Context of the remark he was making.
No, it most likely meant someone who does not have deeply thought out and firmly held convictions.
It most definitely does not mean someone without enough clout to help out a businessman. That’s silly, to the point that I don’t anticipate discussing it further.
You keep insisting that yours is the “more likely correct” interpretation while hand-waving away the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. IOW, you’re right because you say you’re right and your OP is your cite.
Indeed.
This is itself just handwaving. There’s no “evidence” to the contrary that I’ve not addressed. (Can’t say the same for you.)
Gosh, what could a U.S. Senator, or a possible/future U.S. Senator, offer a big bucks possible-campaign-contributor in exchange for a contribution? You jump to the conclusion that Gillibrand can only offer sex in exchange for a contribution. It seems to me that you are implying that Gillibrand could only be good for one thing. :eek:
I expect a Senator, male and female, to offer easier access to the Senator’s staff, if not to the Senator himself/herself, in order to discuss future legislation concerns. I expect private/select/personal/public invitations to be extended in order to boost the prestige and power of both of the parties involved. I expect Senators to offer future favors in exchange for campaign contribution. I don’t jump to the conclusion that Senators are performing, or offering to perform, sexual favors in exchange for contributions. But I do recommend that women wear a blue dress when visiting the Clinton library. 
So you think “Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand” means “Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who doesn’t have deeply thought out and firmly held convictions.”
My interpretation is literally the definition of the word. You “don’t anticipate discussing it further”? Go suck a candy cane.
No, I get it. It’s Barmy-town.
I’m guessing you are also going to see only what you want to see.
And lest someone worry that I’ve forgotten what forum I’m in, I’m just wishing you a pleasant, pepperminty/sugary holiday time. Because, the context is that it’s almost Christmas, and so let’s take these words literally, but also contextually, but not all the context, because some of that context doesn’t count.
The relevance of money? The relevance of money in regards to a campaign contribution? Seriously?
Politicians of both major parties seek out extremely rich people in order to ask/cajole/beg for a campaign contribution. Trump was just one of a large number of well-to-do businessmen/businesswomen/businesspeople who qualified as an easy touch on the political money-grubbing circuit. The Clintons begged for money, Gillibrand begged for money, Republicans begged for money. SSDD.
Personally, I’m under the impression that U.S. Gillibrand could offer many things in exchange for a campaign contribution. The larger the contribution, the larger her offer could be. I’m not the one jumping to the conclusion that Gillibrand is only good for one thing.
cherry-picking.
By asserting that the non-sexual interpretation of this particular remark is more likely, you are indeed giving him the benefit of the doubt.
If you’re making excuses for Trump, odds are there’s someone in your family making excuses for YOU.
This is right on the line simply because I’m unsure exactly how you meant it. Don’t do it again, in any form.
Wait, are we accepting actual definitions or not? You said:
I was just rebutting your argument that it “most definitely did not” mean what I suggested it meant.
It turns out, surprise surprise, that my usage absolutely is a meaning, and a very common one.
Also:
“poll-driven” and “lightweight” are not synonyms. You have injected your own “does not have firmly held convictions” part of the definition, but it’s not supported by either your dictionary or your usage cite.
And this is, of course, one word in this statement, and not necessarily the most important part.
But I can’t even understand what point you’re trying to make, or what arguments you’re using to support it. People are taking him too literally, which I guess means they’re reading the true meaning of the words, but without context. But also at the same time they’re using the wrong meaning of the words. We shouldn’t give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but we should use the precise pieces of context that ignore his history and habits of speech and confrontation in order to draw the conclusion that he meant nothing sexual/gendered by his comments, while other contextual information is not relevant and likely fabricated.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with your conclusion, but your ability to hold a coherent argument, or support your position here is non-existent.
Heard loud and clear.
To assert that lightweight can mean lacking influence is trivial. To assert that someone who describes a US senator as a lightweight means that they have no ability to help a businessman with political clout or anything other than sex is what’s silly.
Not synonyms. But with the same theme in that sentence.
That’s possible. I don’t know that I can help you. Not going to try, anyway.
Do you not see those as the same thing? “Lacking influence” and “powerless”?
Just forget it. It’s all good.