No doubt.
There’s a pretty big overlap between those who play these games and those who fail to understand posts. Because it’s all a game anyway.
Kind of ties in to the final paragraph of the OP.
If you’re saying Trump’s troubles are largely of his own making, no disagreement at all. But that said, when looked at as a matter of factual assessment, ISTM unlikely that he meant anything sexual.
I don’t think there’s a “real question” as opposed to any other question. I agree that getting rid of people like Trump is more important than deciding what he meant in this or any other instance. But this discussion doesn’t preclude other discussions about the evils of Trump - there’s plenty of room for that alongside.
We can’t read his mind and thus this is all speculation. But it seems entirely reasonable to me that, for a man with a long history of making sexualized and misogynistic insults against women, we can consider that it’s quite likely that a new and possibly ambiguous insult may have had a sexualized or misogynistic intent. Impossible to be sure. But likely? For Trump? Yes, obviously.
At best, that would require a very strange and very artificially restrictive definition of what “factual assessment” means. It would require the kind of assessment that completely disregards a person’s prior behavior and record of reprehensible but intentionally ambiguous innuendoes directed against women by a known misogynist. It would require such an assessment carried to a ridiculously benevolent extreme. And even then it stretches credulity. Why on earth would you look at the statement in such artificial isolation devoid of past history and make such unrealistic assumptions about a vile offensive misogynist?
My point is slightly different than this. I’m saying it doesn’t really matter what he meant, since it’s obvious his intent was to personally attack a senator. He has a pattern of saying things that can be taken in all kinds of awful ways, and lo and behold, it has happened again. Perhaps if everyone could deny him any wriggle room for his conveniently ambiguous venom, he would have less incentive than speak like this.
To be clear, I believe he knew exactly what he was tweeting when he put “begging” in quotes and added that wholly unnecessary parenthetical. This plus the context make his meaning borderline explicit. He threw in Bill because obviously this skank would’ve slept with him too; why else would he make that reach? To just say Dems help each other out and…what? Nah, doesn’t pass smell test.
Because… (bolding mine)
Which states:
Which seems to imply that women’s equality will only truly and finally be achieved when they no longer get upset when you call them whores. BTW, slut-shaming should in no way be interpreted as a misogynistic attack.
Yes, he is the master of subtext and subtlety.
He may be calling Gillibrand a whore but ISTM he is calling all politicians whores.
(post shortened)
Ol’ Billy Clinton was known/proven to be very willing to help many women. Dems helping Dems.
I addressed this earlier. Trump was responding to Gillibrand calling for him to resign. Gillibrand recently said that Bill Clinton too should have resigned. She was criticized for having benefited from the Clintons’ money and connections etc. when it was convenient for her and turning on them when public sentiment changed. (See the article linked in the OP.)
The reference to disloyalty to Bill & Hillary seems to be a clear reference to that. Trump was saying that Gillibrand turned on him after begging for his money, and then said that she had done the same to the Clintons.
I guess if that’s what you want to see, then that’s what you’re going to see.
Gillibrand is just more Democrat candidate/officeholder who was more than willing to request/seek/beg Trump for money. The same can be said about Republican candidates/officeholders. Candidates/officeholders will do/say/promise anything for a contribution.
If Senator Gillibrand wishes to claim that Trump was referring to Gillibrand the woman, instead of to Gillibrand the money-grubbing politician, she’s free to do so. Convincing everyone else that that is what actually happened will be the hard part.
It would have been enough to call Gillibrand a hypocrite. But not for Trump. He had to throw in a misogynistic slur.
Help me out with something. What is the relevance? Is Trump trying to imply that because he donated to her campaign in the past, she’s beholden to him in some way? Like, its wrong for her to raise concerns about his sexual conduct because he helped her in the past?
I ask because if I didn’t know any better, I would infer Trump is attacking Sen. Gillibrand because she took money from him and yet refuses to go easy on him. She refuses to be the “flunkie” he feels she should be.
Do you agree this is a valid reason for attacking a sitting senator?
Senator Gillibrand, a politician and a woman, attacked Trump. That’s politics. Trump returned the favor. That’s politics. Politics ain’t Tiddlywinks (a child’s game). Do you have any personal knowledge of what Senator Gillibrand, a politician and a woman, is willing to do for a campaign contribution, or for a personal endorsement?
I assume that she wasn’t willing to fuck trump for money. I will continue to believe that in,ens someone alphas evidence to the contrary. Impliying that about her was the lowest form of attack. Even the conservative USA Today agrees
I don’t understand what relevance money has in any of this, unless Trump is calling her a worthless (“lightweight”) whore or a politician who has the temerity to stand on principle rather than kiss up to him for his previous donations.
This isn’t politics as usual. Most charitable explanation is that Trump expects influence in exchange for donations, which is about as an antithetical to draining swamps as you can get. But his defenders are too busy denying he meant anything sexual to see this. Lol.
Trump has always been pretty upfront about the fact that his political donations were intended to buy influence. Among other things, he needed to explain to Republican voters why he gave so much money to Democrats. See e.g. Trump On Donating To Democrats: As A Business Person, "You're Gonna Need Things From Everybody"
I don’t think that contradicts his claim that he wants to drain the swamp. He wasn’t in a position to drain the swamp when he was a private citizen making those donations, and he did business the way business was done.
Which is not to say that I personally think Trump is going to drain the swamp (or even try to). But if you happen to be someone who does buy into that claim, then I don’t see anything which contradicts that in his own donations and recent comments.
So again I ask, what is being being implied about her asking for money from him? Is it inherently bad for politicians to request campaign donations from rich people? Of course not; that is how fundraising works. You’re saying he isn’t implying Gillibrand literally prostituted herself to him. So what does that leave?
So what if the donations happened while he was a private citizen? He’s lording them over her head now, as if to say she’s has no business coming after him when he helped fund her into office.
What do you think he meant with his insult if you disagree with me?
He meant that she’s an unprincipled opportunist, who toadied up to him for his money when she needed it, and now adopted a pious stance about his transgressions because that suits her better at this time.
Not to endorse this (among other reasons: as above, Trump has a habit of claiming that people were “begging” him for things when the evidence would suggest the opposite if anything), but that’s what he was saying, IMO.
Considering his history of sexualized and misogynistic insults, why do you think it’s so unlikely that he actually meant “she’s a whore”? Or do you think either conclusion could be roughly equally likely?
Well, you have to take into context how he’s talked about this kind of stuff before. He used more overtly sexual language towards Mitt Romney, and with the Clintons he claimed that he was basically their boss because they’d go wherever he told them for a donation.
It’s not hard to see why Trump would think he’s better than these people and in this one case it’s hard for me to argue with him. Politicians do in fact exhibit whorish behavior.