|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny.
Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife?
|
On April 01 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 02:05 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 00:18 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On March 31 2017 22:06 LightSpectra wrote: Does anybody still think the whole Russian investigation is just a big waste of time? Sounds like every day we're one step closer to getting a smoking gun.
I'm gonna take some sick pleasure in watching some posters here eat their crow if (when?) it happens. I'm expecting the smoking gun to be a dripping water pistol. As in, "Ha! Trump's gardener talked to a Russian oligarch about how nice it would be if Trump become president instead of that humorless, shrill hag." I put the great likelihood that nothing happened; we just have a mostly incompetant president that's a fan of Putin, and Russian cyber warfare results that might've pissed of a couple Bernie voters and hithertoo blind media-lovers. In short, half the Democratic Party and mainstream media are just engaging in public group therapy in the wake of their gal losing by constructing a more satisfying story. But we already have more than that. We already have senior members of the Trump campaign talking to Russian intelligence about how if hypothetically something were to happen to damage the Clinton campaign so Trump won then perhaps Trump could do something about those Russian sanctions. That's our baseline minimum. That's what definitely happened. This shit about a gardener is already completely failing to understand the severity of what happened here. The smoking gun we're missing is personal involvement from Trump and an actual deal being struck, rather than Russia acting independently because they recognize that their interests are better met by Trump than by Clinton. Nope. Not even severe. You have called ambassadors intelligence operators when it suits yo. You draw hilarity, pardoning Hillary's deletion of emails under active subpoena, but criticizing jokes on how favorable it would be should they be recovered. No, we shall have an investigation given the uproar, with very little hope of finding anything. This notwithstanding what some Hillary shills and partisans will attempt to spin, yourself included. It's pretty ironic how you can't fully comprehend a Juncker joke falling flat, and again remind me you can't call Trump's jokes because it does not suit you. I almost wish Putin announced the discovery of Hillary's illegally deleted emails, because then I could preserve some sense of respect for arguing a more apropos point and not recognize the Russia-hysteria infecting another. I don't call Kislyak an intelligence operative, CNN does. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/world/sergey-kislyak-russian-ambassador-us-profile/Show nested quote +Current and former US intelligence officials have described Kislyak as a top spy and recruiter of spies You can say they're wrong but this isn't coming from me, this is coming from US intelligence by way of CNN. My my, who's the ambassador from Russia then, since we cannot address our statesmen, senators, and Presidents to this man who you only design to call spy and spymaster. I tire of your games; you lack only a little reflection to see on how thin foundations your accusations lie, or imbibe something other than the kool aid that's in vogue.
|
On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Show nested quote +Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? Honest question, how long have you held an unsavory opinion of verified accounts?
|
United States42701 Posts
On April 01 2017 03:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2017 02:05 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 00:18 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On March 31 2017 22:06 LightSpectra wrote: Does anybody still think the whole Russian investigation is just a big waste of time? Sounds like every day we're one step closer to getting a smoking gun.
I'm gonna take some sick pleasure in watching some posters here eat their crow if (when?) it happens. I'm expecting the smoking gun to be a dripping water pistol. As in, "Ha! Trump's gardener talked to a Russian oligarch about how nice it would be if Trump become president instead of that humorless, shrill hag." I put the great likelihood that nothing happened; we just have a mostly incompetant president that's a fan of Putin, and Russian cyber warfare results that might've pissed of a couple Bernie voters and hithertoo blind media-lovers. In short, half the Democratic Party and mainstream media are just engaging in public group therapy in the wake of their gal losing by constructing a more satisfying story. But we already have more than that. We already have senior members of the Trump campaign talking to Russian intelligence about how if hypothetically something were to happen to damage the Clinton campaign so Trump won then perhaps Trump could do something about those Russian sanctions. That's our baseline minimum. That's what definitely happened. This shit about a gardener is already completely failing to understand the severity of what happened here. The smoking gun we're missing is personal involvement from Trump and an actual deal being struck, rather than Russia acting independently because they recognize that their interests are better met by Trump than by Clinton. Nope. Not even severe. You have called ambassadors intelligence operators when it suits yo. You draw hilarity, pardoning Hillary's deletion of emails under active subpoena, but criticizing jokes on how favorable it would be should they be recovered. No, we shall have an investigation given the uproar, with very little hope of finding anything. This notwithstanding what some Hillary shills and partisans will attempt to spin, yourself included. It's pretty ironic how you can't fully comprehend a Juncker joke falling flat, and again remind me you can't call Trump's jokes because it does not suit you. I almost wish Putin announced the discovery of Hillary's illegally deleted emails, because then I could preserve some sense of respect for arguing a more apropos point and not recognize the Russia-hysteria infecting another. I don't call Kislyak an intelligence operative, CNN does. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/world/sergey-kislyak-russian-ambassador-us-profile/Current and former US intelligence officials have described Kislyak as a top spy and recruiter of spies You can say they're wrong but this isn't coming from me, this is coming from US intelligence by way of CNN. My my, who's the ambassador from Russia then, since we cannot address our statesmen, senators, and Presidents to this man who you only design to call spy and spymaster. I tire of your games; you lack only a little reflection to see on how thin foundations your accusations lie, or imbibe something other than the kool aid that's in vogue. If I'm following this you started by saying that you think the end game will be that a gardener made small talk. I explained that the problem is already established to be way, way bigger than that. You didn't address the absurdity of your attempt to handwave it away as a non issue involving gardeners at most and claimed that I was making baseless accusations of people being Russian intelligence. I showed a source for that, at which point you accuse me of playing games and of drinking kool-aid.
I really don't think I'm the problem here Danglars. Your interpretation of events is already demonstrably in conflict with reality. This is already bigger than a gardener.
|
On April 01 2017 03:25 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:18 Sandvich wrote:On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:
I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business...
Well as they mention in the article, imagine you were a woman pursuing a cause in Indiana. You wouldn't be able to have a business lunch/dinner alone with Pence to try to advance your cause whereas a male in the same situation potentially could. The underlying reason is a sad sort of commentary as well. The idea that the reason he can't is that the risk of him popping a boner is too high. I think the average person would be able to have a lunch/dinner with someone without that being an issue. It says men are not to be trusted because they can't control themselves and women are too fragile to be allowed to interact with any man without a chaperone.
I think the idea is rather that lots of politicians are caught up in sex scandals, real or imagined, so he's going the extra mile to not ever be in a situation like that.
Makes sense to me. I've been to universities where professors are strictly prohibited from having any one-on-one time with students in rooms without surveillance cameras. It's not that the university thinks all their professors are pervs, but rather such strict regulations remits any liability in case there's an accusation of impropriety.
|
Professors and students=/= Pence and all women not his wife
|
I'm not seeing a substantial difference there.
|
Spicer has completely jumped the shark and it's hard not to conclude, by extension, that the administration has jumped the shark.
|
On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business...
The problem is the rule affects not just the Pences' marriage, but also the ability of any women on his staff to simply do their jobs. Nor is this rule limited to Pence, it extends throughout congress. There was a good article in the Altantic about this back in 2015:
In an anonymous survey of female staffers conducted by National Journal in order to gather information on the difficulties they face in a male-dominated industry, several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression. … These policies, while not prevalent, exist in multiple offices — and they may well run afoul of employment discrimination laws.
… Male staffers said they’d also seen some female aides barred from solo meetings with the boss, and that they benefited in some instances from the exclusion of their female colleagues in high-level meetings, at receptions with major Washington powerbrokers, and just in earning a little more face time with their bosses.
For these women, the lack of access has meant an additional hurdle in their attempts to do their jobs, much less further their own careers.
So the rule causes harm even if none is intended.
|
Not attacking Pence really, his life and relationship he can do as he wishes if that is what works best for them. My issue is with the underlying religious reasoning. That the risk of temptation is too high and to be avoided.
|
Huh, I wonder where the lawsuits are then; I'd guess congress simply exempted itself from some of the discrimination laws. and of course suing congresspeople gotta be bad for your career and hard to win, what with half of em being lawyers.
I wonder if there's any way ot handle the issue of unintended discrimination in who gets elected. probably not any good ways.
How to handle discrimination re presidential appointments is a question worthy of some serious thought though, might be able to figure something out on that.
|
One way or another, when a woman cannot meet with the Vice President of the United States one-on-one because he either A) cannot control his sexual appetite or B) is observing his and his wife's religious/gender views, something should seem off. Add in the fact that many conservative male politicians adhere to this view and its suddenly not all that surprising that they'd come up with stuff like legitimate rape.
|
On April 01 2017 03:39 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? Honest question, how long have you held an unsavory opinion of verified accounts? I don't mind trolls doing their misogynistic BS, they are having their own sort of fun on twitter. But, please, take the search and find these illustrious journalists acting like this is an affront to Pence, his wife, the institution of marriage, or all relations between the sexes. I was ready to believe the backlash to be in response to a couple dumb buzzfeed or Jezebel columnists, but there were more. See for yourself if you're so inclined. + Show Spoiler +
This is all out of curiosity if casual observers of the culture wars are shocked at how far these things are taken nowadays.
|
On April 01 2017 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:39 Gahlo wrote:On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? Honest question, how long have you held an unsavory opinion of verified accounts? I don't mind trolls doing their misogynistic BS, they are having their own sort of fun on twitter. But, please, take the search and find these illustrious journalists acting like this is an affront to Pence, his wife, the institution of marriage, or all relations between the sexes. I was ready to believe the backlash to be in response to a couple dumb buzzfeed or Jezebel columnists, but there were more. See for yourself if you're so inclined. + Show Spoiler +This is all out of curiosity if casual observers of the culture wars are shocked at how far these things are taken nowadays. Why did I even bother asking...
|
On April 01 2017 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 03:39 Gahlo wrote:On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? Honest question, how long have you held an unsavory opinion of verified accounts? I don't mind trolls doing their misogynistic BS, they are having their own sort of fun on twitter. But, please, take the search and find these illustrious journalists acting like this is an affront to Pence, his wife, the institution of marriage, or all relations between the sexes. I was ready to believe the backlash to be in response to a couple dumb buzzfeed or Jezebel columnists, but there were more. See for yourself if you're so inclined. + Show Spoiler +This is all out of curiosity if casual observers of the culture wars are shocked at how far these things are taken nowadays.
Honest question, how long have you held an unsavory opinion of verified accounts?
|
United States42701 Posts
On April 01 2017 04:35 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2017 04:23 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 03:39 Gahlo wrote:On April 01 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote:On April 01 2017 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 01 2017 00:58 Nevuk wrote:The Washington Post ran a profile of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence, on Wednesday. The piece talks about the closeness of the Pences’ relationship, and cites something Pence told The Hill in 2002: Unless his wife is there, he never eats alone with another woman or attends an event where alcohol is being served. (It’s unclear whether, 15 years later, this remains Pence’s practice.) It’s not in the Post piece, but here’s the original quote from 2002: “‘If there's alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me,’ Pence said.”
Some folks—mostly journalists and entertainers on Twitter—have reacted with surprise, anger, and sarcasm to the Pence family rule. Socially liberal or non-religious people may see Pence’s practice as misogynistic or bizarre. For a lot of conservative religious people, though, this set-up probably sounds normal, or even wise. The dust-up shows how radically notions of gender divide American culture.
Pence is not the first contemporary public figure to set these kinds of boundaries around his marriage. He seems to be following a version of the so-called Billy Graham rule, named for the famous evangelist who established similar guidelines for the pastors working in his ministry. In his autobiography, Graham notes that he and his colleagues worried about the temptations of sexual immorality that come from long days on the road and a lot of time away from family. They resolved to “avoid any situation that would even have the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” From that day on, Graham said, he “did not travel, meet, or eat alone with a woman other than my wife.” It was a way of following Paul’s advice to Timothy in the Bible, Graham wrote: to “flee … youthful lusts.”
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
These comments show that the Pences have a distinctively conservative approach toward family, sex, and gender. This is by no means the way that all Christians, or even all evangelical Christians like the Pences, navigate married life. But traditional religious people from other backgrounds may practice something similar. Many Orthodox Jews follow the laws of yichud, which prohibit unmarried men and women from being alone in a closed room together. Some Muslim men and women also refuse to be together alone if they’re not married. These practices all have different histories and origins, but they’re rooted in the same belief: The sanctity of marriage should be protected, and sexual immorality should be guarded against at all costs.
That idea might seem disorienting to more socially progressive Americans. For one thing, it shows a deep awareness of gender and sexuality: The implication is that temptations to flirt or cheat are present in everyday interactions.
Some journalists on Twitter quickly pointed out that Pence’s rules may function, in practice, to perpetuate professional and political disadvantages against women. If men in power can meet alone with other men but not women, they’ll just keep doing the business of being powerful in an all-male world. And it parallels critiques of the Billy Graham Rule that’ve been leveled within the evangelical community, as well, where it’s also been blamed for subjecting professional relationships to the logic of a sexually permissive society.
Other critics connected these views to Pence’s stance on LGBT issues. When he was governor of Indiana, he presided over a controversial religious-freedom bill that, LGBT advocates claimed, would have allowed business owners to discriminate against them. Pence’s marriage rules implicitly suggest there’s a temptation in being alone with women, but not in being alone with men, which is not the experience of a lot of people, including LGBT Christians.
But it’s also true that these aren’t just rules by, for, and about Mike Pence. This is how he and his wife, together, have chosen to navigate their marriage. That some people are so quick to be angered—and others are totally unsurprised—shows how divided America has become about the fundamental claim embedded in the Pence family rule: that understandings of gender should guide the boundaries around people’s everyday interactions, and protecting a marriage should take precedence over all else, even if the way of doing it seems strange to some, and imposes costs on others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.ab1c54954ee5This is interesting. And I mean that in purely a neutral sense. I'm confused why anybody would be upset by that. I personally wouldn't lead my life that way. My fiancé trusts me and I trust her. But how the Pences arrange their marriage is entirely up to them and if you don't like it, get your nose out of their business... If you want to be entirely disgusted by media figures, go search "Pence wife filter:verified" of a time a day or two days past to see blue checks calling this unempowering and disgusting, practically misogyny. Sincere question. How is this different from extreme repressive interpretations of Islam ("Sharia Law!") mocked by people like Mike Pence
@commiegirl1 who knew Mike Pence had uncontrollable sexual compulsions so serious he can't be alone w a woman who's not his wife? Honest question, how long have you held an unsavory opinion of verified accounts? I don't mind trolls doing their misogynistic BS, they are having their own sort of fun on twitter. But, please, take the search and find these illustrious journalists acting like this is an affront to Pence, his wife, the institution of marriage, or all relations between the sexes. I was ready to believe the backlash to be in response to a couple dumb buzzfeed or Jezebel columnists, but there were more. See for yourself if you're so inclined. + Show Spoiler +This is all out of curiosity if casual observers of the culture wars are shocked at how far these things are taken nowadays. Why did I even bother asking... They don't see a link between the facebook outrage on their feeds telling them to go search "Pence wife filter:verified" and the increasing disconnect between their political tribe and the "verified". Individual items are viewed in isolation without any awareness that the media people consume is carefully curated before it gets to them. Meta questions like "did you always distrust the verified people?" and "why do you think you dislike them now?" are lost, he can only answer what he saw this morning to make him mad at them. He knows what they did to make him mad, what he doesn't know is why he knows what they did to make him mad and who it benefits.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On April 01 2017 04:21 farvacola wrote: One way or another, when a woman cannot meet with the Vice President of the United States one-on-one because he either A) cannot control his sexual appetite or B) is observing his and his wife's religious/gender views, something should seem off. Add in the fact that many conservative male politicians adhere to this view and its suddenly not all that surprising that they'd come up with stuff like legitimate rape. How do you go from him not wanting to have dinner one on one with a woman other than his wife to him devaluing the word rape? That is such a jump.
In what way is one on one meals required for advancement that could not happen within a small group context? The underlying idea isn't that you have one meal with a woman and you jump straight into bed. But rather while extra-marital relationships form when the two spend an unhealthy amount of time alone together, it starts somewhere and rather innocuously. This practice attempts to nip in the bud by denying opportunity from the beginning- and given some of the career politicians' histories (dear Billy Clinton or Newt Gingerich), perhaps there's something to it.
It seems that he has counted the cost on this one:
The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
He was willing to lose elections over people getting outraged over his practice... for the sake of his marriage. I highly respect that because it corresponds to my own values.
|
|
Well Fox news is abandoning ship, I expect Trump to resign before his term is up for sure now. He's not going to prison under any circumstances, neither is anyone in his administration but he's not making it the full 4.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 01 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Well Fox news is abandoning ship, I expect Trump to resign before his term is up for sure now. He's not going to prison under any circumstances, neither is anyone in his administration but he's not making it the full 4. Well no way in hell he will resign though, so you'll have to pry the presidency from him with an impeachment proceeding worthy of the gods.
|
|
|
|