? What do you base this on? How do you know what her level of intelligence is?

[_Maksutov]

Oh god.

Villainous? You're scoring her and her husband according to your perceived degrees of villainous?

This is the same thing you did with her jewelry line being mentioned, Gunnar, you went right for Trump based on one line in a lengthy bio of Melania Trump. She is not an appendage of her husband.

Now you "don't think she is nearly as villainous as her husband."

Not villainous, villainess. Based on this double super secret intelligence received from Moose and Squirrel.