But this morning it all fell apart when the latest Trump Tweet popped up on the tv, as TBG switched from ESPN TO MSNBC:
Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!(and would do anything for them)
Innuendo. Insinuation. Backhanded dismissal. The sexual connotations were clear even to my sleepy eyes.
(and would do anything for them)
She's hardly a lightweight. Has he just noticed that she's in the ring fighting against Trump (when did he start referring to himself in the third person?) ? She's been all over the news for weeks. Is he standing up for his fellow predator, WJC? Doesn't Hilary deserve her entire sobriquet?
(and would do anything for them)
I tried all those other responses to the tweet, but I couldn't get past the filthy underpinnings.
This is not how polite people converse. This is throwing mud and seeing where it sticks. This is demeaning the office of the presidency. This is so DJT.
(and would do anything for them)
He and Roy Moore should take a boys trip somewhere together...... far far away from the rest of us.
I am so over this guy.
It would be interesting how many took that tweet the way you say you did. It never even donned on me that it was what he meant as he says it about a lot of them-- that they'd do anything for donations-- meaning vote the way he wanted, etc. I heard right away though the pundits and other female leaders coming out claiming it was sexual. We really are a divided nation, I guess as it would never have dawned on me that he'd claim she'd do that for him. I am naive, I guess.
ReplyDeletebtw, I don't support Trump or like all he does but I am so over the attacks with one goal in mind to hamstring him along with our nation. I am disgusted with the democrats and republicans with no real hope that things will get better as the media is bound to continue with a new barrage of the same women who spoke against him before the election. It's like chickens who smell blood and just start pecking except this isn't winning on issues or speaking responsibly about what we should do. It's all at the lowest denominator and maybe with what a lot of people apparently watch on TV and read, maybe that's where we are. Very sad other than at least Moore didn't get in-- total nutcase and without the sexual allegations, he would have. Just think about what that man stands for and he was within 21,000 votes of being a Senator. To me he was bad enough without the last thing that I can't imagine voting for such a man given his beliefs. He's always been creepy and yet he could have been a Senator except for the women coming forth. And I wonder if they hadn't claimed molestation, if just wanting to date them at 14 would have been enough...
The tweet sickened me and we ALL know what he meant. Interesting how he didn't attack the male Senators who asked him to resign. He's afraid of strong women. Every day, I think he cannot go any lower, and he does. I'm so sick of him. I want him out of office today!
ReplyDeleteSending hugs.
Megan xxx
(and would do anything for them} has been code for providing sex for as long as I can remember. To say otherwise is just disingenuous. It was nice this morning to wake up to some not terrible political news for once. It's unfortunate that they will pass that tax bill that benefits the rich before Jones is seated in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteIt's on record that he's made the same insult to Cruz and Romney. What did he mean then? I took it as insulting since to do anything, the way I took it, would mean vote for any bill, give you some special access or bill. I wonder what changes how we see its meaning.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that he had a crude reference in mind with both Cruz and Romney, too. It's how he thinks a tough guy would talk. Y'know, *locker room talk*. He's a crass New Yorker, Rain, nothing more, nothing less. Filth is his native tongue. The fact that USA Today, America's newspaper, called him out today in terms he can clearly understand, underscores my point.
Deletea/b
what I found interesting in this is the difference in how people took that sentence. I get it that others think it's what he meant. I just didn't think that he'd imply he wanted oral sex from the men either. I am now wondering more why we would see it differently. Does it go to our life experiences or how we see the one saying it?
DeleteIf say Obama had said -- she said she'd do anything for me when asking for money, would you have assumed that's what he had meant?
Discussing it yesterday with my son, he said he thought it also was what Trump meant. I guess I thought Killibrand was in a professional position, very attractive woman, of course, but that he would not consider her someone to get sex from... And I've never heard that he liked sex with men to think he meant it with the men.
What interests me is not what he meant. It's why we as people reading it jump to either conclusion. Is it our background? What we've experienced? What we already think about the person saying it?
Of course, the reason it interests me is doubtless because I write and am always looking at motives. I just think it's ironic that I, who write romances with sex, still would never think that was what someone meant unless more went with it. Trump may have purposely said it that way knowing he'd infuriate some and he does like doing that.