I can understand the argument based on Trump’s perceived history. But this type of categorical statement seems off-base to me.
For example, you might say, “when people say that someone is a whore or a prostitute, it means sex.” But, in my life, it’s not uncommon to refer to expert witnesses as “whores” (a google search even reveals academic literature discussing the perception that expert witnesses are “whores” or “prostitutes”). In fact, when I say that expert witnesses are whores, everyone understands that I mean that they are unprincipled hacks who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. No one thinks that I mean that, in addition to providing helpful unbiased expert opinion for the trier of fact, they give me sex for money.
I would apply the same view to the claim that a politician or a lawyer would “do anything for money.” It suggests that they are unscrupulous or unprincipled. But I wouldn’t immediately think sex.
Now, if the argument is that when Trump says it, it’s probably sexual based on his history and that he is intentionally using ambiguous language to provide deniability, then I’m not sure I agree but I understand it. And, if the argument is that female experts, politicians and lawyers are inoculated from this type of accusation because of their gender, then I think that’s what F-P was complaining about (rightly or wrongly). But I disagree with the categorical assertion.
So do you think Trump is saying Gillibrand is only demanding he resign because someone is paying her? You have to make this assumption for your interpretation to fit the context, and the problem is that it would be a unnecessarily complicated assumption.
Gillibrand is a Dem, Trump is a Rep. Forget that he’s been accused of sexual assault, which is a objectively valid reason to request an official to resign. Why would you assume a Dem is being paid to oppose you, when political difference is sufficient?
The simplest explanation is that Trump was actually calling her a whore. You know, just like all the women accusing him. They “let” him grab them in the past, but now they want to cry foul.
It’s all contextual, (as UltraVires so helpfully pointed out, “anything” can in fact mean “anything”).
But an ‘everyman’ saying “politicians are whores/would do anything for money” is a very different sentence than a powerful man saying “she came into my office begging and said she would do anything for money.” Because he’s the powerful one. He needs nothing from her; the only thing she has to offer is sex.
Bu the point is that Trump was not an “everyman”, nor was Gillibrand just some ordinary woman in his office.
If you’re a big businessman and the woman in your office asking for money is a congresswoman or Senator, there’s quite a lot that she can do for you other than sex. And that’s what would typically be intended.
I think that the non-whore explanation is fairly straightforward, and it’s not a question of her being paid to criticize Trump.
The allegation is that she will say anything and turn on you if she finds it politically expedient (perhaps, somewhat similar to the allegation that a lawyer will do anything for money). Specifically, the idea seems to be that, after soliciting politician donations from Trump with the promise of favorable (sexual?) treatment, she has now turned on him.
He also notes that she has become disloyal to the Clintons; likely referencing Gillibrand’s recent statement that Bill Clinton should have resigned which is seen as a betrayal in light of perceived alliance (sexual?) between Gillibrand and the Clintons (including related to the fact that Gillibrand assumed Clinton’s seat).
Now, having concluded that Schumer is the better ally for her political ambitions, she’s turned on Trump and Clinton and she can’t be trusted. (Something about an honest politician being one that, once bought, stays bought… which isn’t a slavery reference).
That’s a longer explanation to write than “she’s a whore”, but it accounts for all of the words in the tweet (I think) and I find it straightforward. (I find it ineffective, because I’m not sure Trump wants to align himself with Bill Clinton when it comes to accusations of sexual misconduct, at least not in the eyes of his supporters.)
I don’t think he’s an ‘everyman’; I think you misunderstood that part of my post. The point there was that when an ‘everyman’ says ‘the powerful person will do anything’, then “anything” might mean a whole number of unscrupulous things in order to retain and amass more power.
This is the opposite. He paints her as desperate (“begging”). Trump is the Man In Charge, and this woman comes in begging for money; begging the Powerful Trump to help her. In Trump’s own words, he’s the one with power, not the Senator.
So, while you’re correct in one sense, that she might have had more to offer him, as Senator, than her vagina, Trump himself paints her as worthless, powerless, and desperate; what could this “lightweight flunky” have that was any interest to him other than that? Nothing.
Except when they turn on you. Then they are disloyal whores. And that’s what IS typically intended when “do anything” accusations are leveled at an opponent.
Exactly. That’s all the more reason why it’s a mistake to assign too much literal meaning to his words.
E.g. asserting that since he called her a “lightweight flunky” that means he was denying that she had any political power to offer, such that she had to be offering sex. That’s silly.
Right, this is the only interpretation that fits other than the “she’s a worthless whore” one. And it makes Trump look almost as bad because it shows he thinks money entitles him to special treatment from her.
On one hand, you’re saying he’s accusing her of being “an unprincipled opportunist”, but what you posted above is not that. It’s closer to “slave that is stepping out of line and needs to be reminded of who owns her”.
Yup you get it. Either he’s calling her his political slave or his actual whore; both attacks say something scary about the man.
So there’s some context about Trump and women; family members, media, politicians, and sycophants alike. So, please, tell me what other context I’m missing. Or maybe make an argument that the fairly obvious and on-the-surface context I described below is not a reasonable interpretation of language or of the narrator’s [Trump’s] intent. But you have a pretty large hill to climb and “you’re taking it too literally” is not going to get you there.
I’m not impressed with a long list of objectionable things Trump has said (even assuming they’re all accurate and not missing context). Trump has said a lot of obnoxious things over the years. That doesn’t mean that every thing Trump says about any woman ever has a sexual connotation.
As previous, the notion that since Trump called her a “lightweight flunky” that means he was denying that she had any political power to offer, such that she had to be offering sex is far from “obvious and on-the-surface”, it’s silly.
We know he thinks that political donations get you special treatment. Back in 2015, he explained that he gave politicians money because “when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” (People here will explain that this obviously meant he had sex with Hillary Clinton, but another possible interpretation is that he was talking about buying political access and influence). Many people, at least on the populist right and populist left, also seem to believe that this is how it works as well. And this was a common theme of the Trump campaign, how his knowledge of the swamp would allow him to drain it. So, there’s nothing new here.
The “slave” rhetoric seems overblown to me and I don’t think anything to suggest that he’s claiming he owns her (he’s saying she was disloyal to the Clintons).
I don’t think Trump should be given “the benefit of the doubt” on this or anything else. But the non-sexual interpretation of this particular remark is more likely correct.
This is context. You said context matters. So, what’s your context? Isn’t this a debate? Do you have a defense of your position other than “nothing you guys say matters, because it’s not relevant”? Explain how none of Trump’s history of relating to and speaking about women is not context for interpreting the meaning of a public statement about a woman.
You’ve got to be joking. What does calling someone a “lightweight” mean other than “someone without much clout”? Is that too literal? Tell me, contextually, what “lightweight” means. Don’t be literal; feel free to interpret it however you wish.