Why is this not surprising?
-
@george-k said in Why is this not surprising?:
@doctor-phibes said in Why is this not surprising?:
Mike Pence has done himself a lot of good over the last 4 weeks.
BUT HE WON'T BE SEEN WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT HIS WIFE PRESENT!
They're not mutually exclusive. That fact is still hilarious.
@aqua-letifer said in Why is this not surprising?:
That fact is still hilarious.
I've never found it hilarious. I do think it's kind of weird.
He'd have to relax this rule if he ever won the presidency. Can you imagine the workaround?
Okay, that's funny.
-
In this climate it is the only smart thing to do politically.
It also builds trust at home, which is even more important.
@mik said in Why is this not surprising?:
It also builds trust at home, which is even more important.
If there's trust at home, there's no need for a frankly insulting rule like this one. If trust is lacking, the rule is easily gotten around and is therefore not only silly, but also useless.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
I have a rule never to be alone with an American unless a psychiatrist is present.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Why is this not surprising?:
Mike Pence has done himself a lot of good over the last 4 weeks.
BUT HE WON'T BE SEEN WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT HIS WIFE PRESENT!
@george-k said in Why is this not surprising?:
BUT HE WON'T BE SEEN WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT HIS WIFE PRESENT!
I think this rule is genius because you save so much money not having to take your mistress out. You can just say “look, I can’t take you to dinner, I’ll just come over.” At most you’re out the cost of a bottle of wine and a box of condoms.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@mik said in Why is this not surprising?:
It also builds trust at home, which is even more important.
If there's trust at home, there's no need for a frankly insulting rule like this one. If trust is lacking, the rule is easily gotten around and is therefore not only silly, but also useless.
@catseye3 completely agree. I have never ever worried about my husband being seen or being alone in any space with another person who happens to be a woman, he has to meet every day with all sorts of people, often just one person, and I can assure you that kind of distrust and those kinds of thoughts are not on anyone’s mind. And it’s not a trust he had to “earn” from me, the kind of person he is was apparent from the very beginning.
-
@catseye3 completely agree. I have never ever worried about my husband being seen or being alone in any space with another person who happens to be a woman, he has to meet every day with all sorts of people, often just one person, and I can assure you that kind of distrust and those kinds of thoughts are not on anyone’s mind. And it’s not a trust he had to “earn” from me, the kind of person he is was apparent from the very beginning.
@jodi said in Why is this not surprising?:
I have never ever worried about my husband being seen or being alone in any space with another person who happens to be a woman, he has to meet every day with all sorts of people,
Agreed. However, as a public figure, I can see some rando idiot taking a photo of him having lunch with someone, and the next thing you know, The National Enquirer plasters the picture all over the front page: "Veep and his Girlfriend enjoy lunch at intimate setting!"
It's not that they don't trust each other, it's that they don't trust people outside their relationship.
-
@jodi said in Why is this not surprising?:
I have never ever worried about my husband being seen or being alone in any space with another person who happens to be a woman, he has to meet every day with all sorts of people,
Agreed. However, as a public figure, I can see some rando idiot taking a photo of him having lunch with someone, and the next thing you know, The National Enquirer plasters the picture all over the front page: "Veep and his Girlfriend enjoy lunch at intimate setting!"
It's not that they don't trust each other, it's that they don't trust people outside their relationship.
-
What if he's secretly gay?
(It's a joke, dumbass, however it leads to the conclusion that no person should be with any other person they're not married to without a third party being present)
-
@mik said in Why is this not surprising?:
It also builds trust at home, which is even more important.
If there's trust at home, there's no need for a frankly insulting rule like this one. If trust is lacking, the rule is easily gotten around and is therefore not only silly, but also useless.
@catseye3 said in Why is this not surprising?:
@mik said in Why is this not surprising?:
It also builds trust at home, which is even more important.
If there's trust at home, there's no need for a frankly insulting rule like this one. If trust is lacking, the rule is easily gotten around and is therefore not only silly, but also useless.
@catseye3 said in Why is this not surprising?:
@mik said in Why is this not surprising?:
It also builds trust at home, which is even more important.
If there's trust at home, there's no need for a frankly insulting rule like this one. If trust is lacking, the rule is easily gotten around and is therefore not only silly, but also useless.
Got any bona fides to back that statement up?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@george-k said in Why is this not surprising?:
BUT HE WON'T BE SEEN WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT HIS WIFE PRESENT!
I think this rule is genius because you save so much money not having to take your mistress out. You can just say “look, I can’t take you to dinner, I’ll just come over.” At most you’re out the cost of a bottle of wine and a box of condoms.
@jon-nyc said in Why is this not surprising?:
@george-k said in Why is this not surprising?:
BUT HE WON'T BE SEEN WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT HIS WIFE PRESENT!
I think this rule is genius because you save so much money not having to take your mistress out. You can just say “look, I can’t take you to dinner, I’ll just come over.” At most you’re out the cost of a bottle of wine and a box of condoms.
Projecting much?
-
It's worth noting that Mike Pence could never get away with this if he had a proper job.
-
Well, he doesn't, hasn't, and is unlikely to have a job where he cannot make this happen so it's irrelevant.
Rather than slagging the guy in a field where infidelity is legion, maybe we ought to recognize him for the integrity he has clearly shown throughout his career and the past four years.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Well, he doesn't, hasn't, and is unlikely to have a job where he cannot make this happen so it's irrelevant.
Rather than slagging the guy in a field where infidelity is legion, maybe we ought to recognize him for the integrity he has clearly shown throughout his career and the past four years.
@mik Do you think infidelity is more common in the political realm than in any other? (Not trying to argue, I just sort of assume that infidelity probably occurs at the same rate all over, we just hear about the public figures more)
-
@mik Do you think infidelity is more common in the political realm than in any other? (Not trying to argue, I just sort of assume that infidelity probably occurs at the same rate all over, we just hear about the public figures more)
@jodi said in Why is this not surprising?:
@mik Do you think infidelity is more common in the political realm than in any other?
Interesting question. Perhaps it could be expanded to “Do you think that infidelity is more common by those in power?”
-
Sorry, I was editing as you all commented. Surely people are drawn to people with perceived power, and people with power sometimes take advantage. But people also cheat. I don’t know that it’s more likely to happen when there is power involved. It’s sometimes just hormones.
-
Good for McConnell and McCarthy prioritizing Biden event over Trump send off. Playing ball at least initially.
