He implied no such thing. That’s what you infer. And I believe you are doing so because you fail to grasp context.
Yeah, I wouldn’t necessarily walk the plank on defending Dotard’s choice of words here, but your choice Grrr.
Well, I already feel like I need a shower. I just get annoyed when people get mad at made up shit Trump supposedly did, when there is an unending list of legitimate things he axtually did do.
You’re deliberately obtuse or a fucking moron.
Well, it’s happened again. Time after time, he does something that is so far outside of the bounds of what I had thought was acceptable that it shocks me. If someone had told me three years ago that our next president would personally post of Twitter on a regular basis, I would have thought that was really unlikely. If someone had told me that our president would tweet anything like today’s Gillibrand tweet, I would have thought they were crazy. Trump is defining deviancy down to a degree that would have shocked Daniel Moynihan.
“doing anything” includes, well, anything.
He said pretty much the same things about Mitt Romeny during the campaign.
There probably is some underlying innuendo there but it’s too vague to be incontrovertibly over the line.
What does “disloyal to Bill” mean? (stipulated that looking for meaning in a Trump tweet is a fool’s errand)
The fact that people are defending and hand-waving around Trump’s tweet against Gillibrand just shows how much bullshit we’re willing to accept now.
Sen. Gillibrand has been one of the first and most vocal Congressional leaders to call out sexual predators, so how does the predator-in-chief attempt to take her down a peg? A sexually suggestive tweet with enough plausible deniability (for a foul-mouthed shitbird like him, anyway; for most people, that would’ve been a PR nightmare that would’ve led to a heartfelt apology and clarification) that even his detractors will say “Oh, pish posh. Nothing to see here.”
If there’s one skill I’ll concede that Trump has, it’s crafting those kinds of comments, which convey whatever insult or slur he obviously means, while remaining just vague enough for his fans (on this board and the world at large) to deny it. Most of them know damn well what he meant too, but relish any chance to play rhetorical “I’m not touching you” with the head-exploding libtard snowflakes.
I don’t know if it’s an innate skill, or something he worked on honing, or just a byproduct of being a slippery slimeball and a disordered thinker his entire life.
It’s a skill that is learned in second grade, honed in third grade, and discarded in fourth.
Unlike most, who only have a couple of years of practice, he has over 60 years.
Unless you take it in context: It was a direct response to her talking about investigating his sexual misdeeds.
I wondered about that too. Maybe Trump thinks she’s in the Clinton camp but nonetheless offered “anything” to Trump for money.
It’s like his “blood coming out of her whatever” statement. Dog whistle providing red meat to the misogynistic crowd, but with a shadow of plausible deniability which will allow those of his more traditional supporters who may not like such salty talk to avoid cognitive dissonance, while at the same time accuse his enemies of fake news and having dirty minds for deliberately misrepresenting his statements. Win, win, win.
He’s over 70.
And he started learning this “skill” in the second grade, somewhere 7-8 years old.
Donald Trump is a piece of shit, and those who put him in office and those who defend him (while claiming to have morals), are deplorable. Not 50% of them, all of them.
See that lady over there. She’s despicable. You know how despicable? When she was desperate for money, she came into my office begging, and told me she’d do anything for some cold hard cash. Can you believe what a bad person she is?
Sorry, but he absolutely implied it, and there is no “failure to grasp” context. If anything, it’s you who have failed to grasp context. When a dude is putting down a woman and says “she’ll do anything for money”, and means it as an insult, it’s 100% about sex. Always.
It’s not something “made up” that people are upset about. The President of the United States made a public statement accusing a member of Congress of offering him sexual favors for money. If you’d like to claim that it’s so much “fake news” you’re welcome to.
Don’t confuse the personal account and the POTUS account. Sure, Obama had staffers posting to the POTUS account. I’d be surprised if anyone but him was posting on his personal account though.