Can't wait for the Hillary pix, can we?

Or some Michelle Obama?

Michelle Obama is very attractive. I get tired of people pretending she isn't because they don't agree with her politically.

Me too.

The Obamas are a really good looking, charming, attractive couple. People are so caught up in their ravenous hate that they almost seem like high school teenage girls trying to convince the rest of us how unattractive the head cheerleader is.

If you don't personally find her attractive, who gives a shit. I can objectively tell Melania is a very pretty woman. To me personally though she ruined her face with too much plastic surgery typical of New York and LA. I've been exposed to it too much that any woman who has that level of plastic surgery isn't my cup of tea. However I would never go "ugh gross" because I can still see her as a very attractive beautiful woman to the rest of the public. I can separate my opinion from what the rest of the public thinks. Shocking I know.

It's more remarkable that you can objectively assess someone's characteristics independent of whether you like or agree with the person.

Social media nut: Donald Trump is an antelope.
Me: He demonstrably is not an antelope.
Social media nut: So you'd rather vote for lying Hillary?

We know that each campaign has a large file on the other, and the timing of each "truth bomb" is calculated. (The "Ted Cruz has had mistresses" story didn't drop until relatively late.) This is a weak swipe that will do nothing to hurt Trump. He's already led a lifestyle that's at odds with fundamental Christianity, which he's acknowledged. It may actually help him because Melania's even more gorgeous than we thought. Also,these aren't much racier than her "private jet" magazine spread.

I think Melania now is at least as gorgeous as Melania then, but even if she weren't, you can't compare a 45-year-old woman to photos taken when she was 20 and say that's what she would look like now if not for cosmetic procedures. (Off topic, but it's a media habit that drives me nuts.) There are trade-offs with cosmetic procedures, where you have to weigh looking younger and more conventionally beautiful against appearing slightly "done." Bella Hadid is an incredible example of someone who went for it. Can you tell she had work? Yep. Was it a good tradeoff? Hell, yes.

http://www.celebplasticsurgeryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bella-Hadid-Plastic-Surgery-2.jpg

Bella Hadid is known to have the worst nose job in the industry. She is constantly made fun of for it by fashionistas. You didnt give a good example of her nose job as it is from the side. If you look at candid shots of her it looks like they took two different nose bridges and cut and pasted them together. She can't smile very well either because they did such a bad job.

Likewise Melania is known for her tacky surgery. But I know the public doesnt think like I do--and tacky, shitty surgery is seen as improvement because they lack my anal retentive eye. That is why Kylie Jenner is so popular with teens.

On the other hand Ivanka has had perfect surgery IMO. Her style is old money so she knows how to do it right. Kim K at one point also had perfect surgery but she has since botched it up. Jlo, Berry, Scarjo, Portman all have very excellent nose jobs.

So the Post has now taken to putting the photos in the sidebar on its Web site. That means you now see them whenever you access any Post article, which is a really bad thing at work. So the Post is off of my reading list (at least at work) for a while.

And this is obviously an attempt to separate the social conservatives from Trump. I don't see it having much effect. Who else are they going to vote for? Of course, it might convince some of them to stay home.

I think you misconstrue the purpose of putting Melania's body photo on the front page of the NY Post. They were simply satisfying the curiosity and interest of their readers. Nothing more nothing less. No shaming.

I think you misconstrue the purpose of putting Melania's body photo on the front page of the NY Post. They were simply satisfying the curiosity and interest of their readers. Nothing more nothing less. No shaming.

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole, but this could help Trump by letting him fight back against the posting of these photos. Which also lets him drop the muslim dad fight. And here comes the rabbit hole, some people are claiming the Trump campaign wanted these publicized.

Personally, meh. Whatever.

The criticism of Michelle Obama's looks is an expected reaction to how we were told she was the new model for female beauty and the gushing stories written about her in 2008 and 2009.

She's good looking, but she's way too built like an athlete to be the next Bridget Bardot. She's top shelf for a first lady, but, remember - politics is called Hollywood for the ugly for a reason - it's a whole different league.

So, the pendulum swings really far the other way with the rejection of it, because it was an article of faith on the left to accept Michelle Obama as the ultimate woman that every man and most women should have sexual fantasies about.

ppen, I'm a devoted fashionista who reads every magazine and blog imaginable, including the comments, and that's some hyperbole re Bella Hadid. The criticism from the self-appointed plastic surgery police (along with girls convinced that if they can tell or if an enhancement was purchased then it's somehow disqualifying) is vastly diluted by speculation over whether she had anything done. (Which is ludicrous to me. Of course she did.) But such speculation is kind of the opposite of ridicule.

And all of THAT is vastly diluted by people who acknowledge that she looks better.

Hadid's original nose already had a flare in the bridge. Building it up to even it out would have made her look cross-eyed. And no matter what anyone thinks, isn't the proof in her modeling contracts?

Whether or not it's the best outcome possible, the improvement in her overall face is remarkable.

Wasn't Michelle Obama heralded mostly for her glamorous style and super-fit arms? If someone tells me she's no Bardot, I'd say they're right.

But when people call her ugly they're being nasty and disingenuous. She's a good-looking woman.

If there was shaming going on, it had nothing to do with Mrs. Trump.

Those who should be ashamed are the Jerry Falwell Jrs. of the world and Trump's evangelical supporters. I don't give a fig if a candidate doesn't know the Bible and his wife makes bank flashing her cat in men's magazines.

The evangelicals say they do.

Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Post, obviously wants your gal in office, Amy.

If there was shaming going on, it had nothing to do with Mrs. Trump.

Those who should be ashamed are the Jerry Falwell Jrs. of the world and Trump's evangelical supporters. I don't give a fig if a candidate doesn't know the Bible and his wife makes bank flashing her cat in men's magazines.

The evangelicals say they do.

Kevin at August 1, 2016 11:24 AM

Just a question Kevin? Are you really so smug that you think Evangelicals think about nothing other than naked pictures?

And even if they are that dumb, do you somehow think a few nude photographs would be enough to drive them to vote for a woman whose husband has divulged, had multiple abortions, before she decided to keep just one as an ornament to Bills political career?

Trump has done the correct thing, by owning it.

I smell a lot of democratic desperation. Hillary spent millions trashing Trump, and hasn't even moved the needle. I think they are getting panicked.

And I am not a Trump fan, but a vote for him, is a vote for the rule of law, and not politicians and crony capitalists above the law.

Not holding my breath for a prosecution of this piece of work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine

No one said that it's all evangelicals care about, but that's the only Trump-supporting demographic who would conceivably care about this.

When and where did Bill Clinton divulge that his wife has had an abortion--let alone "several"? (I am extremely skeptical that Hillary Clinton would put herself in the position of needing "several" abortions.) Wasn't this relayed third-hand from a mistress he spurned, Sally Miller? Didn't the same woman say Hillary was a lesbian who rejected her husband's advances? How did that work?

When and where did Bill Clinton divulge that his wife has had an abortion

That's news to me, as well.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton is an accused rapist. Hillary went to bat for him, and slut shamed those women, or otherwise attempted to destroy them.

When and where did Bill Clinton divulge that his wife has had an abortion--let alone "several"? (I am extremely skeptical that Hillary Clinton would put herself in the position of needing "several" abortions.) Wasn't this relayed third-hand from a mistress he spurned, Sally Miller? Didn't the same woman say Hillary was a lesbian who rejected her husband's advances? How did that work?

Insufficient Poison at August 1, 2016 12:21 PM

More than one. Gennifer Flowers also I believe. A lot of this stuff came out in the 90's. Basically according to Bill, she was too damn lazy to take birth control pills, and that led to multiple abortions. Personally I think Hillary has always been a problem drinker. That accounts for a lot of her confused, forgetful behavior.

Google and Bing have succeeded in scrubbing most of these tidbits off the internet.

You can believe them or not, but it is no secret that Hillary supports late term partial birth abortion.

I also think Hillary is most likely bisexual based on reports of people I know, who knew her in high school and watched her make lesbian advances towards girls at parties.

And I don't really care about any of it, but I think slinging mud in this election, has the possibility of backfiring catastrophically.

There may be a great deal more leaking of Hillary's embarrassing emails, and also the possibility of a lot of fake ones mixed in.

You might make a few evangelicals mad enough to stay home, with naked pictures, but I also know the popular vote doesn't matter. Hillary can win by a million votes in Califronia, and lose by a couple of hundred thousand in three states in the rust belt, and still end up the next Al Gore.

And for the Constitutions sake, and the rule of law, I am really hoping she does.

Her only motive for running is to keep herself, and her crony capitalist friends out of jail, and kick the nuclear hand grenade of unsustainable government spending down the road for a few more years, hoping it lands on the next administration.

Oh, I'm sure evangelicals think of many things besides naked pictures. Though you must find it remarkable that they've been so quick to embrace a thrice-married candidate whose current missus made a career of exposing her dirty pillows so men could masturbate to them.

Did you see the Post's followup today? Yesterday was solo, today was hot XXX lesbian action. Again, I have no problem with it, and I'm pleased that the Falwells and Huckabees of this world now seem to find it acceptable as well.

By the way, how does Melania's shaved knish comport with the recently passed Republican Party platform, which declared porn a "public health criisis"? Wouldn't that make Melania Typhoid Mary?

Mrs. Roosevelt was many things, but at least voters weren't confronted with her beav when they opened The Saturday Evening Post.

Mrs. Roosevelt was many things, but at least voters weren't confronted with her beav when they opened The Saturday Evening Post.

Not Mrs. Trump's fault.

That's the NYPost's fault. They're the ones re-printing the stuff.

That's the NYPost's fault. They're the ones re-printing the stuff.

The Trumps seem fine with it:

"They're a celebration of the human body as art," Jason Miller, the Trump campaign's senior communications adviser, said on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "There's nothing to be embarrassed about," Miller said. "She's a beautiful woman."

If these were private family photos, I can see the objection as some sort of invasion of privacy, or theft. But they weren't; they were commercial images specifically designed to sell publications by giving men erections. Perfectly legal.

"specifically designed to sell publications by giving men erections."

Wow. Taking it a little far young man.

I would never, purposefully, look at naked pictures of Hillary or Michelle. Has nothing to do with politics. I'm not a fan of big butts.

It's 3am and the phone rings. You answer and hear

"You wanna look at some nakid lady?"

"It's 3am and the phone rings. You answer and hear

"You wanna look at some nakid lady?""

Well, it's better than hearing 'Lets pull out all the security forces.'

I am surprised you haven't heard this: Michelle Obama is a man.
Supposedly, there are no pictures of her with her infant daughters, no records of delivery.

> I can objectively tell Melania
> is a very pretty woman.

Eye of the beholder, Babe... No.

> She's [Mish] a good-looking woman.

☑ Affirmed. It's not a job about beauty, and she's perhaps a tad coltish, but nonetheless the most attractive FL of all time... Or at least since Frankin, at which point I've seen sufficient photography to judge. (I'm very judgmental.)

> He's already led a lifestyle
> that's at odds with fundamental
> Christianity

Five children across three different wives?

Fuck that. Don't the e the problem is "fundamentalism."

> I'm not a fan of
> big butts.

Liar.







(Pop music fans? The 1990's? Anyone?

Okay, nevermind.)

Wow. Taking it a little far young man.

Sorry, Dave, but that's what they seem to be.

Certainly a beautiful young woman who agrees to pose for nude photos and photos simulating lesbian sex acts understands that men will use them as masturbatory material. That's why they exist.

Certainly a beautiful young woman who agrees to pose for nude photos and photos simulating lesbian sex acts understands that men will use them as masturbatory material. That's why they exist.

Kevin at August 1, 2016 6:47 PM

Do pictures of your children in the bathtub exist for pedophiles to get sexually aroused?

Or maybe it is just American prudes who think that all nudes are porn?

Do pictures of your children in the bathtub exist for pedophiles to get sexually aroused?

What a disgusting thought. I don't have children.

Or maybe it is just American prudes who think that all nudes are porn?

Well, there's a bit of a difference between Michelangelo's David and a lady grabbing her cat in a laddie-boy magazine, or handcuffed to a valise full of money while simulating orgasm. One is meant to inspire wonder at the human form, and the other is meant to give men stiffies.

Like I said, I'm fine with it either way, but let's not pretend it's Renaissance art. Hell, it's not even Playboy-level photography; it's more like Hustler.

> She was working -- being
> photographed for a now out
> of business French men's mag,
> and the photos happened
> to be nude.

"Working"? This tortures the nature of wealth creation somewhat grievously.

"Max" magazine was a French wank mag for men. The pictorials were intended to titillate. Just Google the covers. It's foolish to keep arguing with that or to compare it with photos of toddlers in bathtubs.

There's nothing wrong with what Melania did, but call it what it is.

"Working"? This tortures the nature of wealth creation somewhat grievously.

Crid. No, it doesn't. But your comment is funny.

(Pop music fans? The 1990's? Anyone?

Okay, nevermind.)

I fucking hate you Crid. Now I can get that terrible sound of garbage music (???) out of my head.

"There's nothing wrong with what Melania did, but call it what it is."

OK. What is it?

Methinks she is beautiful and pleasant to look at, with, or sans, clothes. I think it is called beauty.

...but nonetheless the most attractive FL of all time... Or at least since Frankin, at which point I've seen sufficient photography to judge. (I'm very judgmental.) ~ Crid at August 1, 2016 6:22 PM

Attractive? Yes, even if a bit, as you put it, coltish. Most attractive First Lady of all time? That's where we part ways.

I like a sense of style and Michelle gravitates a little too much to overpriced garish for my tastes. I like simple and classic. Jackie had more style, but the wave of quasi-religious post-JFK adulation ruined her as a style icon for me.

Admittedly, most of our First Ladies have not been pretty, at least not by the time they were in the White House (I understand Barbara Bush was quite the hottie in her younger years). They haven't quite been as industrial as the Soviet Union's First Ladies, thank God. There's a reason the chubby-faced Raisa was a breath of fresh air. Michelle has been fortunate enough to reach the White House at the apex of her beauty.

Melania is pretty, if a bit chilly. However, I don't think the country is ready for a First Lady with nakeds out there (nudes are art, nakeds have staples).

Bill is going to be a handful as First Mate. Unless his heart operation has slowed him down, he's going to be Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, and Donald Nixon rolled into an albatross around Hillary's neck. Given that he once had the nuclear codes, he's not gonna take a back seat to a wife he seems to despise.

A wife with published naked pictures or a husband with no boundaries and no ethics. No matter who gets the nod in November, the next four years are going to be a hillbilly freak show.