Lately? This is Trump’s modus operandi: accusing others of behaviors and actions he himself has engaged in. This is nothing new, and in fact it is all part of the “always hit back” strategy he (or at least, his ghostwriter) outlines in The Art of the Deal. And this is why those responses should be ignored, or at least relegated to the back page; because they really say nothing to the state of mind or intent of Trump, and don’t reflect any genuine thought or strategy. Trump isn’t playing five dimensional chess, he’s playing one dimensional Chutes & Ladders, and his actions and verifible misbehavior are far more important than what ever random, dypeptic old man rant he shits out on Twitter.
It’s a deliberate attempt by the o.p. by placing the burden of “misunderstanding” the message on Gillibrand rather than acknowledging that regardless of whether it was intended as a sexaul innuendo or not it was still grossly inappropriate behavior for a sitting president, or indeed, an adult human being in the public sphere, to engage in and smacks of pure narcissism in suggesting that the “Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand” had subjugated herself to him in “begging” for money. Trump is trying to make himself look big and Gillibrand small, and the o.p. is trying to make Gillibrand look petty and Trump woefully maligned. The reality is, of course, that women in every profession have to toe a careful line to be assertive enough to be heard without being labelled “ballbusters” or “shrews” while men—and I used that term in only the broadest sense—like Trump or Harvey Weinstein can bluster and bully with virtual impunity.
This must be why women dominate our government, and over-represent compared to their demographics by such a large amount. Similar to how being black is such an advantage for presidential candidates – which is why we’ve had so many black presidents of middling to low political talent and ability.
How does this statement look if, instead of “[Politician] would do anything for money - sexual?”, you write it “[Woman] would do anything for money - sexual?” Considering his misogynistic proclivities, I see no reason to assume Trump was characterizing her as a politician as opposed to a woman. He didn’t respond to similar calls for his resignation from Sens. Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, or Cory Booker.
Trump actually did say that Romney would drop to his knees for a donation.
As for Gillibrand, she represents everything that’s wrong with politics and I’m sure she would do anything political to get a donation from a big money donor.
I don’t know about money in particular, but she’s previously been accused of opportunism WRT the harassment campaign specifically. See the WP article linked in the OP. (I believe Trump was alluding to that at the end of his tweet.)
By “everything that’s wrong with politics” you mean a politically moderate Democrat with a history of pro bono support for abused women and children, and supporting disadvantaged tenants against negligent landlords? Or that she’s an uppity woman who doesn’t know her place?
And if you are such a critic of big money donors supporting politicians for personal and business gain, where is your reflection of Trump in having been one of those very donors, having given over $630k to Republican politicians since 2011 and $175k to various politicians of both parties for a couple of decades before?
As Kevin Drum pointed out today, getting everybody to argue about whether this was sexual or not may well have been Trump’s goal – because it means People Are Talking About Trump. There is no such thing as good or bad press to this particular narcissist; there are only good and bad ratings.
(There is no way of knowing for sure whether Drum and I are right by parsing Trump’s tweet, which is also part of the fucking point: you have to leave room for plausible deniability when you stoke controversy this way. An interesting thought experiment is imagining how much it would matter if Trump took it further [“on her knees”] or just went ahead and said “yeah, she blew me for cash.”)
I find the notion that Trump is capable of nuanced and calculated tactical thinking of this sort to be completely bizarre.
ETA: I can buy that he tries to keep himself in the news (though I think it’s more likely he’s just impulsive). But that he carefully selects his words and assesses the likely interpretations in selecting ambiguous language? Ridiculous.
you’re selling Trump short. He’s a fucking idiot, but he’s very good at getting people to pay attention to him.
That doesn’t require calculated thinking, either – decades of Pavlovian reinforcement from the media would do the trick. (My cat knows that knocking my glasses off the nightstand will wake me up to feed her – that doesn’t make her thinking nuanced, calculated, or tactical.
Edit on seeing F-P’s edit: You don’t think Trump has learned that he can’t say certain things by now?
He may be a lazy ignoramus, but he’s at least as capable of learning as my cat, who knows that she can’t remain within arm’s length when she tries to wake me up – or I’ll grab her, clasp her to my chest, pull the blanket over her, and go back to sleep.
Trump says, Kristen Gillibrand is “someone who would come to my office ‘begging’ for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them)”.
I think a person would have to work pretty hard not to hear what Trump is implying. But maybe not as hard as a person would have to work to convince oneself that Trump mocking a disabled reporter on video is just Donald innocently flapping his hands like a flustered person.
Trump knows how to get people to pay attention to him in the manner of idiots all over, by saying something outrageous.
I was referring to the notion that he deliberately selects ambiguous language, such that people fall to arguing about what he meant. That’s well beyond him, IMO.
It doesn’t seem to me that Trump has learned anything of any sort.
It’s not beyond him at all. He’s gotten in trouble for being too explicit before – I’m sure the Access Hollywood tape coming out was a long dark day or so of the soul for him. He’s capable of getting close to the electric fence now that he’s been shocked a few dozen times.
Mmmm, I think that if Trump had lost the election and hadn’t faced constant negative reinforcement of his excesses he’d be behaving far worse. Don’t you?
I’m not trying to say he’s a Svengali – even Steve Bannon, Trump’s Svengali, is no Svengali. But he’s at least as capable of modifying his behavior based on consequences as my cat (who I suspect is inbred).
Gillibrand is respected just fine, other than the fact that she’s a political chameleon who was a Blue Dog in the House and a progressive in the Senate. And if there’s one thing Trump hasn’t lied about, it’s how politicians grovel to get to that money.
I didn’t mean to imply that she’s uniquely corrupt, only that she’s a pretty run of the mill politician who excels only in flip flopping.
Given that calling politicians “whores” is pretty mainstream I’m not sure what’s supposed to be so offensive about calling one particular politician a whore. Especially since Trump has said the same about male politicians:
Making it personal always makes it more offensive.
And in fact, I think I’m going to need you to cite some examples of other Presidents publicly calling Senators, whores, before I agree that it’s “mainstream”.
But even if you can find other examples, I don’t think you’ll be able to explain why that makes it inoffensive.
Calling men by derogatory names that are usually thrown at women, is still sexism.
How does Donald using a sexist insult against Mitt Romney absolve him from sexism when he uses the same insult against Kristen Gillibrand?