BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump

Subject: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 09:21 AM

Seems like the Dems ran the wrong generation...



Clinton defends Trump


"Chelsea Clinton is defending a fellow child of a president.

The 36-year-old daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton stood up for President Donald Trump's 10-year-old son, Barron Trump, on Sunday, but also made it clear that she wasn't endorsing any of Trump's policies "that hurt kids."

"Barron Trump deserves the chance every child does -- to be a kid," Chelsea tweeted and posted on Facebook. "Standing up for every kid also means opposing @POTUS policies that hurt kids."

    Barron Trump deserves the chance every child does-to be a kid. Standing up for every kid also means opposing @POTUS policies that hurt kids.
    — Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 22, 2017

Chelsea was 12 when she started living in the White House, when her father was sworn into office in 1993.

Chelsea isn't the only first child reaching out across party lines. Earlier this month, former President George W. Bush's twin daughters -- 35-year-old Jenna Bush Hager and Barbara Bush -- wrote an open letter to Barack and Michelle Obama's daughters, 18-year-old Malia and 15-year-old Sasha.

"Now you are about to join another rarified club, one of former First Children -- a position you didn't seek and one with no guidelines," the letter, which was published in Time, reads. "But you have so much to look forward to. You will be writing the story of your lives, beyond the shadow of your famous parents, yet you will always carry with you the experiences of the past eight years."

"You have lived through the unbelievable pressure of the White House," the letter continues. "You have listened to harsh criticism of your parents by people who had never even met them. You stood by as your precious parents were reduced to headlines. Your parents, who put you first and who not only showed you but gave you the world. As always, they will be rooting for you as you begin your next chapter. And so will we."

Chelsea previously revealed to ET that she was close friends with 35-year-old Ivanka Trump, and reiterated her stance when we spoke with her in July.

"Our friendship didn't start with politics and it will last long after this race is done," Chelsea said. "I mean, may we be so blessed that our children will become friends as they grow up."

Though earlier this month, Ivanka admitted she hasn't spoken to Chelsea since the election. "She's been a friend of mine long before the campaign, of course will be a friend of mine after," Ivanka said during an interview with 20/20. "I haven't spoken about the specific challenges about this next chapter with her just yet but I intend to.""

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 09:31 AM

Children should not be abused by anyone -- physically, mentally, or as pawns in politics. If they're under 21, lay off! If they're not in public position, lay off!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 09:33 AM

Chelsea? Barron? Ivanka? Malia? Can't you yanks call your kids proper names? What's wrong with George? Bill? Barbara? Nancy?


Er...😳

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 09:45 AM

Agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 09:57 AM

With Rapparee, that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: meself
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 10:27 AM

Defending? I haven't heard anything of the boy being picked on - but I suppose, with the internet giving every bully a forum, it is no doubt happening somewhere, to some degree. As his father would say: sad!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 10:51 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/monica-lewinsky-speaks-barron-trump-231011954.html

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 10:57 AM

The young boy deserves to be just that- a young boy. Trying to score cheap points against the President by picking on his young child clearly shows the lowlife nature of the guilty person. I am sure Barron Trump would much prefer to be a totally anonymous kid.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:07 AM

Typical BB, starting out with a misleading headline. Do you expect rational grownups to consider a child fair game to be attacked in the media for political expediency? You only hope to smear liberal voters by making such a suggestion.

Melania and Barron are both along for a bumpy ride in what amounts to a train wreck. Pull up your socks, and while you're at it, stop quoting entire stories in the threads. The link and a few introductory sentences are sufficient. Mudcat isn't here to run full articles unless they are musical in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton defends Trump
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:12 AM

Some have speculated that Barron's demeanor is that of a child on the autism spectrum or with Attention Deficit Disorder. That's the sort of thing outsiders have no business weighing in on. It belongs between parents and professionals. If there's an issue, and the Trumps wish to make it public, fine. Otherwise it's nobody's business.

Also, bear in mind that Barron is the first Presidential son to live in the White House since John Kennedy Jr., over fifty years ago. And, like it or not, he's going to draw even more attention because of his sex.

Chelsea, on the other hand, was definitely made fun of for her appearance as a teenager, and I'm sure it left some scars. Being a bit of an odd duck child yet living in the world's brightest spotlight is something very few of us have experienced. I think it's great that she stood up for the son of a man she probably despises.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:15 AM

So far as I've picked up, this is all just about a tweet by Katie Rich of Saturday night live, as linked by BeardedB above. At least Rich has apologized, but it' a real reach to imagine why it would have ever occurred to her that that was funny or within the bounds of decency.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:23 AM

"The young boy deserves to be just that- a young boy. "
Doesn't seem to work out like that in the U.S., especially in the Trump campaign where Don the Don's Barbie and Ken family were paraded like fashion items to validate the lecherous bastard as a family man
Quite often British politicians caught putting their thingies where they shouldn't will wheel the betrayed wife out in front of the cameras as a character witness.
Part of Western democracy, I suppose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:24 AM

Vashta,

I WAS complimenting Chelsea C for being a decent human being, but it seems that is not permitted unless one is a Liberal.




"Typical BB, starting out with a misleading headline"

1. The headline was as complete as most of the Trump ones here.





"Do you expect rational grownups to consider a child fair game to be attacked in the media for political expediency?"

2. No RATIONAL person would think it was OK to attack children- yet I have to judge the posters here by what they post, so I expect some to agree it is ok, as long as the child has non-Liberal ties.




" You only hope to smear liberal voters by making such a suggestion. "

3. Then most posts here about Trump are ONLY to smear Conservative voters.

YOU have no idea what I HOPE.





"Melania and Barron are both along for a bumpy ride in what amounts to a train wreck."

4. The second article I posted concerns the Obama children- whom I have never commented on.

- and

"Pull up your socks, and while you're at it, stop quoting entire stories in the threads. "

-when I post only the link and a summary, I get called out for not presenting the whole story;
-When I post just the link, I get deleted for not making a comment ( although this seems only to apply to me).
- When I post only my comments, I get dumped on for not providing the supporting facts ( although this, too, is only demanded of me, not those who disagree with my posts)

So what the hell do you expect me to do????

Comment , link and story is the best I can do.
-

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: gnu
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:25 AM

froggy... yup. I just asked Mr. Google and he says, "On Friday afternoon, "Saturday Night Live" writer Katie Rich tweeted that "Barron will be this country's first homeschool shooter."" Words fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:32 AM

You're a victim of your own history and demeanor.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:34 AM

GOOD. FOR. CHELSEA.

I'll never forget when Rush Limbaugh aired his show on television for the first time, right at the beginning of the first Clinton term. He was portly yet vivid, and was very much the grinning bastard. What I found unforgettable was toward the end of the broadcast he mentioned that the Clintons had been noted for having a cat instead of a dog in the White House, unusual among American Presidential families. He then smiled and noted that indeed the Clintons DID have a dog and up came a big photo of Chelsea.

Rush Limbaugh never made it on TV, I'm not sure if this was the reason. I don't believe he ever apologized either. He's sort of like Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 11:37 AM

Adults in ANY family seem to able to be attacked in the press for their spouses politics- I disagree with this, but that is an opinion.

The children should be out of the discussion- and Trump's were no more paraded than any other ones. Look at past elections.


ANd what were the comments here about that LKecherous bastard Bill Clinton, accused by several women of sexual assault and rape? THAT was ok, but Trumps's objectionable language is reason to impeach?????

Judge Trump by what he DOES, NOT by what YOU think he might do.

Elections have consequences- TRY to remember that the precedents you set now attacking Trump will be fair game the next time ( if ever- IF T keeps his promises, the Dems will never be a significant party again: This is an chance for the Republicans to get the working class and black voters away from the Democratic plantation) there is a liberal President.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 12:04 PM

Trump pulled no punches on commenting on the faces or superficial characteristics of his opponents, and especially noteworthy was his repetition of a story that Cruz's father was..... well, you know.

Hillary Clinton, in debate 2 was asked to comment favorably on Trump and she specifically complimented him on his kids. I do not recall Trump going after someone's kids for no reason. (He went after the parents of a decorated war hero, though). On the other hand, several of his adult offspring have participated in the political process, so they can expect to be quoted and critiqued.

Trump has a problem with truth. Specifically, truth and Trump are not related to each other. He does not even bother to lie because he'd have to have a knowledge of what was true IN ORDER to lie. He was a bulldozer when he ran and he is now the Bulldozer In Chief. Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 12:25 PM

Truth is relative, according to the Liberals:

Trumps stated that his was the "MOST-watched" of any inauguration .

MSM says less people on Mall.

Trump included TV watchers...

So what is the TRUTH?



According to the Nielsen Ratings, a whopping 30.6 million viewers, across 12 TV channels, watched the 45th President get sworn in on Friday afternoon.

Those sky-high ratings make Trump's inauguration the third-most-watched in history—narrowly behind Barack Obama's historic inauguration in 2009, and Ronald Reagan's in 1981.

However, because of how viewing patterns have changed since Obama and Reagan's inaugurations, Trump's inauguration might actually have been the most-watched of all time. Nielsen only monitors those watching programs on television—without factoring in the viewers who streamed the inauguration online.

That's a figure easily expected to be in the tens of millions, as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and CNN all aired the swearing-in ceremony online—a feature not yet widely available in 2009, let alone 1981.

CNN alone announced that 16.9 million people had watched the inauguration on CNN.com. While those numbers aren't exactly comparable to Nielsen's ratings, it's clear that—coupled with other major online livestreams—Trump's inauguration was very likely witnessed by over 50 million people.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 12:32 PM

"Asked whether he wished to amend his Saturday statement saying that Trump's inauguration had "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe," Spicer instead doubled down on his comments.

"Sure, it was the most watched inaugural … It's unquestionable," Spicer said, clarifying that his definition of a viewing audience included not just people standing on the National Mall or watching on television but also audiences who watched the inauguration online and through streaming services — audience numbers that have not yet been publicly confirmed, according to ABC News.

When pressed on whether Trump's inauguration had a larger audience than those at former President Ronald Reagan's inaugurations, Spicer said, "I'm pretty sure that Reagan didn't have YouTube, Facebook or the Internet."

Politico noted that "calculating the overall global viewership for Trump's inauguration would be nearly impossible, but in the U.S., it was viewed by 30.6 million Americans. That would put Trump's inaugural ceremony behind that of former Presidents Ronald Reagan (41.8 million viewers in 1981), Obama (37.7 million in 2009), Jimmy Carter (34.1 million in 1977) and Richard Nixon (33 million in 1973). The Nielsen numbers do not include viewers who watched on online livestreams.""

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 01:25 PM

Who doesn't love watching a disaster?

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 03:31 PM

30.6( broadcast TV) + 16.9 (CNN.com) = 47.5 million...plus the other streaming services and the 250,000 to 1,900,000 on the Mall.

Reagan (81) 41.8 ( broadcast TV)   - Mall does NOT hold 7+ million
Obama (09) 37.7 ( broadcast TV)   - Mall + streaming over 9.8 million?

A good argument can be made that the Total Watching was the largest.

""the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,""

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 04:06 PM

You've exhausted the topic of Chelsea and Barron?

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 04:10 PM

That Chelsea is a reasonable person, and any resoanable person would feel as she does?

But people keep bringing up Donald, ...

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Felipa
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 07:56 PM

leave them kids alone

Barron isnt responsible for who his father is and what his father does.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 17 - 09:31 PM

"I WAS complimenting Chelsea C for being a decent human being"

She does indeed. But you weren't just doing that, bruce. Your introductory commment "Seems like the Dems ran the wrong generation..." turned it into something else.

Personal attacks on the children of politicians are always despicable, in the case of Barron as they were in the case of Chelsea.

Speculation that Barron is on the autistic spectrum rather than just shy is premature. Though if it did turn out to be the case it is not something in any way shameful, or to be kept hushed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 01:43 AM

Seems like Chelsea Clinton is a class act. It is too bad that some people of poor taste on both sides have seen fit to attack the children of various presidents. That just isn't fair.
That's not a political issue - it's a matter of common decency.
Leave the kids alone.
-Joe-

P.S. I think it was a good topic to bring up, Bruce. I didn't see anything wrong with your opening message.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 04:46 AM

DJT wasn't responsible for his father's antics, nor his grandfather's but it's in the genes fer sure.

Leave Barron alone though, he will be exposed to the (justified) invective his father is getting and that may make him sway either way. Give it time folks. He ain't done nothing wrong yet, unless he is giving dad a hard time (we can but hope).

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: meself
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 12:48 PM

On the contrary, I don't see any value in this thread. We all know that it's wrong for adults to pick on children, and we all know that it happens occasionally. The point here seems to be, "Look! Someone on your side did something bad!"

Having said that - yes, if it were the other way around, someone else might well have started a thread with the point being, "Look! Someone on YOUR side did something bad!"

However, having said THAT - I don't think anyone can deny that there is a tendency on the Right to take pride in heartlessness, which is equated with both mental and physical strength, so that the cruelty of a Rush Limbaugh does not seem out of character with the movement as a whole - perhaps no worse than some of Trump's pronouncements - whereas it is well-known that the 'liberal-left' is made up of bleeding-heart, weak-kneed snowflakes who are scared of guns, so that the distasteful joke this comedian made really does seem an aberration. Taken in isolation, the two jokes certainly have moral equivalency, but in the context of contemporary politics, the implications of one are more profound than those of the other. One is cruel humour in support of and consistent with a heartless survival-of-the-fittest approach to society, the other is cruel humour in support of but INconsistent with a more caring, communal approach to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jan 17 - 04:54 PM

He is 10
hands off