Tomi Lahren claims she’s “never seen a first lady be attacked” like Melania Truump

[GMDino]

Thought we could use a laugh after the harder news of the past two days.

Yes, I know Media Matters is liberal and dares uses actual transcripts and posts from right leaning organizations to show their hypocrisy.  Dangnabit!

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/08/22/fox-s-tomi-lahren-claims-she-s-never-seen-first-lady-be-attacked-melania-trump/221068

Quote:During an August 22 appearance on Fox & Friends, Fox contributor Tomi Lahren asserted that she has “never seen a first lady be attacked like” Melania Trump and asked, “Can you imagine if we would sit here on Fox News and attack Michelle Obama for something that she was trying to do to better the country?” Lahren’s comment came in response to criticism of the first lady, whose campaign against cyberbullying stands in laughable contrast to her husband’s frequent online screeds and insults.  


From the August 22 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:

Quote:TOMI LAHREN (FOX CONTRIBUTOR): How could someone be so disgusting and so vile to tweet this about our first lady, who is advocating for anti-bullying? I have never seen a first lady be attacked like this, like Melania Trump has, for the good works and the good deeds that she’s done. Can you imagine if we would sit here on Fox News and attack Michelle Obama for something that she was trying to do to better the country? We’d be attacked for it up and down. But because it’s Melania, because her last name is Trump, people like Ana Navarro think it’s OK, that they’re entitled to do that.

In fact, Fox, and right-wing media in general, spent a decade obsessively ridiculing Obama, and their attacks on the former first lady continue even now. Right-wing personalities, including those on Fox, targeted Obama with an endless stream of racist and sexist jabs. They attacked her appearance, her clothing choices, and her accomplishments, often going to absurd lengths to find something new to mock. A particular source of outrage among right-wing media was Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity. Fox’s Sean Hannity derided the initiative as “taking the nanny state to a new level,” and the network reported that the first lady was “target[ing] freedom fries.”


Given Fox’s decade of insults, Lahren’s contention that it would be unimaginable for the network to attack Michelle Obama for “something that she was trying to do to better the country,” is clearly absurd. She isn’t the first Fox personality to attempt to re-write history, however. In 2017, Sean Hannity similarly claimed that “nobody picked” on Michelle Obama, even though he personally targeted her for years.



One of the few times that Fox & Friends liked Michelle Obama's words was when Melania Trump said them.

I also know that many voters (on both sides) have incredibly short memories and are easily fooled by pretty people saying things they already agree with.

[jj22]

Awaiting the regular bunch to spin as if what's being said is true. Interested in how they find a way to blame Hillary.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-23-2018, 10:56 AM)jj22 Wrote: Awaiting the regular bunch to spin as if what's being said is true. Interested in how they find  a way to blame Hillary.

We'll save our spin for something that anyone cares about.  

[*bfine32*]

Said it when Michelle was FLOTUS and I'll say the same now. Personal attacks against the First lady are in the poorest taste. I can proudly say I've never participated in any and often called those out that have.

[hollodero]

(08-23-2018, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Said it when Michelle was FLOTUS and I'll say the same now. Personal attacks against the First lady are in the poorest taste. I can proudly say I've never participated in any and often called those out that have.

Yeah, they are in poor taste.

Pointing out the irony of Melania Trump slamming cyber bullying isn't a personal attack though. Not the way I see it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-23-2018, 11:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, they are in poor taste.

Pointing out the irony of Melania Trump slamming cyber bullying isn't a personal attack though. Not the way I see it.

Has she ever cyber-bullied anyone?

[hollodero]

(08-23-2018, 12:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Has she ever cyber-bullied anyone?

I don't know, I guess not, I have no reason to believe she has.

She is, however, associated with her husband, who does this extensively.

So she chose a topic where she can have little to no credibility. I don't hate on her for that, I do blame her husband for that. I think it was a particular bad issue to go public with though. I also don't think it's a personal attack to point out the irony, especially since she made her remarks as a public figure. Do you think it is a personal attack?

[jj22]

I think like many American (unfortunately) Melania fights against a lot of what her Husband does, speaks out against things he says and disagrees with the way he treats people...... Then turns around and votes for him and defends him.

I don't have a problem with her speaking out against it tho, just like Ivanka and many Republicans. However it would be nice for once for them to "put they money where their mouth is", and back up what they say, instead of saying it to save face because they know it's wrong and are embarrassed by being associated with it, but then voting and supporting such actions.

[GMDino]

(08-23-2018, 12:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know, I guess not, I have no reason to believe she has.

She is, however, associated with her husband, who does this extensively.

So she chose a topic where she can have little to no credibility. I don't hate on her for that, I do blame her husband for that. I think it was a particular bad issue to go public with though. I also don't think it's a personal attack to point out the irony, especially since she made her remarks as a public figure. Do you think it is a personal attack?

bfine was being disingenuous.

He knows what people mean when they mention the irony of her anti-bullying campaign while being married to a "man" who bullies on the regular.

No need to explain yourself.

[hollodero]

(08-23-2018, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: bfine was being disingenuous.

He knows what people mean when they mention the irony of her anti-bullying campaign while being married to a "man" who bullies on the regular.

No need to explain yourself.

I take it you want to take over the discussion then? 
Alright, I'll leave you to it. You're triggering the next response anyway, so you two can have a good old never-tiring game of you're the worst, no you're the worst. Good fun!

[GMDino]

(08-23-2018, 12:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: I take it you want to take over the discussion then? 
Alright, I'll leave you to it. You're triggering the next response anyway, so you two can have a good old never-tiring game of you're the worst, no you're the worst. Good fun!

Not at all.  I just hate when people waste their valuable time going off track.....hey!

[hollodero]

(08-23-2018, 12:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not at all.  I just hate when people waste their valuable time going off track.....hey!

OK. I myself am not particularly fond of people responding directly to me just to promote their spat with someone else. You regularly do that, and I regularly am a bit annoyed by it for about 1-5 minutes. Since this time has passed now, carry on :) 
Just, debates usually don't get more enlightening by that. But I'm the stranger, I sure have to adapt to Rome. And Rome likes ongoing spats.

[fredtoast]

I have scanned a few mainstream media outlets and I don't see anyone attacking Melania about opposing cyber bullying, but to me it seems like he might have chosen that specific issue as a joke. Kind of the way she flew to the Mexican border to show that she "cared" while wearing a coat that said she didn't care.

I can't figure Melania out. I can't tell if she is a decent person who just stays with Trump for the money or if she is just as big of an a-hole as him and enjoys mocking people who really care.

[GMDino]

(08-23-2018, 01:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK. I myself am not particularly fond of people responding directly to me just to promote their spat with someone else. You regularly do that, and I regularly am a bit annoyed by it for about 1-5 minutes. Since this time has passed now, carry on :) 
Just, debates usually don't get more enlightening by that. But I'm the stranger, I sure have to adapt to Rome. And Rome likes ongoing spats.

Eh, don't take it too seriously.  I'm sure I respond more directly than not...but I can also respect your preference. 

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 12:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Has she ever cyber-bullied anyone?

The irony come from her taking this position against cyber bullying while claiming she supports her husband.

[*Nately120*]

(08-23-2018, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Said it when Michelle was FLOTUS and I'll say the same now. Personal attacks against the First lady are in the poorest taste. I can proudly say I've never participated in any and often called those out that have.

Well Trump is in office, so you and your PC police pals can suck it!

[hollodero]

(08-23-2018, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Eh, don't take it too seriously.

OK that is an accusation I rarely get :)

(08-23-2018, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure I respond more directly than not...but I can also respect your preference. 

I'm just saying. Everyone else here directed responses directly to bfine when they argued bfine's position. I feel a bit disrespected when used as a pawn to take aim at someone else. Not that I can't live with that, not that it's just you doing that. As I said, I get Rome. All is good.


@topic Why does a first lady have to have public appearances and a pet peeve issue to begin with. Not to take aim at Melania, but she's not suited for that role.

[*bfine32*]

(08-23-2018, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The irony come from her taking this position against cyber bullying while claiming she supports her husband.

Call it "ironic" if you like; I simply said there is no reason to attack her for taking a stance against cyber-bullying. Believe it or not, not every husband and wife agree on everything. What would the left prefer:

Remain silent?

Support cyber-bullying?

It's like when her and the 1st lady of Spain had a conversation about children's welfare. She wasn't allowed to do so because of her husband's immigration policy.

Sorta like when his daughter was called feckless c...

These are individuals that should be judged on their merit. Not chauvinistically attached to their man at the hip.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-23-2018, 12:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know, I guess not, I have no reason to believe she has.

She is, however, associated with her husband, who does this extensively.

So she chose a topic where she can have little to no credibility. I don't hate on her for that, I do blame her husband for that. I think it was a particular bad issue to go public with though. I also don't think it's a personal attack to point out the irony, especially since she made her remarks as a public figure. Do you think it is a personal attack?

I suppose this makes sense if you do not view her as an individual with her own thoughts.

As to the rest: Good on you.

[hollodero]

(08-23-2018, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose this makes sense if you do not view her as an individual with her own thoughts.

That's not an accurate conclusion. I do consider her an individual with her own thoughts, because of course I do - one that made some unfortunate choices on how to handle her new role. A role which she has, willingly or not (I think not, I think she never wanted that role to begin with), because of her being married to the president. That's how she'll get percieved, there's no disrespect in that, but it's how things are.

She sure can be against cyberbullying, it's a topic worth debating. But her stance just simply doesn't go together with supporting her husband, who on this very topic is a mockery on her stance. That's his fault, not hers - it's her fault not to be aware of the ridiculous position she puts herself in.

Now if she called out her husband in any way when debating bullying, that I would have respected. If she won't do that - and it's probably the wise choice for her not to do that - then yeah I'd preferred her being silent on the topic. One doesn't have to be a hate-filled leftist to question her credibility on that one.