I am not certain, but she might have 5 biological children and 2 adopted. I am not in favour of adoption, especially international adoption, because of the extreme potential for abuse, human trafficking, sex trafficking, etc., but given that she has had 5 children of her own (assuming I am not wrong about her having 5 biological children), then she does have children of her own.
EDIT: That said, I do worry. Why did she adopt from Haiti? Might be out of some sense of benevolence or similar, but... if someone wanted to get away easily with crime, child abduction, etc., Haiti seems like a great target. And then there was one of the Clinton organizations that also operated in Haiti... and "it takes a village"... missing children...
Having 5 natural children already makes it look worse, not better. If she was childless and really wanted one, then I'd understand adoption.
But adopting them from Haiti while she already had enough children?
That's the kind of virtue signalling that Hollywood celebrities do.
And yes of course there's dirt on her. In third world countries you can't do anything without bribes or corruption. She's definitely going to be blackmailed for some shady deal regarding the adoption.
And yes of course there's dirt on her. In third world countries you can't do anything without bribes or corruption. She's definitely going to be blackmailed for some shady deal regarding the adoption.
Given that Chief Justice Roberts had international adoption, all the way from Ireland (and there are various articles online about South America being involved as well)... this does make me somewhat fearful. But I also don't know what good candidates there might be.
Though like you mention as a factor, Chief Justice Roberts and his wife were childless.
This comment claims that she has been previously vetted: https://thedonald.win/p/HXy2oQKX/x/c/17s5DVfjkH . But what I then fear is that Trump might have an approach reg. hiring that works very, very well most of the time, namely that he seems to fire employees that turn out to be a bad choice, or not the best choice, or where circumstances have changed, etc. But firing is not exactly a straight-forward option with a Supreme Court Justice as far as I understand things with judges sitting for life or until they resign. Then again, given that the election is coming up very, very, very soon... and there might be an absolutely insanely extreme amount of election fraud by the left given 600+ judges hired by Biden's campaign, leftists going mad at RBG's death, etc. etc. etc. ... having that seat filled seems like an extremely good thing. So again, at least other commenters describe her as having a very good record and being previously vetted.
Roberts was vetted too, and now most people on here are convinced that he's blackmailed for adoption business.
Every other person in Trump's list has been vetted as much as ACB. Lagoa, Rushing, etc. they are already federal judges which means they've already gone through a Senate confirmation.
There are also other possible reasons that people adopt internationally, and there can be multiple reasons at play at the same time, though it can be difficult to determine how things are. For instance, Chief Justice Roberts adopted internationally from Ireland (and according to multiple articles, South America might also have been involved). And he and his wife were childless. Other reasons including (as I mentioned and which you for some reason did not include as possible reasons.......) human trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. etc. etc. Consider for instance this image: https://i.maga.host/sqn0UI9.png .
Reg. "saving a child from growing up in a shithole"... That sounds incredibly weird, for would it not be strictly much, much better if that "shithole" changed itself and improved? And while culture is very much a part of why things are as they are, there can also be other aspects that play important factors. Then you could take one of the "better" children from that "shithole", but then you are basically robbing that "shithole" of their best and brightest, which they might very well need in order to improve and change.........
I must admit that you have a point that if it is Amy Coney Barrett between her and her husband that made the final decision or similar, then it may well in practice have been limited to those two common reasons you list.
Though "saving a child from growing up in a shithole" is still incredibly weird as far as I can see, even though such a claimed reason might regrettably be very common among certain groups of adopters.
I am not certain, but she might have 5 biological children and 2 adopted. I am not in favour of adoption, especially international adoption, because of the extreme potential for abuse, human trafficking, sex trafficking, etc., but given that she has had 5 children of her own (assuming I am not wrong about her having 5 biological children), then she does have children of her own.
EDIT: That said, I do worry. Why did she adopt from Haiti? Might be out of some sense of benevolence or similar, but... if someone wanted to get away easily with crime, child abduction, etc., Haiti seems like a great target. And then there was one of the Clinton organizations that also operated in Haiti... and "it takes a village"... missing children...
Having 5 natural children already makes it look worse, not better. If she was childless and really wanted one, then I'd understand adoption.
But adopting them from Haiti while she already had enough children?
That's the kind of virtue signalling that Hollywood celebrities do.
And yes of course there's dirt on her. In third world countries you can't do anything without bribes or corruption. She's definitely going to be blackmailed for some shady deal regarding the adoption.
Given that Chief Justice Roberts had international adoption, all the way from Ireland (and there are various articles online about South America being involved as well)... this does make me somewhat fearful. But I also don't know what good candidates there might be.
Though like you mention as a factor, Chief Justice Roberts and his wife were childless.
This comment claims that she has been previously vetted: https://thedonald.win/p/HXy2oQKX/x/c/17s5DVfjkH . But what I then fear is that Trump might have an approach reg. hiring that works very, very well most of the time, namely that he seems to fire employees that turn out to be a bad choice, or not the best choice, or where circumstances have changed, etc. But firing is not exactly a straight-forward option with a Supreme Court Justice as far as I understand things with judges sitting for life or until they resign. Then again, given that the election is coming up very, very, very soon... and there might be an absolutely insanely extreme amount of election fraud by the left given 600+ judges hired by Biden's campaign, leftists going mad at RBG's death, etc. etc. etc. ... having that seat filled seems like an extremely good thing. So again, at least other commenters describe her as having a very good record and being previously vetted.
Roberts was vetted too, and now most people on here are convinced that he's blackmailed for adoption business.
Every other person in Trump's list has been vetted as much as ACB. Lagoa, Rushing, etc. they are already federal judges which means they've already gone through a Senate confirmation.
1: she want to save a child from growing up in a shithole
2: virtue signaling
Only reason ppl adopt internationally. Considering she is conservative and has 5 kids its probably the first
There are also other possible reasons that people adopt internationally, and there can be multiple reasons at play at the same time, though it can be difficult to determine how things are. For instance, Chief Justice Roberts adopted internationally from Ireland (and according to multiple articles, South America might also have been involved). And he and his wife were childless. Other reasons including (as I mentioned and which you for some reason did not include as possible reasons.......) human trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. etc. etc. Consider for instance this image: https://i.maga.host/sqn0UI9.png .
Reg. "saving a child from growing up in a shithole"... That sounds incredibly weird, for would it not be strictly much, much better if that "shithole" changed itself and improved? And while culture is very much a part of why things are as they are, there can also be other aspects that play important factors. Then you could take one of the "better" children from that "shithole", but then you are basically robbing that "shithole" of their best and brightest, which they might very well need in order to improve and change.........
Women think with feeling not logic. I wouldnt have adopted from another country, but the 'saving from shithole' ive heard many times
I must admit that you have a point that if it is Amy Coney Barrett between her and her husband that made the final decision or similar, then it may well in practice have been limited to those two common reasons you list.
Though "saving a child from growing up in a shithole" is still incredibly weird as far as I can see, even though such a claimed reason might regrettably be very common among certain groups of adopters.