GoCubsGo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 9:53 am
Maybe he'll wind up being the smartest trump kinder by saying nothing.
The fact that people are saying this makes this headline and article even stranger:
Who are these people? Be specific.
However, a rather surprising public figure is defending him,
"Surprising ... rather surprising" - Really?
mostly because they speak from experience.
So, not "surprising" at all
In a recent appearance on The View via OK Magazine, Chelsea Clinton talked about how she believes Barron should be left alone, and that he should be able to decide if he wants to be in the public eye like most of his family.
Is she supposed to see everything through a cruel partisan lens? Is that what the writers do? The article never once explains "surprising"

Sloppy, sloppy.
“I think he’s a private citizen. I feel so strongly that if you are a private citizen, you have an unimpeachable right to privacy, and I think the media should leave him alone,” she said.
Now, this isn’t a new perspective of Clinton’s, because back in 2017, she had the same sentiments when she tweeted in Aug 21, 2017: “Barron Trump deserves the chance every child does — to be a kid.”

Another reason why it's not "surprising".
For those who don’t know, Melania and Donald wed in 2005, and on March 20, 2006, Melania gave birth to their son, Barron William Trump. He’s been in the public eye for years now, much like Clinton was just a child when her father, Bill Clinton, took office.
Yep, even more explanation why it's not "surprising".
It’s unclear what path Barron will take, but many like Chelsea hope he’ll be given the benefit of the doubt from the public.
Exactly what I would expect of her, NOTHING "surprising" about it. Why are the writers so stupid?