‘That woman is such a bad person, let me tell you how bad. She came into my office begging me for money and told me she’d do “anything” for it.’
Unambiguously about sex. What else makes it an insult? What else could he mean?
Yes, he insults everyone, and that isn’t news. But it’s also 100% clear that he’s calling her a whore, while also saying [subtext]heh, heh, the whore wants my cock.
I’m such a stud[/subtext].
And, to respond to adaher, when people call politicians “whores” in common parlance it has a very different meaning than the usage in this statement by the president.
The President of the United States made a public statement in which he clearly and directly accused a member of Congress of offering him sexual favors for money.
Context matters, F-P. In your rush to defend Trump, you neglect to mention that Gillibrand is leading a group of Senators calling for an investigation into Trump’s voluminous accusers and, in fact, just yesterday called for the Dotard to resign.
And the reason they do this is because accepting money from special interests, or pandering to superPACs to support them is the way candidates fund the multimillion dollar media campaigns necessary to get elected, a fact that Trump used to his advantage as a political donor and real estate huckster and promotional mogul to benefit his businesses. If you were genuinely upset about how badly broken campaign finance is you’d be agitating for campaign finance reform rather than prevaricating about the appropriateness of Trump’s comment.
Like a Bond villain somehow caught in a urolagniac porn movie. In the final showdown between Donald Goldtrumpster and a bumbling dispsomaniac British spy fighting each other with urine-filled SuperSoakers, the reprobate creeper is betrayed by Melania and then sucked down into a Florida sinkhole, never to be seen again. Putin throttles his long haired white cat and vows vengence against spymaster Barack Obama for once again foiling his plans.
Also consider that three other senators also said at the same time that Trump should resign, but Trump hasn’t attacked any of them. It could be that Trump picked one randomly, or he attacked the only female senator telling him to resign.
If I knew nothing about Trump I might give his statement the benefit of the doubt, but knowing his history I see no reason to give him that now.
There’s also a third possibility, which you’ve omitted.
Trump is from NY, as is Sen Gillibrand. It’s likely he’s most focused on Gillibrand for this reason alone, but beyond that, and considering Trump’s history it’s quite possible that she did in fact (successfully?) attempt to raise money from him at some point in the past.
You’re still giving him far too much credit. Not only does he not deliberately select ambiguous language, he doesn’t comment to get people to pay attention to him. He’s already found that if he just says whatever obnoxious, simplistic garbage comes into his mind (what there is of it), people pay lots of attention. Someone who’s as egotistical as he does is apt to think that’s because he’s hit upon yet another great truth.
You’d think performing verbal acrobatics to spin Trump’s phrasing into something less damaging would get exhausting for his defenders and that eventually, it’d occur to them that someone whose phrasing needs rationalization so often might, in fact, actually BE an offensive jerk. Apparently not.
The part that’s hard to understand is your first sentence. Because everything else you’ve written is very much in line with what I’ve been saying here.
No, it’s not. It’s line with what you’ve been doing, not what you’ve been saying. You are performing acrobatics to spin Trump’s clearly sexist remark into something banal. You have failed to acknowledge that the odious, simplistic version is most likely to be the true one. You keep contorting yourself to find some way to argue that Trump’s tweet meant something other than the obvious.
Well that’s all fine with me, and I’ll stand by everything I’ve said in this thread, denunciations by people like yourself notwithstanding.
What I do object to is the attempts to twist my words into something that they’re not, understandable as that urge may be for those who have nothing else to offer. And nothing I’ve said in this thread in any way implies that Trump does not say “whatever obnoxious, simplistic garbage comes into his mind” (to the contrary, I’ve repeatedly said that this typifies his approach), or that Trump is not “an offensive jerk”.
I was referring to your statement that he has a tendency to say things in order to garner attention. I have no doubt he wallows in the attention, but I don’t think he has the ability to determine what the most attention-getting tweet might be. That would entail even a mild ability to analyze, and he lacks that. If I misunderstood your intention, my apologies.
Indeed. He’s an ass, but anyone that thinks he’s across-the-board incompetent is massively misunderstanding him. He’s a goddamned genius at PR and demagoguery, and one of his favorite techniques, used OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER in the past two years, is this smirking, shrugging, “What, me? Naw, I wouldn’t say that” happy slappy bullshit. From “second amendment remedies” to “out of her whatever” to the things he said about protesters as they were led from his rallies, he loves the ambiguous innuendo, where he can pretend he’s being nice while all his chucklefuck followers snort and giggle at his wit.
What we need() is a computerized record of all Trump’s tweets and other vomitings and to make a Concordance. (-“Need” as in: I need to keep banging my head since it feels so good when I stop.)
One hit I did get was @realDonaldTrump
Who wouldn’t take Kate’s picture and make lots of money is she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on Kate!
implying that he, DJT, while perhaps not doing “anything” for money, would surreptitiously photograph Kate Middleton’s breasts for profit.
Yes, the on-going tragedy of this “President” is too huge for a sexual slur to add or detract. Recall just a few days ago when the White House was unable to answer when asked “Does POTUS support banning Muslims from serving in Congress?”
This one seems to have pushed USA Today over the edge.
They just published a scathing piece attributed to their editorial board.
Will Trump’s lows ever hit rock bottom?
“Obama and Bush both failed in many ways. They broke promises and told untruths, but the basic decency of either man was never in doubt. Trump, on the other hand, is uniquely awful. His sickening behavior is corrosive to the enterprise of a shared governance based on common values and the consent of the governed.”
That’s my favorite part, bu there’s other really strong stuff about him not being fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine Bush’s shoes.
And this isn’t some progressive outlet or the Trump-hating Daily News. This is USA Today.