I see no difference at all. Freezers can be filled from the grocery store, it isn't the year 1800 anymore. Are you suggesting some animals are more noble or more important than others? Okay to shoot and kill some, not others?. Eating them makes no difference to me, dead is dead. Is it okay to shoot and kill a condor or an eagle, or a sea otter, if you eat it?

I say No, no difference. We can disagree.

Wealthy people have privileges and lifestyles others don't have. I'm not thrilled with the election outcome, although that would have been the same for me with either Trump or Clinton, but who cares if they have pets or not? Is that an important assessment of their worth as human beings or suitability for public office?

I hope that you all come to terms with the election results and feel less fearful soon.

This is going around on some social media sites. I assume it's with regard to the Immigration policies. A sad site to behold. I'm a Canadian and look at Lady Liberty as a proud and patriotic symbol of the U.S.A.

You see no difference at all, Elmer? Then I'm probably wasting my time, but here's one sentence: I see a vast difference between killing a deer to eat--particularly when, like my neighbors, money is tight--and killing any animal at all for the pure pleasure of the kill.

Okay, I'm done.

I thought it was NOT allowed to kill elephants and giraffes in Africa??

What struck me regarding Barron at his father's acceptance speech was that there was zero rapport between father and son. The three of them were spaced out like actors hitting their marks. Whether it's genuine or not, MOST politicians are seen embracing their children -- at least making eye contact with them at some point while they are in the public eye.

The media takes a hands off approach to children of politicians.

Should this forum adopt the same attitude?

No, since the Right didn't do it to the Obama kids.

Alisande, are you suggesting there's an income test to determine who is entitled to go hunting? Sorry, that makes no sense.

How about low income people in living in urban areas - is it okay for them to trap cats and dogs for food?

Your thinking seems to be to start with the outcome you want and work backwards to justify it. Hunting is a hobby, a cruel and unnecessarily brutal one. It's the 21st century, there's no justification for going out into the woods dressed in camo, with overpowered firearms, to play Rambo to the detriment of defenseless deer, birds, and other animals. There are other ways to be macho for those who feel the need.

Huh? I was speaking about people who derive pleasure from killing, and now Elmer wants to talk about income tests? Income tests?? Talk all you want, Elmer.

Elmer J. Fudd, you seem as befuddled as your namesake. It is gratuitous killing of any animals I believe we find abhorrent. Is that clear enough for you?

" I see a vast difference between killing a deer to eat--particularly when, like my neighbors, money is tight-"

Your words. So, an income test applies? There's no moral question for the poor, only for the not poor. That's what I was referring to.

particularly, not solely. I see why she didn't understand.

Since I'm fairly new to posting here...I have a question that you all may or may not answer..but I'll ask anyway....do I sense a lot of stress between many posters and Elmer J. Fudd?

Welcome to The Kitchen Table!

Mamapinky, Elmer is one of the few men on the forum and he often does put a different spin on things here.

But we like diversity and if you keep returning here, you will come to appreciate it as well.

I am completely uninterested in Melania Trump. I have not come to the terms with the election results. On Wednesday morning, for the first time in my life, I woke up scared for my family.

Eld, Thank You for the welcome an d for the answer. Yes I see where If Elmer is one of the few men amoung a group of women it may make things ....interesting at times. Haha

Oh gosh, I do so hope that Elmer sees this and will respond. I'm going to love his answer, whatever it is. :)

" Okay to shoot and kill some, not others?"

A complex subject, indeed. Right now feral hogs are a problem in many parts of Texas. I'd think that shooting some of them especially to put in the freezer (must be cooked correctly as they can carry some diseases) would be a blessing both for the farmers who are overrun by these destructive critters and the recipients of the meat.

moonie, what's the question?

Lucille, fair enough to suggest it's a complex subject. Views differ. The problem I have with hunting is the needless suffering and cruelty to animals and the dangers of the gun culture it engenders. I did some looking around, prompted by your comment, and I can only imagine the problems of having a runaway population of feral pigs in farm and ranch areas. Surely there are safer and more effective ways to deal with the problem than by turning people loose with guns to shoot them.

Elmer, mamapinky asked if she was sensing a lot of stress between you and other posters. Eld explained that you are one of few men here and that you put a different twist on things.

How did we get from Melania to stray hogs?

On NPR this morning was a segment about the age-old problem of garbage in cities. It said that until 1820 NYC took care of garbage by allowing pigs to roam the streets. There were 20,000 hogs eating garbage. Imagine dodging 100 - 300 pound hogs whenever you went out! Later, they started dumping into the Hudson River. Immediately before a world's fair they hired people to tie weights to the dead animals in the river to submerge them. Wow! It's not all that long ago!

Chisue- I laughed audibly at your first sentence and thought of a funny reply but I will keeps it to myself :)

Sabbath, I did too! This place can get wacky at times!!!!!

Please Sabbath, share your response, we could use the humor.

After a demanding career, I'm completely stress free in retirement. I never intend to give any to others, neither then nor now. I like expressing views especially when my thoughts differ from what others have said.

It's discussion, there are no winners or losers.

Wow. So many cruel and/or hate filled comments regarding Barron Trump. Please do a simple Google search. You will find many articles discussing the possibility that the child is autistic. This is probably the reason Melania home schools him and the reason his facial expression may appear "inappropriate" for certain occasions. In interviews Melania comes across as a caring and thoughtful woman. Her early modeling career may not garner your approval, but I imagine some of you have things in your lives that you would rather the world didn't find out. Or, are all of you so perfect that you would come out smelling like roses under microscopic inspection? I think she will be a gracious First Lady.

Pink, I didn't know this about Barron. Maybe that is why Melania is interested in bullying? Maybe it will develop into an autism platform?

paula, I just went back and read the comments about Barron Trump and I see nothing approaching cruel or hate. Where did that come from? It was said he looked sleepy, disinterested, probably to be expected of a child that age at that time of night, and while I think discussing him at all is inappropriate, I see no hate. Who hates kids....I'm sure no one here directs their feelings towards his father to the child.

morz8, As paperweights also noticed, "As for Baron, it certainly seems unfair to judge a child who
has been awakened in the middle of the night, and to make fun of him
looking tired. Have some heart. After all, when they go low, you go
high, don't you?"

Perhaps I was a little overboard when I described the comments as cruel or hateful. I reacted to what I had read about his possible autism. Others may not know about it. Surely, children should be left out of negative feelings about their political parent(s).

Yes, and comments on his distracted appearance would have been even worse if he is in fact autistic of course. After reading that above (first mention I had seen) I tried doing some research and found not one credible source. Still not a topic for discussion either way, children should be off limits. Unless having reached the age of fully functioning adults who are willingly sharing the spotlight, then fair game ;0)

Leave the kid alone.

All of this is a distraction from the real problem--the electoral college has given us a sexual predator as our national leader. I would say "leader of the free world" but the rest of the world is standing with the 52% in abject horror. Mitch McConnell has already told the Trump that infrastructure isn't really at the top of their agenda. Thanks so much GOP for basically rejecting a major part of the only good thing the Trump has offered.

Where did the idea come about that Barron is home schooled? There are pics of Melania picking him up after school and he and his parents walking across the campus. He currently attends a private school in Manhattan. And enough with all the autism speculation. How would you like it if people armchair diagnosed your children by how they appeared in a picture or at a function at 2:00 am?

The prospect of being followed by a contingent of SS employees everywhere he goes for the next four years, might have contributed to the resigned expression on his face. Yes, please, let's drop the subject of the minor child.

OTOH, after the 'groping' tape was released, my sister and I both speculated that the elder Trump might be on the Asperger's spectrum.

I know that *my* comments were about the father failing to have eye contact with or in any way acknowledge the boy during the acceptance speech. The three of them were entirely distant from one another. It's all about Trump; everyone else is a stage prop.

BTW, Melania isn't famous for 'a modeling career'. She acted in the nude in porn films in the US -- possibly as 'an illegal' (no work permit).

"All of this is a distraction from the real problem--the electoral college has given us a sexual predator as our national leader."

You're describing a married JFK who even when in the White House slept with anything in a skirt that walked by. Though he was unable to complete his presidential run, you're also describing his brother RFK. And their father and their brother Teddy (remember his "date" who drowned at Chappaquiddick, he was married at the time). And LBJ. And FDR. And Dwight Eisenhower. And Bill Clinton. And countless others whose public profile wasn't elevated high enough for more truth about them to be known.

This is a dead issue. It must be viewed as accepable behavior, it's far too common among people in the public eye with no negative consequences to any of them.

Elmer, Trump has forced himself on frightened women and is happily proud of it. You are comparing apples and oranges.

So did JFK. Including the one young girl working in the White House, maybe an intern like Lewinsky, he had sex with. Using power for sexual conduct is a form of rape in my book.

And view it as "acceptable behavior"? Never!

Bill Clinton lowered the standard for just about anything sex related. Nothing Trump was ever accused of ever rivaled that. Whatever Trump was accused of, BC had already done something worse. It all became noise.

People have tried to pull Melania into the fray with her nude pictures. In the grand scheme of things, I may prefer she hadn't posed, but I'm not sure I care. The crowd who is always screaming 'slut shaming' are the ones trying to drag Melania through the mud. Why isn't that crowd yelling "You go girl! It's ok to do whatever you want with your body. Your body! Your choice! You're beautiful!"? Bill Clinton as Melania's equivalent as potential first dude, may not have posed nude (and we are all grateful for that.) He slept with enough women that there are graphic written descriptions of his deformed penis from at least two different women. There is simply not enough eye bleach for that. Once again, BIll Clinton did it worse.

sjerin, murraysmom, what I'm suggesting is that there's a degree of inconsistency and selective outrage involved. Bill Clinton and the others I mentioned have acted the same way as Trump has, it's out of a sense of entitlement and a "I can get away with this" attitude.

Outrageous conduct is accepted by some if the perpetrator is someone they otherwise like but the same conduct is used to vilify someone people don't like. Either serial womanizing done by married people in the public eye, whether because of wealth or one's position as a public official, is acceptable or it isn't. It shouldn't matter who's doing it.

Just because people once got away with bad behavior doesn't mean we should continue to condone it let alone applaud it. I wasn't around when JFK was chasing skirt--doesn't mean I should accept it now from others.

Well, Trump's behavior towards women is never acceptable (ask any woman). The other men you cited also behaved reprehensibly, but the women were consenting adults. I do not condone outrageous conduct and certainly not when women and children are being assaulted. "Some" people will always behave differently than is acceptable to me. But "most" people will not accept the behavior shown by Mr. Trump.

murraysmom, you're trying to rewrite history. The real stories, written by many and from multiple sources about all of these guys, aren't all as you would like them to be.

Can you give me specific examples? I would like to know. I am aware that many men in power are predatory when it comes to women. I have been approached myself and was so shocked as to be speechless. But I believe the majority of these men do not force themselves upon women. To do so would certainly end their careers, at least I would hope so. There are women that accept those men, disregarding the man's family and position and I will never understand why.

It's not a matter of accepting it. Both candidates carried the same or worse baggage. Hillary was complicit in what her husband did and he was coming back to the White House for another round. BC had serial affairs and was accused of rape for many years. These same women showed up time after time and had similar stories. The women showing up to accuse Trump weren't consistent and weren't particularly believable. Even Trumps' former wives appeared to back him. If anyone should hate Trump, Ivana should, but she didn't. All of the candidates had some baggage. At some point, you say these are our two choices. You cross off what you can from the list and go forward with the one who speaks to your interests. Hopefully, they get to accomplish a few items from the list while in office.

Mimi Alford was a 19 year old White House intern who had an 18 month strictly sexual relationship (by her description) with 45 year old married JFK. According to her, she lost her virginity to him on her fourth day on the job. That's not consensual sex between adults.

She was one of many, many simultaneous dalliances of his. The Secret Service knew about it, members of the press knew about it. As with FDR's various mistresses, it was accepted and kept quiet.

Just to keep the family in balance, in the years after his assassination, his widow Jacqueline Kennedy had sexual relationships with JFK's two brothers (her brothers in law), RFK and Teddy Kennedy. Both of them were married at the time.

Hillary was 'complicit' in her husband's affairs? If that's true, isn't every cheated-upon wife who doesn't file for divorce 'complicit'? Lovely.

In the original divorce proceedings Ivana accused Trump of rape, and was paid off and it was struck out of the deal.

Back to the original question.......

Trump has stated he won't take a salary, maybe his wife will follow suit. Not changing anything. Not spending any monies on new china etc. Afterall it has been stated that they will only live in the White House part time.