Melania Knauss

Pictures of this woman…

Melania Knauss

Were used by an anti-Trump, pro-Cruz Super-PAC just before the voting happened in Utah, and it really makes me wonder… just what the fuck is so wrong with the 1st Lady having made a career of her beauty? If you come at me with the feminist argument that modeling of that kind is degrading to women, I’ll throw it back in your face. The amount of power, fame, and financial stability women (and men btw) have achieved through modeling careers (among other similar professions) can’t be overlooked, whether you like it or not, and a great many of the people who have succeeded in those careers are self-possessed, enjoy what they do, and are empowered.

tumblr_m1u1ysr97C1rnkqqco1_500They’re confident.

They believe in themselves.

And some sleazy anti-Trump Super-PAC tried using that against Donald Trump? Attacking him through his wife’s completely justified and undeniably successful time as a super model?

That, to me, is far more degrading to women than Melania Trump’s modeling could ever be.

On another note, in case anyone wonders why I used her maiden name for the title of this post, it’s in part to illustrate my point. She attained a great measure of her success before she was every married to Donald Trump. She did that, and she’s done plenty since then too.

She has accomplished a lot, both before and after her last name became Trump.


23 thoughts on “Melania Knauss

    • True, but while it wasn’t nice, I can’t help but think Trump saw the tweet with Heidi, thought it was kind of a funny response, then re-tweeted it. To me, it was more a case of exposing just how rude and despicable it was for them to go after Melania, the point being made by that pic of Heidi Cruz. What I mean is, him doing that and it being what it was, along with the fact that Heidi Cruz herself is a pretty good looking woman, served to show how ridiculous it is to go after either of them. That, for me, was the take away from Trump’s retweet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lol That’s… kind of insane, given some of her policy ideas. haha… pardon the language, I don’t really think you’re crazy, but I do have some serious problems with the idea of voting for Clinton. Her proposed policies leave a *lot* to be desired imho. Have you looked into Trump’s policy positions much yet? If so… what specifically do you not like about them?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, like I said, I’m not thrilled with the idea of voting for her but I don’t see any choice. I have so many issues with Trump. I’m not sure where to start, but here’s a few: He’s anti-choice, His trade policies, his immigrant views, and his pro-torture views. I know you really like him Jack, but I’m afraid I’m one of those #nevertrump people. I’m also completely against Cruz for many of the same reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, I happen to be pro-choice too, like you, but I don’t get why that’s such a big issue. The office of President doesn’t enable the person in that office to decide legislation in a way that would negatively effect the progress made in that area over the years, and I don’t believe the Supreme Court can have a re-do on cases they’ve already ruled on, so abortion (in terms of presidential candidates) is a non-issue, for me. Or I should say, it’s *almost* a non-issue, because Cruz is an exception in that regard. Ted Cruz doesn’t understand where the line is drawn is separating church and state, but you can see if you look at Trump’s reaction to the thing that happened with Kim Davis (not wanting to do marriage licenses for same-sex marriage, even though it’s legal) that Donald Trump knows exactly where that line is. He might have an opinion on it, but it’s really not his place to decide things like that. His immigration views are nothing but common sense, though I’ll gladly invite you to challenge that (honest dialogue never hurts, even if we reach the end of a back and forth and still disagree). It’s not racist in the least, as some of his critics have charged, and I can explain my reasoning in any context, with any example anyone cares to use. The pro-torture thing is something else I don’t quite agree with, but again, while he can work to try to expand the laws on that, they’re intentionally agreed upon laws. My view is, if he really feels we should be allowed to go farther in interrogations than we’re currently allowed to then he most definitely should be honest about what he thinks and should, in fact, do everything he can do expand those laws. He will almost definitely fail to do so, one of the few things I doubt he’ll be able to achieve that he says he would like to, so it’s not really much of a concern either, the way I see it.

        I can agree with you on Cruz for sure though; he’s either a radical conservative and over the top religious, or he’s a fraud and his entire image (from the anti-establishment guise to the devout Christian guise) was simply a matter of branding himself such through his grandstanding in the Senate. Either he’s to extreme, and belongs on the fringes of the GOP, or he’s the career politician par excellence, on par with Hillary Clinton (albeit with a few less years of experience and lies under his belt), which is exactly what people *don’t* want.

        I get that you don’t like Trump, and that you understand I do, but… I find it hard to leave it at that. My perspective on the candidates and the election itself is based on a lot of research, reasoning, and evidence and… well, if I’m wrong, it always leads me to wonder where the flaw in my reasoning might be.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually Roe v Wade could potentially be overturned through the nomination of new conservative justices. Granted many things would have to fall into place but it could happen. There are a few sitting justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg that are probably going to be retiring within the next president’s term. As far as immigration goes and his and Cruz’s ideas on how to treat Muslim Americans, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. And I can’t vote for someone crossing my fingers that some of his more radical ideas won’t be attainable. I do agree with you though Jack about Cruz. If he’s elected the U.S will become a theocracy which is a truly terrifying thought!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well actually, Trump has said very little (if anything) about treatment of Muslim Americans. The proposed temporary moratorium, for example, would only apply to foreigners, and exceptions would be made for diplomats, people travelling on business, athletes going to events, etc. and the only thing they have to be able to do is prove they are who they say they are, and have no ties to terrorist organizations. It gets misconstrued constantly in most news networks, but the reality of it seems pretty sensible to me. Same thing for the infamous remarks about surveilling mosques; see, when Cruz says it, he *is* talking about Muslim’s in general. Trump on the other ahand has specified exactly what he means by that: there is a list of mosques and groups with *known* terrorist ties that we haven’t done anything about, except gather vague intelligence from a distance. It’s been a while since I checked into that, but if memory serves the number of mosques he was proposing to surveil (and possibly, if need be, search) is roughly 100 throughout the U.S., and the question for those particular mosques as an example isn’t so much a question of “should we?” and more a question of “why haven’t we?” They have known terrorist ties, so it’s just a matter of acting on known intel.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I do have to disagree with you there. The so-called “temporary” moratorium according to Trump will be in place until “we can figure out why we’re hated so much.” Uh huh. As President Obama said of in response to Trumps latest idea to force Mexico to pay for his wall, good luck with that. He’s in favor of surveilling mosques as well as Muslim American neighborhoods and I don’t think he particularly care whether if they have terrorist ties or not. Honestly Jack, I firmly believe he is a dangerous demagogue who is already tearing this country apart. That said, I understand his appeal especially since we’re all pretty fed up with Washington politicians. For me though, his cons far outweigh his pros. Just My humble opinion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • He’s said that about the moratorium, I grant, but he’s answered numerous repeated questions about it and addressed it in countless rallies, so there are variations to how he’s said it and some of those variations leave out the actual criteria he has said he would be going by. He’s said we need to figure out why there’s so much hate, sure, but he’s also specified before and after that that it would be in effect until such time as the people in charge of vetting people for visas get their inept system fixed. San Bernardino is a case in point of our current system being absolute crap, and both President Obama and Clinton’s response is basically “everything’s fine with our vetting process, nothing to see here, move along.” That’s just not acceptable, and that’s for the ones we *can* vet. The Syrian refugee issue is even worse because there’s no database to reference, no information, and currently, no real possibility of vetting them. Once the weakness in our vetting processes are effectively addressed, the moratorium would be lifted. He’s explained all of this more than once to, but what the media chooses to report and present to us in soundbytes is selective, at best. I’m good with us disagreeing, but your current position on it is based on a misrepresentation of what he actually proposed. And it’s actually not any different from the temporary ban put in place on Iranians via Jimmy Carter. It’s well within the authority of a sitting President, and the only difference between Trump’s proposal and Carter’s is that it’s more expansive, more broad, but that’s understandable given that the terrorism and the organizations who perpetrate it are a lot bigger threat to us in the present than the Iranians were to us in Carter’s era.

        Concerning the wall, frankly that’s one of the most easily doable proposals in his repertoire. They can either consent, or we can take intercept and take our desired (and relatively small) share from them through money transfers, trade deals, and tariffs. It’s entirely up to them, but either way the feasibility of building a wall and persuading Mexico to pay for it is kind of hard to question imho.

        And in point of fact, if we’re talking Muslim neighborhoods in which Shariah Law is being enforced and they’re making their own laws instead of going by state of federal laws (which *is* happening in Europe), we *should* be surveilling them. Again though, with Trump it would be specific to groups, mosques, etc. with known terrorist ties. We have information on a disturbing number of them and currently, for whatever reason, we’re just flat out not acting on that information. Cruz is the one who vaguely (and with no real elaboration or specification before or after the fact, unlike Trump) proposed to start “patrolling Muslim neighborhoods.

        I respect your opinion and your right to it, but your assessment of him is, well, off. The facts don’t reflect him being anywhere near as bad or even as potentially dangerous as you feel him to be.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Fair enough. I just think if one’s opinion is based on facts found to be inaccurate, that opinion should then be re-assessed and reformed based on the actual facts, not held onto despite them. But yeah, I’m cool with agreeing to disagree 🙂 .

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thinking on it a little… there’s really only one or two, maybe three radical ideas Trump has. His position on torture is one of them, but I don’t see how crossing ones fingers hoping that he won’t make progress in that direction is any worse than hoping Hillary Clinton won’t raise taxes for a lot of people to pay for the continuation of the Affordable Care Act (which, as I understand it, is already starting to fall apart) and the free college idea she’s adopted to keep up with Bernie Sander’s promises. To me, it’s pretty clear which is worse, an those two ideas of her are just the tip of the iceberg. She’s also a proven liar; I don’t dislike her to the extreme’s some right wing nuts do, but it’s an established fact that she tells lies, makes no apologies, and refuses to own up to them. That place where she said she was dropped off (across seas, but the name of it escapes me at the moment), she had to get to cover under fire. There’s was a little more to it than that, but that’s the gist. There’s a video of her and her entourage disembarking though, and the reception she said wasn’t possible because of sniper fire was all around her, greeting her, calm as can be. See, to me, Clinton is no better than Cruz at all. They’re both career politicians, both proven liars, both using impractical, costly ideas as a platform.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, the dialogue, free speech, and the receptivity to opinions other than our own is what makes this country great. On that, we definitely agree. Opinions should be flexible to new information and clarifications on misrepresentations though…. imo. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s