Mrs. Trump's missing headscarf

[Valjean]

Well, it's all well and good for urbane, well traveled politicians to interact with these topless women, but do they allow coverage (uncoverage?) of them on news broadcasts?

 

[Patooka]

Not every individual within it is insane. But Cheato is. It's good to know you can be counted on to not mention that.

There are some excellent people in the FBI CIA and some good points about their actions to defend security. I think it's difficult to define normal never mind insane

I agree. It appears you have a lot of difficulty in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the whole political and security system in the USA is insane. While it is clear there is an enquiry, it seems the first people to receive the agenda is the media, which received confirmation of something being investigated. Then an investigation will probe through several avenues which is the norm but it does not mean that what someone wants to investigate is a fact. That only happens after the investigation produces a report.


Then if there is enough evidence to go on there will be a vote on impeachment. This is because what must be established in a trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you ask the mods nicely, I'm sure they'll move your reply to the "Only reply when you're drunk" thread.

Did you read the response and reply?

Let's see if I can explain it. It has been shown that Trump's actions directly contradict what he has said or done in the past. The initial post in this thread highlights Trumps' actions in Saudi Arabia are the very thing he criticized Obama did in the past. You bringing up impeachment out of the blue makes about as much sense and relevance as me posting "I have a goldfish".

 

[Cobalt]

Is there going to be a trial about a head scarf? Your response makes no sense in this thread.

This is a clear reply to the the post you are also quoting where alleged offences are treated as fact.

This thread is about Trump's hypocrisy as it concerns the wearing of head scarves by current versus past FLOTUS. The post to which you were replying does not appear to have a different focus. Even in the post in question, Elixir explicitly restated the point for you.

The issue here is not with what the Koran states about what visiting dignitaries must do in Saudi Arabia nor if there are other problems back home for the administration. The issue is the inconsistency between what Trump did and what he criticized his predecessor for. You get that, right? Right?

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are some excellent people in the FBI CIA and some good points about their actions to defend security. I think it's difficult to define normal never mind insane

I agree. It appears you have a lot of difficulty in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the whole political and security system in the USA is insane. While it is clear there is an enquiry, it seems the first people to receive the agenda is the media, which received confirmation of something being investigated. Then an investigation will probe through several avenues which is the norm but it does not mean that what someone wants to investigate is a fact. That only happens after the investigation produces a report.


Then if there is enough evidence to go on there will be a vote on impeachment. This is because what must be established in a trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you ask the mods nicely, I'm sure they'll move your reply to the "Only reply when you're drunk" thread.

Did you read the response and reply?

Let's see if I can explain it. It has been shown that Trump's actions directly contradict what he has said or done in the past. The initial post in this thread highlights Trumps' actions in Saudi Arabia are the very thing he criticized Obama did in the past. You bringing up impeachment out of the blue makes about as much sense and relevance as me posting "I have a goldfish".

In the first point the psychiatric and medical professions have a difficulty with respect to this. There are many schools of thought just like in politics.
In the second this is a reply to the earlier post which inferred this. Of course he shot his mouth off about Michelle Obama. That's what the Americans voted for.

Anyway some may enjoy this one where Melania seems to be a hit in Saudi

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbJWj8zq0Q[/YOUTUBE]​

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't know the Saudis allowed ex-prostitutes/softcore porn models into their midst. At least not publicly anyway. Or maybe she serviced some of them when they were in New York.

The Saudi rules are only about appearances. Saudi money financed a lot of the disco era debauched parties in Paris, London and riviera. Saudi money financed a lot of the porn boom of the 90'ies. There's a lot of Saudi princes and they've been spreading their wealth liberally among the hedonist communities for a very long time. This isn't even a secret. Everybody knows it. It's so commonplace it's hardly scandalous. They helped fundeBerth Milton's luxury yacht going around the Meditteranean. He used it as a portable porn studio. It was always filled with porn models. The princes were happy to just drop by now and again to see what was happening. They made no secret about it.

I remember clubs in the early 90'ies where suddenly en entourage of Saudis turn up, take over the VIP lounge, and proceed to give it to everybody for free. If you get in it's a fun night with free champagne, coke and photomodels for everyone. I worked with organising parties in clubs in Stockholm at the time. So I travelled around a lot going to clubs all over Europe, Thailand and New York. Saudi princess showing up was not a rare phenomena. Especailly in Paris or London. I have so many bizarre stories of debauched nights around Saudi princes. They had massive massive entourages. It was easy to slip into the fray and go wild.

Saudi Arabia hasn't an aristocratic tradition. Nor historically great class differences. European aristocratic families have at least had the pressure on them to be some sort of role models, and to behave in a well bred well educated fashion. The Saudi royal family are just a regular family propelled into a life of luxury. Without any clue how to handle it. No education, nor intellectual ideals. Perhaps they're learning how to behave in a more moderate way. But so far... no.

The Saudi Royal family is a bit like Mc Hammer or Vanialla Ice. But who just continually gets free money, for nothing. They don't seem to feel any responsiblity to anything. To them life just seems to be a long party.

 

[Malintent]

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Trump refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies


That message was tweeted by none other than Cheetolini, aka SCROTUS, aka Fuckface von Clownstick. I simply substituted "Trump" for "Obama".

If that man took Viagra, he'd get taller.

A lot of Western leaders visiting Saudi don't wear headscarves. How is this news?

It is news because YET ANOTHER of Trump's previous criticisms of Obama is something he (or his circle) did exactly.

 

[Malintent]

Because it's another example of how Trump is full of crap:

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...no-head-scarf-melania-did-saudi-arabia-612958

It's still a fact that a lot of leaders don't wear headscarves when visiting Saudi. The Koran itself doesn't mandate this.

Your response is ridiculously obtuse.

a Doctor commits murder by injecting a person with arsenic... and you reply, "It's still a fact that Doctors are authorized to inject medications into their consenting patients".

Your opinions are as useful (based in fact and rationally formed) as the echo of a profoundly autistic child.

The point of the criticism is Trump is a hypocrite and a liar.

 

[Elixir]

It's still a fact that a lot of leaders don't wear headscarves when visiting Saudi. The Koran itself doesn't mandate this.

Your response is ridiculously obtuse.

a Doctor commits murder by injecting a person with arsenic... and you reply, "It's still a fact that Doctors are authorized to inject medications into their consenting patients".

Your opinions are as useful (based in fact and rationally formed) as the echo of a profoundly autistic child.

The point of the criticism is Trump is a hypocrite and a liar.

WP seems to be having a lot of difficulty grasping the concept of hypocrisy.
Scientology seems to do that to people.

 

[Malintent]

Then if there is enough evidence to go on there will be a vote on impeachment. This is because what must be established in a trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is factually incorrect, and a major component of how your opinions are lacking in objective reality. I believe that the source of your errors are similar to the rest of the hard-core (shoot someone on 5th avenue and I still won't care) Trumpeteers... a misunderstanding of what a President does for a living, and how his powers are limited by the "checks and balances" of the American Democracy. Take a civics class, read about how our government works, and why it was setup that way... or stop calling yourself an "American", because any legal immigrant into the US knows a shit-ton more about how American government works than you do.. hint: they have to take a test.

If/when illegal activity is pinned on trump, he will be indicted. period. It doesn't matter what the crime was, or when it occurred. This is beyond any political manipulation of any kind. Broke law -> Indicted. No other options in the law there. HOWEVER... a sitting President is immune to indictment... so the indictment will not put him in jail (he is "self-pardoned", so to speak). Perhaps this is a flaw in our laws, due to the fact that no one ever thought (hundreds of years ago) that a sitting, elected, President would ever break the law...

What will happen next is impeachment proceedings. As been explained to you many times by multiple posters (and ignoring / failing to integrate new information is absolutely the best way to show incompetence in contributing to a conversation), impeachment hearings and votes can begin ANYTIME, AND FOR NO REASON AT ALL. do you comprehend that? if 50% of the senate wakes up in the morning and says, "I just don't want him to be president anymore - no reason - I just feel like being a dick", then they can vote to remove him on the grounds of, "because we can". It is that simple.

The indictment is a REASON to impeach, not the mechanism of impeachment. Hell, he literally COULD shoot someone on 5th avenue, and if the Republicans just want to sit on him and let it roll, he STILL wouldn't be impeached (because of their majority), or sent to jail for murder. This has sort of been happening with our Partisan, two-party, system. It is a real problem in the integrity of our system if part of the "balances" are leaning in blind favor of what they are supposed to be "checking".

checks and balances. We elect and grant power to ensure all power is used in the interests of the people, and not the interests of a handful of rich buddies. It's like Rock-Paper-Scissors... which one has all the power? Answer: they each check each other's... and that is why it is a fair game.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't feel this was appropriate in the Manchester bombing thread, but is worth bringing up here as it speaks volumes to just ridiculous Trump has been with criticism.

President Obama looks and sounds so ridiculous making his speech in Cuba, especially in the shadows of Brussels. He is being treated badly!

 

[Derec]

Hillary and Chelsea don the hijab while posing with terrorist Arafat.

She wore the hijab on several occasions thereafter.

And if Michelle Obama didn't put on the hijab while in the most conservative Muslim state, what is she doing wearing it in these photos?

 

[starwater]

I agree. It appears you have a lot of difficulty in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the whole political and security system in the USA is insane. While it is clear there is an enquiry, it seems the first people to receive the agenda is the media, which received confirmation of something being investigated. Then an investigation will probe through several avenues which is the norm but it does not mean that what someone wants to investigate is a fact. That only happens after the investigation produces a report.


Then if there is enough evidence to go on there will be a vote on impeachment. This is because what must be established in a trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you ask the mods nicely, I'm sure they'll move your reply to the "Only reply when you're drunk" thread.

Did you read the response and reply?

Let's see if I can explain it. It has been shown that Trump's actions directly contradict what he has said or done in the past. The initial post in this thread highlights Trumps' actions in Saudi Arabia are the very thing he criticized Obama did in the past. You bringing up impeachment out of the blue makes about as much sense and relevance as me posting "I have a goldfish".

In the first point the psychiatric and medical professions have a difficulty with respect to this. There are many schools of thought just like in politics.
In the second this is a reply to the earlier post which inferred this. Of course he shot his mouth off about Michelle Obama. That's what the Americans voted for.

Anyway some may enjoy this one where Melania seems to be a hit in Saudi

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbJWj8zq0Q[/YOUTUBE]​

She's a hit because she defers, is silent and walks behind Don the Con. The perfect submissive female that you don't have to beat to get to comply. It's disgusting. They don't call her manikin Melania for nothing.

 

[jab]

This is a clear reply to the the post you are also quoting where alleged offences are treated as fact.

This thread is about Trump's hypocrisy as it concerns the wearing of head scarves by current versus past FLOTUS. The post to which you were replying does not appear to have a different focus. Even in the post in question, Elixir explicitly restated the point for you.

The issue here is not with what the Koran states about what visiting dignitaries must do in Saudi Arabia nor if there are other problems back home for the administration. The issue is the inconsistency between what Trump did and what he criticized his predecessor for. You get that, right? Right?

Why are you assuming this is Donald Trump's action? Why are you not assuming that Melania, and Ivanka, decided for themselves to show their head hair to the Saudis? After all, Melania has shown some admiration for Michelle Obama in the past.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

This thread is about Trump's hypocrisy as it concerns the wearing of head scarves by current versus past FLOTUS. The post to which you were replying does not appear to have a different focus. Even in the post in question, Elixir explicitly restated the point for you.

The issue here is not with what the Koran states about what visiting dignitaries must do in Saudi Arabia nor if there are other problems back home for the administration. The issue is the inconsistency between what Trump did and what he criticized his predecessor for. You get that, right? Right?

Why are you assuming this is Donald Trump's action? Why are you not assuming that Melania, and Ivanka, decided for themselves to show their head hair to the Saudis? After all, Melania has shown some admiration for Michelle Obama in the past.

She has special admiration for Michelle's speeches.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyway some may enjoy this one where Melania seems to be a hit in Saudi

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbJWj8zq0Q[/YOUTUBE]​

And why not? She is sporting the Fidel Castro line very well.

 

[Treedbear]

From what I understand for a Muslim woman, wearing the hijab can stand for various things. In the west I think it's just a way of proclaiming one is a Muslim. But traditionally, and within Islamic societies, it symbolizes modesty. So it's good that Melania didn't wear one because she might be taken as a pandering hypocrit, given her background. The world still hates hypocrits, despite what passes for American politics these days.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I agree. It appears you have a lot of difficulty in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the whole political and security system in the USA is insane. While it is clear there is an enquiry, it seems the first people to receive the agenda is the media, which received confirmation of something being investigated. Then an investigation will probe through several avenues which is the norm but it does not mean that what someone wants to investigate is a fact. That only happens after the investigation produces a report.


Then if there is enough evidence to go on there will be a vote on impeachment. This is because what must be established in a trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you ask the mods nicely, I'm sure they'll move your reply to the "Only reply when you're drunk" thread.

Did you read the response and reply?

Let's see if I can explain it. It has been shown that Trump's actions directly contradict what he has said or done in the past. The initial post in this thread highlights Trumps' actions in Saudi Arabia are the very thing he criticized Obama did in the past. You bringing up impeachment out of the blue makes about as much sense and relevance as me posting "I have a goldfish".

In the first point the psychiatric and medical professions have a difficulty with respect to this. There are many schools of thought just like in politics.
In the second this is a reply to the earlier post which inferred this. Of course he shot his mouth off about Michelle Obama. That's what the Americans voted for.

Anyway some may enjoy this one where Melania seems to be a hit in Saudi

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbJWj8zq0Q[/YOUTUBE]​

She's a hit because she defers, is silent and walks behind Don the Con. The perfect submissive female that you don't have to beat to get to comply. It's disgusting. They don't call her manikin Melania for nothing.

Do you have a camera in their home?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway some may enjoy this one where Melania seems to be a hit in Saudi

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbJWj8zq0Q[/YOUTUBE]​

And why not? She is sporting the Fidel Castro line very well.

She's missing the hat and cigar.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A lot of Western leaders visiting Saudi don't wear headscarves. How is this news?

It is news because YET ANOTHER of Trump's previous criticisms of Obama is something he (or his circle) did exactly.

Is this causing any Butt-hurt?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hillary and Chelsea don the hijab while posing with terrorist Arafat.

So, does this make Trump's comments, and Melania's dress, more or less hypocritical in context?

And if Michelle Obama didn't put on the hijab while in the most conservative Muslim state, what is she doing wearing it in these photos?

So, you're saying Trump is NOT hypocritical, just incorrect? Or what? I can't see your context, here.

 

[Elixir]

So, does this make Trump's comments, and Melania's dress, more or less hypocritical in context?

And if Michelle Obama didn't put on the hijab while in the most conservative Muslim state, what is she doing wearing it in these photos?

So, you're saying Trump is NOT hypocritical, just incorrect? Or what? I can't see your context, here.

Calm down, dude. Derec is a one-trick pony: "But (choose Obama, Hillary, libtards) did X", which of course excuses even the most heinous acts by Cheato or his ilk.