SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children.

That's a weighty assumption.

She probably won't sue the other woman because it would be more trouble than it's worth. That may be more about torturing her children than being "satisfied" with money, power, prestige, and children.

Besides, there are tons of women who do not have money, power, and prestige but hold onto loser men.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That's a weighty assumption.

She probably won't sue the other woman because it would be more trouble than it's worth. That may be more about torturing her children than being "satisfied" with money, power, prestige, and children.

Besides, there are tons of women who do not have money, power, and prestige but hold onto loser men.

I understand how it would APPEAR that it is a weighty assumption, but the truth of the matter is that many women in her position feel that way. The Kennedy wives are prime examples of women who had this mentality, especially Jacqueline. She often told women in similar positions the same thing.

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

Right.

Everything else is a weighty assumption that can't be proven. Some would consider his wife a hero for standing strong. Others (like myself) would consider his wife an idiot for standing there. But, none of us know what's going on in their household.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Right.

Everything else is a weighty assumption that can't be proven. Some would consider his wife a hero for standing strong. Others (like myself) would consider his wife an idiot for standing there. But, none of us know what's going on in their household.

Is she really standing there? I didn't know that. One article I read said that she had asked him to leave and stop speaking to her two weeks ago. I got the impression that she was politely telling him to kick rocks.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Is she really standing there? I didn't know that. One article I read said that she had asked him to leave and stop speaking to her two weeks ago. I got the impression that she was politely telling him to kick rocks.

Who knows. Maybe she is the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL said she is.

So if she really told him to kick rocks, how does that work with your theory about women of money, power, and prestige?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Who knows. Maybe she is the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL said she is.

So if she really told him to kick rocks, how does that work with your theory about women of money, power, and prestige?

lol She may be a ballbuster.

My theory about her being content with her money, power, and prestige was in reference to whether she might sue the mistress.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

My theory about her being content with her money, power, and prestige was in reference to whether she might sue the mistress.

Ohhhhh--due to the rarity of mistress lawsuits, that makes your theory automatically right and any woman who wouldn't sue the mistress wouldn't be doing so because of money, power, and prestige. Even poor women.