• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

USA Today op-ed: will Trump ever hit rock bottom

Trump knows he doesn't have to call her a whore outright because he can merely imply to give himself some deniability cover and then his willing dupes all across the world buy into and provide more cover him. Good job, gang.

He didn't imply it. People are reading into it. As noted above, the exact same quote could and pretty much has been said by Trump about men, and then it wasn't taken as being sexual.
Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.
 
The thing is, Trump used very common and general language in his tweet

But how do you know that was really Trump? I mean I want to see his vocal and facial expressions matched with his choice of words before I judge that he actually delivered this tweet personally and it wasn't just fake news.

See what I did there?
Since I'm the one who posted it, did you see what I did up there? I didn't say that these were actually typed by Trump, that is also why I mentioned that I can't vouch for this archive either, especially when they seem to be about 4,000 tweets short from what is calculated on his Twitter account, yet his real Twitter page is listed as verified by Twitter, and Trump doesn't deny them, so as long as folks print out exactly what is written, we should be able to freely talk about them.
 
... the exact same quote could and pretty much has been said by Trump about men, and then it wasn't taken as being sexual.

I don't believe you. Let's see it - link, please. And it needs to "pretty much" say "come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them),"

@realdonaldtrump said:

As you guys said, "do anything" includes having sex for money. So he is implying Jeb and Cruz will have sex for money. Oh wait, they're men, so he must not be.

@realdonaldtrump said:

This one is a disgusting image. It's obviously a lie. If he said this about a woman, everyone would say it was misogynistic, but since it's a man, no one notices it.
 
I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.
People have been falling for his ploys ever since the beginning, and he may have supposedly low approval ratings at the moment, but I think he is still going to make certain there is another term in his future.
 
Since I'm the one who posted it, did you see what I did up there?

Well who is to say you actually posted it?

If there isn't video of you posting it where I can examine your body language, then it isn't really you posting.
 
Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.

It's politically expedient for Gillibrand's detractors to claim he didn't. :shrug:
 
Since I'm the one who posted it, did you see what I did up there?

Well who is to say you actually posted it?

If there isn't video of you posting it where I can examine your body language, then it isn't really you posting.
You make this so easy.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.

It's politically expedient for Gillibrand's detractors to claim he didn't. :shrug:
I was waiting around for someone to comment on this also.
 
It was a figure of speech. But yes, democrats would do anything for donation money, even asking Trump.
 
Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I will criticize those I agree with when they do wrong and defend those who I oppose when they are wronged. It saddens me to see that more and more people won't.
 
Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.

It's politically expedient for Gillibrand's detractors to claim he didn't. :shrug:

It's also important to those of us for whom words have actual established meaning.

Including words like decency, honesty, integrity, honor.
 
... the exact same quote could and pretty much has been said by Trump about men, and then it wasn't taken as being sexual.

I don't believe you. Let's see it - link, please. And it needs to "pretty much" say "come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them),"

@realdonaldtrump said:

As you guys said, "do anything" includes having sex for money. So he is implying Jeb and Cruz will have sex for money. Oh wait, they're men, so he must not be.

@realdonaldtrump said:

This one is a disgusting image. It's obviously a lie. If he said this about a woman, everyone would say it was misogynistic, but since it's a man, no one notices it.

What a person intends is meaningless. How their message is received is everything.
In my mind and I believe in the minds of many, people will read the comment, "He will do anything for money." as he will humiliate himself, grovel, beg. Whereas the comment, "She will do anything for money." primarily carries a sexual connotation. This is the immediate public reaction. This is the society we live in. Days later, upon reflection, public opinion may shift but trump does not care. Days later, he'll be on to something else and so will we.
trump may not understand much but he understands the media. He meant exactly what the media picked up on. His comments are intentional and conveys the message he wants. He wants only to remain the center of attention. He's that nasty little boy picking his nose in the school cafeteria.
 
@realdonaldtrump said:

As you guys said, "do anything" includes having sex for money. So he is implying Jeb and Cruz will have sex for money. Oh wait, they're men, so he must not be.

@realdonaldtrump said:

This one is a disgusting image. It's obviously a lie. If he said this about a woman, everyone would say it was misogynistic, but since it's a man, no one notices it.

What a person intends is meaningless. How their message is received is everything.
Sure, for a mob mentality.
In my mind and I believe in the minds of many, people will read the comment, "He will do anything for money." as he will humiliate himself, grovel, beg. Whereas the comment, "She will do anything for money." primarily carries a sexual connotation. This is the immediate public reaction. This is the society we live in.
Yeah, based mainly on sexism.
Days later, upon reflection, public opinion may shift but trump does not care.
Oh, he does care, and that is why he wants to manipulate public opinion, but so do many other people in conflict with Trump.
 
Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.

These statements don't happen in a vacuum. In our society, saying certain things about a woman carries certain implications.

A man like Trump with Trump's attitudes about women is not going to be unaware of that. He knew damn well what he was implying, and Trump's defenders know damn well what they are denying.
 
Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.

These statements don't happen in a vacuum. In our society, saying certain things about a woman carries certain implications.
And depending on these certain things, as said above, it is mostly because of sexism.

A man like Trump with Trump's attitudes about women is not going to be unaware of that. He knew damn well what he was implying,
I would think so.
and Trump's defenders know damn well what they are denying.
Sure, some of them.
 
Well, I'm also not implying that you're a water carrying stooge for a self proclaimed (we do have that one video) sexual harrasser who backed an alleged (with lots of consistent allegations) child molester, but you know, I'll let everyone else make their own opinion. That's how it works right? Since I totally didn't say it directly, it's cool.

Also, I know I'm relatively new to this forum, but there are several people in this claiming to hate having to defend the trumpster fire, yet they are pretty consistent about it. Kinda makes it seem like you don't hate it so much as you hate having to admit that you still support such a horrible human being, but you don't want to say that part out loud....

I truly detest Trump. He's given me and the world plenty of reasons. He implied that Gillibrand is the sort of person who would do anything to get what she wants. I can see why some people would think that he was implying a willingness on her part to perform sex acts. I see even bigger reasons why many are crying that he attacked her honor and called her a whore.

Those are not the same thing. I don't think he called her a whore. I think it is politically expedient for Gillibrand and her supporters to claim he did, that it is obviously what he meant. I think it's pretty cynical, false outrage being used to stir what Gillibrand hopes is her base. I think Trump is laughing his head off on his golden toilet. Who honestly doesn't think if he meant to say that she was a (literal) whore, he would have used even clearer language. As far as her being a political whore? I think he has a great point. As far as I can see, that's exactly what she is.

I realize he sits in the oval office but honestly, why give him that much attention?

Surely there are better things to be concerned about.

These statements don't happen in a vacuum. In our society, saying certain things about a woman carries certain implications.

A man like Trump with Trump's attitudes about women is not going to be unaware of that. He knew damn well what he was implying, and Trump's defenders know damn well what they are denying.

Oh, I totally agree that Trump is not beyond implying that a woman offered sexual favors in return for compensation. But I believe that he would be much more direct than he was. He lacks the mental capacity to use anything approaching subtlety.

Even if someone else wrote the tweet (which is not impossible and given that he didn't outright call her a whore, there's a greater than 5% chance someone else wrote or edited it), don't you think the real point of that tweet was to manufacture outrage and to distract the population from the real horrors that are being committed right now, every single minute since that Jabba the Hut creature stepped into office?


I also think that there are more than one kind of whore. I don't think that Gillibrand is the kind that would exchange sexual favors for compensation of any kind from Trump. But I do think she's a kind of whore. Just not the sex kind.

Also, if we women are going to be women and not dainty little girls who need to be protected, the correct response of a person innocent of any of the implications in Trump's tweet about Gillibrand would be derisive laughter and a long, hard stare. If she cannot command herself well enough to convey such, she does not deserve her office.

Seriously, women cannot simultaneously assert their equal status with men and also claim special status that 'every one knows that Trump meant sex because that's what it means when we talk about women doing 'anything.' I don't mean that and frankly, no one I know means that, even some pretty awful people I am acquainted with.

The way to assert your equality is to behave as though you are equal, not like you must be protected from every inferred insult tossed your direction. FFS, she's in politics. On the national level! I mean, if she called Trump a cocksucker in return, no one would think she meant he actually performed the act of fellatio on Putin. We all know he does metaphorically and don't need to say it out loud.

Would twitter shut down an account if someone called Trump a cocksucker? Would they get a special visit from the Secret Service?

Asking for a friend....
 
Last edited:
These statements don't happen in a vacuum. In our society, saying certain things about a woman carries certain implications.

A man like Trump with Trump's attitudes about women is not going to be unaware of that. He knew damn well what he was implying, and Trump's defenders know damn well what they are denying.

Oh, I totally agree that Trump is not beyond implying that a woman offered sexual favors in return for compensation. But I believe that he would be much more direct than he was. He lacks the mental capacity to use anything approaching subtlety.

Even if someone else wrote the tweet (which is not impossible and given that he didn't outright call her a whore, there's a greater than 5% chance someone else wrote or edited it), don't you think the real point of that tweet was to manufacture outrage and to distract the population from the real horrors that are being committed right now, every single minute since that Jabba the Hut creature stepped into office?


I also think that there are more than one kind of whore. I don't think that Gillibrand is the kind that would exchange sexual favors for compensation of any kind from Trump. But I do think she's a kind of whore. Just not the sex kind.
She is a politician. Yeah, she rode a wave of political capital on this, but Trump was being Trump.
 
Back
Top Bottom