I’m seeing a lot of this on a left-leaning board that is mostly women.
No, folks, he didn’t act that way because he was debating a woman. He was acting that way because that’s how he treats everybody.
MHO and YMMV, of course.
uuuurrrrgghhhh
I’ll stay on this board for a while.
What board?
I don’t see any reason to assume it couldn’t have been, at least in part, because she’s a woman. He is a sexist, and it’s not like sexism just shuts off.
I personally think the first thing he said, about wanting her to be “very happy” when he called her “Secretary Clinton” was condescending at a level he didn’t use against male candidates.
I’m going through a list of sexist things he supposedly did. That was #1, of course. #2 is shaky, as he did mansplain about the war, but, as I’ve said many times, that word is shitty, and I have no reason he wouldn’t use that argument on anyone else.
Yeah, #3 is probably sexist. He’s talking about how she doesn’t have a “presidential look.” And it’s hard to believe someone who has actually gone to these other countries would have that experience completely devalued if she weren’t a woman. And the health scare thing has hints of sexism in it, too. One by itself might be fine, but putting it all together, and the “stamina” thing seems sexist.
I don’t buy that it’s sexist to attack her for preparing for the debate (#4). That’s just classic playing your opponent’s strengths as a weakness. He’s playing on the idea that she’s overly rehearsed. I could see him doing the same to Rubio.
Agreeing that everything is Clinton’s fault (#5) may have something to do with sexism in the general populace, but I’m pretty sure he’s just playing the meme there. He already will blame everyone else for his mistakes.
The comment about how he can’t say something because it “wouldn’t be nice” (#6) does seem like something he would never do against a male candidate. And when you find out what it is he didn’t say (#7), it makes even more sense. The thing he avoided doing, likely because his handlers told him not to, was to bring up her husbands sexual escapades. Seeing as those would equally apply to him, it seems he’s devaluing her as a woman.
So, there you go. About half of that article I agreed with, and half I didn’t. Donald Trump is sexist. He sees his own daughter as a sexual object, for fuck’s sake. So, I have no problem believing there was sexism in what he did.
**“Trump acted that way at the debate because he was debating a woman.”
An opinion which I could only believe from someone who hadn’t seen any of the Republican primary debates.
**
Yeah, he’s pretty much an equal-opportunity asshole. Which is not to say he isn’t also sexist.
Quick clarification on what is meant by “that way.”
There was a lot going on in Trump’s debate performance. Which part of whatever that was on that stage are they claiming was in reaction to Hillary’s gender?
Oh, OK.
I thought he debated that way because he was an ignorant egotistical coke-head suit still trying to relive the glory days of his Bright Lights and his Big City.
Thank You!
Wrong
Well, not exactly; wasn’t Giuliani’s explanation that Trump would’ve said Hillary is too stupid to be president – because, upon hearing about Bill’s latest sexual escapades, she didn’t believe it? I guess I could imagine Trump likewise attacking a guy’s intellect, if he likewise believed his cheating wife was faithful – but that wouldn’t apply to Trump, if he doesn’t have a false belief about his spouse’s fidelity.
I totally agree. He interrupts because he’s a jerk. He threatens to talk about Bill Clinton’s infidelity, and “doesn’t have the look” of a president because he’s a sexist. It’s both.
He didn’t seem to have a problem interrupting the moderator either, but certainly there was much about his presentation that smacked to me of sexism.
Maybe he was acting so twitchy because he was afraid of losing to a girl, hat tip to Elizabeth Warren’s trolling tweets.
I dunno, it would be hard for him to be more condescending than he was to Jeb and Rubio. I think this was a reference to how he always calls her Crooked Hillary in his rallies. He’s a gentleman now, you see.
The “look” thing was textbook, though.
The “Is that okay? I wan’t you to be happy” thing is the condescending sort of thing you say to an uppity liberal speech cop. Oh, I don’t want to use the wrong word. You liberals get so upset. Something like that.
I think the claim is true but misses the point. Trump debated Hillary like any other man would, which includes pedestrian everyday sexism like condescension, interrupting, and mansplaining. The interesting is that for Trump, this probably required heroic restraint and the apparent administration of some sort of nasally-administered calming agent.
I think the difference here is that Trump talks to other men that way too.
Trump treats everyone like shit. Women, he treats like shit that has holes in it where he likes to stick his penis.
I actually think she’s able to get under his skin better by being a woman. He doesn’t value women, and the idea that a woman has the audacity to challenge him gets on his nerves.
Several other people on that board pointed this out.
Personally, I’m waiting for Trump to tackle HRC on Bill’s affairs, as he’s threatened to do. He can’t be that stupid, right?
“Well, Donald, I’ve been married to a very successful Rhodes Scholar for forty-one years and we’ve learned a few things in that time. But I can see how three marriages, so far, to two immigrant supermodels and an actress, all with detailed prenups and one with adulterous involvement, would give you insight into what makes a marriage ride out difficulties.”
How would a hypothetical Trump-Sanders debate have gone?
I’ll guess Sanders would have lost his temper. Who would have ended up looking like the winner?