In what way is Trump better than any of these people? I’ve never heard anyone (other than Trump) say Trump is better than anyone in any way.
I don’t agree that he has a history of misogynistic insults (he has made fun of the appearance of certain women, which is not the same thing).
But even if he has, Trump has a history of every type of insult. You can’t single out any one particular type and claim that represents his typical MO. If anything, claiming politicians are unprincipled and duplicitous lightweights is more his MO than sexual insults.
And the former is also more in line with the context of what he was actually saying in this instance. He was commenting on her political stance in this instance and saying that her political stances were based on her self-interest.
When he says that about Romney, he means beg. If he said that about a female politician, it would take on a different meaning. (Unless you something about Romney that I don’t.)
I think that’s exactly what Trump was implying about Romney. (I.e., blowjob). Trump is about as vulgar as anyone you’d ever meet.
Which is why I never go to Dopefests.
Even this interpretation provides a disturbing look into his mind, right? Nevermind the fact that his transgressions didn’t become public knowledge until after he entered politics, so there is nothing inconsistent in being ok with him in the past but being concerned about him now. What stands out (if we go with this theory) is that he’s attacking her character simply for her asking for and accepting money from him years ago. After all, she’s not alone in calling for his resignation.
To “toady up to him” implies he thought she kissed his ass, promising things to him. For what in exchange? For money. If he saw through this toady act, then he wouldn’t have given her money right? So apparently, he fell for the toady act and now complaining about her “opportunistic” ways as soon as she comes against him. That’s not how donations are supposed to work though. They don’t buy you silence when you do unethical things. That is what he is implying with this tweet, aside from the desperate whore slut thing he’s also communicating.
I see your interpretation as only marginally better than being misogynistic, as it shows how he uses money to control people.
F-P, this is what you posted in the OP:
How in the hell is “would do anything for money” a logical response to her calling for him to resign? Where you argument falls down is in failing to show how this trope is supposed to be a meaningful retort.
No he’s not; but inasmuch as you can be a “master” of smirking juvenile innuendo while pretending in a patently false way to be innocent, he’s a “master” of that art. Fucker does it all the time.
I regularly hear kids mutter something like “Stupid!” after an argument with another kid. If I confront them about it, they say, “I was talking to myself!” as if that is ever, EVER an excuse that an adult has ever believed*. But they do it because they know I can’t prove otherwise, and they think that without proof I’m powerless to draw conclusions about what they were doing.
This situation is very similar. No, I have no proof what he meant. But when a smirking jackass who specializes in smirking innuendo says something that sounds like smirking innuendo, his quacks sound like quacks.
- Don’t quibble with me. I know when a kid is talking about herself vs. another kid.
In what world can someone mistake Trump for a master of subtlety and subtext? I thought the sarcasm would be obvious but I guess not.
He’s playing four dimensional chess, don’tcha know.
I’m surprised the headline isn’t “Trump accuses Gillebrand of child sex slavery for money!” because, see, he said she would do “anything” for money, and selling children as sex slaves is certainly a “thing” then Trump clearly meant to accuse her of that.
Saying that someone would do anything for money, or in Romney’s case, get down on his knees, is a statement that can have sexual implications or it may not. If you dislike Trump, then you are going to take the statement in the worst possible light even though there is no evidence he meant it in that fashion.
Your sarcasm was as subtle as a Donald Trump tweet. I was disagreeing with your overall point, sarcasm included.
What I think is relevant about this story is not that he called her A whore, he implied that she was HIS whore. He described a scenario where she was submissive to him. It’s a common tactic of his and a disturbing glimpse into his psyche.
And all too often these submissive encounters happen only in Trumps deranged imagination. His feud with his former friends Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinski is an example. He did not like the way he was being covered on the show. So he got the National Enquirer (via his buddy David Pecker ) to research an “expose”on them. Reporters stalked them and harassed their families. The a Trump staffer called Joe and told him that Trump would make a call and kill the story if Joe would call Trump and grovel. Joe told him to pound sand. Joe and Mia warned their families and exes. The story ran but as Joe and Mika had announced their engagement before, it was sort of a nothing story. No one much cared.
But when Trump tells the story, Joe called him and groveled and Trump refused to budge. His had to create a version where Joe was submissive to him.
In the real world, Trump invited James Comey to dinner and asked him to spike the Flynn investigation. Comey didn’t play ball and was fired. But in the alternate Trump reality, James Comey called Trump, asked him for a private dinner and begged to keep his job. He had to create the submission scenario again.
I certainly don’t think our Tangerine Twitler is some genius carefully crafting ambiguous statements. I think it happens on a subconscious level…some of his twitter posts just flew from the oversized reptilian part of his brain to his fingers with nary a stop at his almost atrophied cerebral cortex. So they’re just oozing with sadism and misogyny.
Yes, he does it to men he doesn’t like as well. Because it’s not about sex with him, it’s all about power. That’s why the pussy-grabbing comment was so disturbing. I honestly don’t think he really grabs strange women by the crotch or sticks his tongue down their throats without asking. But I promise that every time he meets a woman, he’s thinking “I could grab her pussy and she’d let me do it. I could kiss her without asking and she’d let me do it.” Which is why his interactions with May and Merkel look so awkward. But I think a little spark from what’s left of his cerebral cortex manages to stop the impulse to grab to preserve the overarching fantasy.
I do believe he’s guilty of multiple acts of sexual abuse but most of them involve him using his power and position to peep on women or publicly grab, kiss or fondle them. They have to submit to them because he’s Trump and theyre in that dressing room or up on stage with him.
Because if Trump gives your campaign $5000 once in his eyes he owns you. And if you ever act against his wishes he’ll come after you. Based on Trumps history I wouldn’t be surprised if he sent KG an unsolicited contribution then called her asking for a favor, like legislation that would let him build a casino on an Indian burial ground or something. And he got pissed when she said no. And concocted his Trump reality tale about her begging for money.
I have a question for Trump supporters that are also parents. Would you put up with your 8 year old behaving like Trump? If your 8 year old said his teacher would do anything for money, would you defend him? When he gets caught doing something really horrible and tattles on his sister as his defense, do you go after his sister and forget what he did?
My random polling of 9 women had the following result:
“If a man says you would ‘do anything’ for money, is he making a sexual reference?”
Yes: 8
No, followed by “oh, you mean if a man says it? Then ‘yes’.”: 1
Don’t have to make note of the fact that those defending this behavior… or at least those dismissing the sexual nature of it… are all men.
How is this even a question? Of course it’s sexual
Is he also claiming she would sell her children into slavery for money, because, that is “anything.”
I’m just picturing Trump’s growing frustration if everyone in America decided to interpret everything he says in the most positive possible light. He’d be insisting that he IS a tough guy, he IS! He really DID mean to insult that person, but getting only kind gentle nods and pats on the shoulder for his efforts. There there, Mister President, it’s time for your nap.
Ex facie? Not at all.
Within context of the maker; very likely to have at least a sexual element. No doubt KellyAnn managed to snatch the phone away from him before he could write “and she’s a 6. 7, tops”
No one but you is arguing about the dictionary definition of “anything.”
Or do you think “she offered to buy me lunch” is also an equally likely meaning, since that is “anything”?
No, because that’s not how people talk. When they say someone is willing to “do anything” for money it means sex. I don’t know if posters here are pretending not to know that or really do not know that.