“Would do anything for money” is a pretty standard, non-sexual, insult, and in particular when directed at politicians, whose willingness to sell their office for money is a pretty common trope.
ISTM that this is an example of the double standard inherent in dealing with female politicians, who are hailed as “strong” when they dish it out, but protected when they attract some return fire. And in a case when the attack can be spun into some sexist theme, all the better.
It’s theoretically possible that it wasn’t meant as sexual, but considering the source I’d say that it was an attempt at slut-shaming. Of course Sarah Sanders will tell us later that the real scandal is Hillary. Or Obama.
One thing Trump is very good at is simply implying something without coming out to say it in so many words. (I hate the term “dogwhistle,” because it’s over-used, but that’s really what it is.) It’s much the same as the Mafioso saying, “You have a nice store here…it’d be a shame if something…happened to it.” The meaning is clear, even if it’s plausibly deniable.
considering the context of what prompted the tweet (her calling for trump to resign amidst the sexual assualt allegations), there is little doubt to the context of the tweet and intent.
Is it deniable? could he have meant it in typical ‘politicon willing to sell soul to get money for election’ - sure - but its less likely.
IMO Trump has a long history of using sexist, misogynistic, and sexually demeaning language to criticize women, while later denying that the words were meant that way. I find it unlikely that Trump is unaware that using “begging” and “would do anything for them” wasn’t likely to be interpreted as sexually demeaning/misogynistic.
I’m sure this will be the news headline of the day, and the pundits will argue back and forth about the intent and whether was intended as a sexual or gender insult or just Trump being the legendary Art of the Deal maestro of his own imagination, but all of this really argues for ignoring the random shit that he tweets out on a daily basis and focusing the news on the failures of his legislative agenda and the actual foreign policy gaffs that have severe and lasting impact upon the United States by allies and adversaries going forward. What he wrote in that particular tweet is outrageous (whether it was intended to be a sexual smear or not) but being outrageous is exactly (and pretty much exclusively) what Trump is good at. Focusing on all the things that he is not good at—pretty much every other thing he does, from shaking hands with foreign heads of state, moderating international conflicts, deflecting continued allegations of Russian influence in his election campaign, consoling families of fallen soldiers, supporting his party leaders in promoting key pieces of his legislative agenda, to drinking water from a bottle (sweet burn, Marco)—should be the focus of the news.
As much as it would be joyous to see Trump have his mortifying #MeToo moment over all the shitty things he has said, tweeted, and done (allegedly, albeit allegations consistent with many of the things he has said and tweeted), the fact is that Trump has no such shame in his persona, and won’t resign unless he could be convinced that it would up his ratings with his supporters, a group of people who are so convinced that everything that Trump does is golden that they would happily volunteer to be shot by Trump on Fifth Avenue just to prove him right. These are the people who have ruined the wearing of red hats by Cincinnati baseball fans and convivial middle aged women for the foreseeable future which is at least as much of an outrage as some juvenile tweet attack on an opposition senator, and may well actually invoke more lasting public sentiment against Trump than the Asshole Tweet Of The Day Award that Trump accepts with the same sense of pride as Paul Verhoeven collecting a Razzie.
The daily news story should be about Trump’s dangerous foreign policy gaffs (if you can call insult naming a foreign leader or rejecting a handshake from a leading ally in Europe a ‘policy’) to the continuing development of gross malfeasence of everybody around him in secretly meeting and not disclosing contacts with Russian officials and business interests with ties to Putin. In other words, the story should be about Stupid Watergate. “It’s like Watergate, but done by people who are stupid and bad at everything.”
He may not have been conscious of meaning it that way, but only because he means *everything *that way. I’m not sure he went out of his way to be sexist with this one.
The sense I’m getting is that the insult itself is pretty neutral but since it’s Trump people are spinning it as sexual.
ISTM that Trump has a tendency to insult people with everything he can think of. But in particular to claim that people who he dislikes previously came to him begging for something (money, endorsement, jobs etc.) and are now turning on him. This has mostly been directed at men in the past (Schumer, Corker, Comey etc. etc. etc.) and I think Gillibrand is just another on that list.
‘Anything’ doesn’t have to be sexual. It could be worse. There’s no good side of such a statement.
Trump has been projecting a lot lately, saying the media deliberately publishes lies, something arguable about the media while absolutely true about him. It’s Trump who has a record of doing ‘anything’ for money. He calls people liars and crooks, again arguable on a case by case basis, but clear that he is a monumental liar and crook.
BTW, since no one has addressed this: what the hell is with this pre-emptive attack on women? This “women politicians just call everything sexist because they can dish it out but can’t take it” kneejerk well-poisoning is a lot more offensive than Trump’s generic nonsense.
Frankly, I’m getting pretty sick of people taking something Trump said or did and saying, “Well, it’s possible he DIDN’T mean it the way it sounds.” There’s zero evidence that Trump puts a lot of thought into his responses, Tweeted or otherwise, so the idea he consciously chooses ambivalent wording is a bit of a stretch. Whatever his conscious intent was, and whether it’s “blood coming out of her wherever” or “would do anything for money,” Trump’s responses show a pattern of disturbing, sexist attitudes.
As to whether this is minor stuff compared to foreign affairs, I’d argue otherwise, first because the treatment of women is a critically important issue, too, women constituting half the population of the planet and all, and second because we are looking at a pattern of behavior that indicates the person who’s bungling foreign affairs has such distorted views of women that it indicates his ability to gauge other people’s intents and interests, key components of foreign policy, is severely compromised.
It’s a childish and offensive tweet. I don’t think discussing whether or not it was intended to have sexual undertones or not is a useful activity. Nor the fact that Trump appears to be one of the poor souls who think putting quotes around words for emphasis is correct usage.
The important issue is that the president is a crybaby and unable to respond to anything without attempting to insult them.
I don’t know. I have a very vague recollection that he may have said something along those lines about Schumer, but I can’t find it (google turns up a zillion references to the latest tweet). I was mainly responding to iiandyiiii’s statement about the “begging”, which is a term Trump has used many times, as mentioned. I think the “anything for money” is a standard political jab, as per the OP.
