NY Post publishes nude photos of Melania

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eww. I think they do look porn-y. To me, though, it's not about the lewdness but about the fact that she sold her body to get money and success -- as she did in her marriage.

bc Hill and Bill don't have a marriage of convenience????

You have no direct knowledge of that--nothing about their relationship suggests that.

Then why mock Trump's wife and poke fun of his relationship with her?

It's the same thing.

While Bill may not have made disparaging remarks about women, he sure as hell treated many like trash and ultimately made an ass of his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how illegal drug use by presidents during their youth is ok, but nude modeling pictures of a candidate's spouse is something to be "ashamed" of. For one, she looks amazing! And two, if democrats want to use/spin this as a negative against her doesn't that fly in the face of the supposed sexual/feminine/artistic/cultural (she is European and nudity is treated much differently in the U.S. re: taboo) freedom, liberation, allegedly pro-women stance the party purports?

They are a bunch of hypocrites. Snorting Cocaine is fine as long as it's done by Obama, dropping pants in front of a young intern in the White House is nothing, that' their wild billy. Feminism stops at Trump's beautiful wife.

NY Post published it but it's mostly liberals who are rejoice of this and used it as an attack on Melania's "fitness" to be the First Lady.

It's funny how you forgot to mention George Bush's past with cocaine.

Yeah, W. had an actual substance abuse problem. Obama experimented with drugs. And Bill Clinton is a letch--no question.

However, these photos are "artistic;" they're not celebrating the power of women. They were meant for ogling in a men's magazine. There is a lot of hypocrisy in how Michelle Obama is vilified for showing her arms too much and people saying that these pictures are okay b/c she was a model, it was a long time ago etc.

Yes, everyone has a past, but posing for nudie pix doesn't give off appropriate gravitas for someone who would be first lady. Most of the world thinks this way--and yeah it ain't fair but this is the perception.

I don't like the nude pictures TBH. But it is obvious that she took those photos for professional modeling. And she was only 25....

Calling those pictures "porn" would be like calling Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton a former drug addict. Let's not overstate...puh-lease.

[Anonymous]

Hillary and Michelle both graduated from top Ivy League law schools and had very successful careers, based on their own intellects and personal experience.

Melania lied about her education, plagiarizes her speeches, and now reveals that to make a buck she will pose nude.

There is no comparison. If you had a daughter, you'd want a real role model for her. I don't think you'd want her posing nude and marrying a nasty old man for his money. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how illegal drug use by presidents during their youth is ok, but nude modeling pictures of a candidate's spouse is something to be "ashamed" of. For one, she looks amazing! And two, if democrats want to use/spin this as a negative against her doesn't that fly in the face of the supposed sexual/feminine/artistic/cultural (she is European and nudity is treated much differently in the U.S. re: taboo) freedom, liberation, allegedly pro-women stance the party purports?

They are a bunch of hypocrites. Snorting Cocaine is fine as long as it's done by Obama, dropping pants in front of a young intern in the White House is nothing, that' their wild billy. Feminism stops at Trump's beautiful wife.

NY Post published it but it's mostly liberals who are rejoice of this and used it as an attack on Melania's "fitness" to be the First Lady.

It's funny how you forgot to mention George Bush's past with cocaine.

Yeah, W. had an actual substance abuse problem. Obama experimented with drugs. And Bill Clinton is a letch--no question.

However, these photos are "artistic;" they're not celebrating the power of women. They were meant for ogling in a men's magazine. There is a lot of hypocrisy in how Michelle Obama is vilified for showing her arms too much and people saying that these pictures are okay b/c she was a model, it was a long time ago etc.

Yes, everyone has a past, but posing for nudie pix doesn't give off appropriate gravitas for someone who would be first lady. Most of the world thinks this way--and yeah it ain't fair but this is the perception.

Do you mean are or aren't artistic? Because if baring your breasts and touching your vulva for the camera is art, there are a lot of Picassos out there...you know which websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny — many of the people who are pro-Trump and speak of Melania as an elegant First Lady are also the ones who scream the loudest about Michelle Obama wearing sleeveless dresses. I'm the furthest thing from prude (there are nude pics of me online as well), but she (Melania) is NOT First Lady material. At. All.

Why are there nude pics of you online? Curious if an ex posted them, or if you posted them yourself.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Trump really tight with the NY Post? Why would they do this?
Is this some twisted ploy to appeal to male voters?

Donald is quoted in the article saying the photos are fashionable. I think a right-wing publication is the only ones who would risk publishing these because any left-wing press would be scared of the public backlash.

I don't think the picks are bad. Seems more artistic to me. Still, if this were Michelle Obama, she would be labeled a ghetto whore in a heart beat.

[Anonymous]

Why does she always look angry? Even back in the day?

[Anonymous]

I think they put these pics up to divert attention from what Trump said about the Khans. Or to show how different Melania is from Mrs. Khan . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how illegal drug use by presidents during their youth is ok, but nude modeling pictures of a candidate's spouse is something to be "ashamed" of. For one, she looks amazing! And two, if democrats want to use/spin this as a negative against her doesn't that fly in the face of the supposed sexual/feminine/artistic/cultural (she is European and nudity is treated much differently in the U.S. re: taboo) freedom, liberation, allegedly pro-women stance the party purports?

They are a bunch of hypocrites. Snorting Cocaine is fine as long as it's done by Obama, dropping pants in front of a young intern in the White House is nothing, that' their wild billy. Feminism stops at Trump's beautiful wife.

NY Post published it but it's mostly liberals who are rejoice of this and used it as an attack on Melania's "fitness" to be the First Lady.

It's funny how you forgot to mention George Bush's past with cocaine.

Yeah, W. had an actual substance abuse problem. Obama experimented with drugs. And Bill Clinton is a letch--no question.

However, these photos are "artistic;" they're not celebrating the power of women. They were meant for ogling in a men's magazine. There is a lot of hypocrisy in how Michelle Obama is vilified for showing her arms too much and people saying that these pictures are okay b/c she was a model, it was a long time ago etc.

Yes, everyone has a past, but posing for nudie pix doesn't give off appropriate gravitas for someone who would be first lady. Most of the world thinks this way--and yeah it ain't fair but this is the perception.

Do you mean are or aren't artistic? Because if baring your breasts and touching your vulva for the camera is art, there are a lot of Picassos out there...you know which websites.

Picasso's art wasn't meant to titillate and these photos were; that was their purpose. The photos are equivalent to Maxim's hot list, and I don't consider those "art" Artfully posed and photoshopped maybe. And I didn't call them porn, but yeah they look like soft core porn.

Honestly, it's too bad that Trump wasn't still married to Marla. Ivana is scary, Melania is intelligent as a fence post. At least Marla came off more or less like she had a brain.

[Anonymous]

Google image "Max French magazine" -- it IS a soft core porn mag.

Trump trying to pass it off as European fashion mag... LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does she always look angry? Even back in the day?

It's the eyebrows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how illegal drug use by presidents during their youth is ok, but nude modeling pictures of a candidate's spouse is something to be "ashamed" of. For one, she looks amazing! And two, if democrats want to use/spin this as a negative against her doesn't that fly in the face of the supposed sexual/feminine/artistic/cultural (she is European and nudity is treated much differently in the U.S. re: taboo) freedom, liberation, allegedly pro-women stance the party purports?

They are a bunch of hypocrites. Snorting Cocaine is fine as long as it's done by Obama, dropping pants in front of a young intern in the White House is nothing, that' their wild billy. Feminism stops at Trump's beautiful wife.

NY Post published it but it's mostly liberals who are rejoice of this and used it as an attack on Melania's "fitness" to be the First Lady.

It's funny how you forgot to mention George Bush's past with cocaine.

Yeah, W. had an actual substance abuse problem. Obama experimented with drugs. And Bill Clinton is a letch--no question.

However, these photos are "artistic;" they're not celebrating the power of women. They were meant for ogling in a men's magazine. There is a lot of hypocrisy in how Michelle Obama is vilified for showing her arms too much and people saying that these pictures are okay b/c she was a model, it was a long time ago etc.

Yes, everyone has a past, but posing for nudie pix doesn't give off appropriate gravitas for someone who would be first lady. Most of the world thinks this way--and yeah it ain't fair but this is the perception.

I think you need to distinguish behaviors while serving as FLOTUS versus modeling pictures from over 20 years ago before you even met spouse who is running for office. That being said I am the first pp of this quoted thread s/o and don't have an issue with showing arms as long as it is appropriate for occasion while serving as FLOTUS...I.e. cultural sensitivities when engaged in meetings with other dignitaries etc who feel strongly on matter...I.e. similar to covering shoulders when entering some churches etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how illegal drug use by presidents during their youth is ok, but nude modeling pictures of a candidate's spouse is something to be "ashamed" of. For one, she looks amazing! And two, if democrats want to use/spin this as a negative against her doesn't that fly in the face of the supposed sexual/feminine/artistic/cultural (she is European and nudity is treated much differently in the U.S. re: taboo) freedom, liberation, allegedly pro-women stance the party purports?

They are a bunch of hypocrites. Snorting Cocaine is fine as long as it's done by Obama, dropping pants in front of a young intern in the White House is nothing, that' their wild billy. Feminism stops at Trump's beautiful wife.

NY Post published it but it's mostly liberals who are rejoice of this and used it as an attack on Melania's "fitness" to be the First Lady.

It's funny how you forgot to mention George Bush's past with cocaine.

Yeah, W. had an actual substance abuse problem. Obama experimented with drugs. And Bill Clinton is a letch--no question.

However, these photos are "artistic;" they're not celebrating the power of women. They were meant for ogling in a men's magazine. There is a lot of hypocrisy in how Michelle Obama is vilified for showing her arms too much and people saying that these pictures are okay b/c she was a model, it was a long time ago etc.

Yes, everyone has a past, but posing for nudie pix doesn't give off appropriate gravitas for someone who would be first lady. Most of the world thinks this way--and yeah it ain't fair but this is the perception.

I think you need to distinguish behaviors while serving as FLOTUS versus modeling pictures from over 20 years ago before you even met spouse who is running for office. That being said I am the first pp of this quoted thread s/o and don't have an issue with showing arms as long as it is appropriate for occasion while serving as FLOTUS...I.e. cultural sensitivities when engaged in meetings with other dignitaries etc who feel strongly on matter...I.e. similar to covering shoulders when entering some churches etc.

Umm, seriously. Having old porn pics from your younger days published is embarrassing for anyone. Porn pics are not respectable for anyone, whether or not they have aspirations to the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think they put these pics up to divert attention from what Trump said about the Khans. Or to show how different Melania is from Mrs. Khan . . .

Or to make Bill even more envious...

[Anonymous]

This is a non-issue for me. Is she professional and accomplished? No. Does she need to be? No.

The big issue is Trump himself.