Trump Calls Female Senator "Used" In Provocative Tweet

[Beastman09]

Trump-bots:

• What about Hillary?
• It didn't happen
• He didn't mean it

Skipped straight to the last page. Did I cover all of their "excuses"?

 

[djacobox372]

Oh for Christ sake

I hate the guy but it has no sexual connotations. It's still a demeaning and childish quote but let's not put a spin on this that isn't there.

Are you sure, what else would he mean by "USED?" That's not a typical trump insult, he usually ends with "sad" or "small" or something like that.

And the whole "would to anything for them" comment is suspect as well.

I'd say there's about a 90% chance that he meant to be sexually shaming, not definitive but a much better chance than these two statements in the same sentence being a coincidence.

 

[dfoster]

TS has been USED

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Meh... The military is right leaning. They are not the ones to go to for objective stats on anything really.

Besides we need our forces downsized

that's all fine, but would you agree that a women that is either in the military or a spouse of the military is voting in their own interests by voting for the Right?

in much the same manner that poor people voting left are voting for their own interests?

 

[zebby23]

that's all fine, but would you agree that a women that is either in the military or a spouse of the military is voting in their own interests by voting for the Right?

in much the same manner that poor people voting left are voting for their own interests?

No I would not agree with your first assertion or your 2nd lol. Poor people (many on the right) vote republican because they are uninformed and only vote on 1 or 2 issues and those are usually religious based. I doubt a high percentage of people place military at the top of the issues when they go to vote. I would also say they also have a higher chance of going to war by voting Republican so I would again say they are uninformed and voting against their interests.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

No I would not agree with your first assertion or your 2nd lol. Poor people (many on the right) vote republican because they are uninformed and only vote on 1 or 2 issues and those are usually religious based. I doubt a high percentage of people place military at the top of the issues when they go to vote. I would also say they also have a higher chance of going to war by voting Republican so I would again say they are uninformed and voting against their interests.

but they'd have a job, a pay raise, and likely chance at promotion by having a larger force overall.....which apparently nobody here is thinking about. People that join know, especially in the GWOT era, that they likely will deploy anyway so that's completely irrelevant w/o a draft IMO

So if a poor person voting right is automatically uninformed in your eyes, clearly voting left is in their best interest then? So I have no clue how you can not agree w/ that pt as you essentially made it also

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

You're not laughing, you're butthurt about me mopping the floor with you on a topic you thought would be an easy win. We both know it. The more you bring it up, the more obvious it is.

....you seriously don't get it do you? LOL.

No you're right. You totally mopped the floor with me when you admitted to believing in bigfoot. That time you argued there was evidence of bigfoot was such a victory for you. The way you totally proved bigfoot exists was really smart, and not something I still laugh at to this day....

But you can keep pretending all you'd like. Shit amuses me, although it's a bit annoying having you tug on my pant leg, like a child in need of attention, every thread you see me in. I'm going to have to pay you no mind soon enough, for your own good.

Yeah... you seem amused. The part where you tell me you're annoyed before going on and on really shows just how much fun you're having.

Spoiler

Is this a gif or something you take as verifiable proof of bigfoot? Hard to tell with your standards.

My post:



Your response:



Clearly you failed to comprehend my post, given your response claiming "No. That's not how it works."

Except that it is, with regards to impeachment, which is what my conversation with @zebby23 led to (which evidently you weren't properly following, probably because you're still butthurt about the Bigfoot thing).

If it's just trash talking on twitter, as I specified in my post, you'll have to live with it until the end of his term. Now STFU and kick rocks, for you own good. My rent-free existence in your head is hurting your ability to follow threads and comprehend posts.

So exactly like I said, you can't quote it because I never said it. Telling me why you stupidly misinterpreted it isn't a defense of your point, it's simply explaining why you can't follow a discussion.

I'm not zebby. Responding to me as if I was simply continuing his discussion with you is basically telling me you can't read.

So let's try again: why do you feel anything a president does has to be accepted for 4 years? Why is there no standard a president should be held to while in office? Why should we accept the leader of our nation acting like an incompetent child? Why is a discussion on the matter either "impeach him or ignore it"?

Don't worry about trying to answer those questions, I know you're completely incapable of it. Maybe one day I can find some type of "presidential behavior" plaster-casting of George Washington's footprint so you can become a firm believer....




...you believe in bigfoot.... and want to be taken seriously.... oh my stomach.....

 

[Grenz]

Societally I feel it should be a maybe.

For me, it's a firm no fucks given.

So, let's just say he is right though?

Or anyone in his position for that matter.

What would the actual problem be?

Let's say an employee gets fired for stealing. He's caught on camera. Does the employer now have a right to out them on social media as a thief?

And not to get sidetracked from that question, please explain to me what standard most national politicians hold themselves to? Aside from the fact that some are more polished than others? And go ahead and explain to me what exactly holding these politicians accountable looks like.

A higher standard than this, at least in public.

You can only hold someone accountable if you have power over the situation or if they actually care enough to be held accountable.

Aside from the once-in-a-lifetime impeachment which literally did nothing, and the extremely rare recall vote, the bar for holding powerful politicians accountable is posting something on Twitter or Facebook. They are insulated and they don't care.

And call me crazy but I don't think you'll be changing that anytime soon.

It's not about accountability, it's about the fact that at this point, a tweet like that from Trump is simply par for the course. The bar has been effectively lowered to the point where we don't expect the president to represent any sort of aspirational behaviour, instead applauding the fact that he's just "saying what everyone is thinking". Except it's not everyone, because a lot of Americans don't think the things Trump says, or condone airing all your dirty laundry and grievances on twitter.

 

[Trotsky]

is your last paragraph a serious question?

there were laws and rules implemented in the Weimar and post Republic Germany, they literally burned the Reichstag down less than a month in power, suspended civil liberties for large portions of the populace and did it all w/ the help of the military and paramilitary organizations...

As to your first post, can you illustrate for me examples of Fascist rulers that HAVEN'T used their military to gain more power or navigate around checks and balances?

So, you are proffering that fascism is defined not by ideology, or lack thereof, but completely by reliance on military force?

So that would mean you're just another person who thinks that fascism/communism are simply just authoritarianism.

As to your request, most fascist parties faced armed revolts and then had to deploy the military. Given that we haven't had an armed revolt, that's really not an issue. There is nothing in fascist ideology that demands complete control over the military in the domestic sphere.

That's not to say there is an exclusive list of checks that make a person fascistic. But generally ultra-nationalism, martial rhetoric, scapegoating, ultra-privatization, populist appeals to and economic organization around moral traditionalism, contempt for free press and due process, and affirmatively non-distinct and short-term economic philosophy could be considered an ample checking off of necessary components. And Trump satisfies all, certainly. He doesn't need to commandeer the military to qualify (not that he likely ever could with his unpopularity).

 

[oldshadow]

Why the hell does do anything mean sex. They use the same term about men also.

It means make any deal they can but sex, the old you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, deal making.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

Also: Was it provocative when basically said the same thing about Mitt Romney?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

So, you are proffering that fascism is defined not by ideology, or lack thereof, but completely by reliance on military force?

So that would mean you're just another person who thinks that fascism/communism are simply just authoritarianism.

As to your request, most fascist parties faced armed revolts and then had to deploy the military. Given that we haven't had an armed revolt, that's really not an issue. There is nothing in fascist ideology that demands complete control over the military in the domestic sphere.

That's not to say there is an exclusive list of checks that make a person fascistic. But generally ultra-nationalism, martial rhetoric, scapegoating, ultra-privatization, populist appeals to and economic organization around moral traditionalism, contempt for free press and due process, and affirmatively non-distinct and short-term economic philosophy could be considered an ample checking off of necessary components. And Trump satisfies all, certainly. He doesn't need to commandeer the military to qualify (not that he likely ever could with his unpopularity).

trump has shown zero 'martial rhetoric' qualities whatsoever

and in fact his naming of Mattis to SecDef pretty obviously means he's mostly hands off in that spectrum

which would make him literally the only fascist in history like that AFAIK

 

[BearGrounds]

....you seriously don't get it do you? LOL.

No you're right. You totally mopped the floor with me when you admitted to believing in bigfoot. That time you argued there was evidence of bigfoot was such a victory for you. The way you totally proved bigfoot exists was really smart, and not something I still laugh at to this day....



Yeah... you seem amused. The part where you tell me you're annoyed before going on and on really shows just how much fun you're having.





Is this a gif or something you take as verifiable proof of bigfoot? Hard to tell with your standards.

You were obviously put to shame, hence your everlasting butthurt. Deal with it.

So exactly like I said, you can't quote it because I never said it. Telling me why you stupidly misinterpreted it isn't a defense of your point, it's simply explaining why you can't follow a discussion.

I'm not zebby. Responding to me as if I was simply continuing his discussion with you is basically telling me you can't read.

So let's try again: why do you feel anything a president does has to be accepted for 4 years? Why is there no standard a president should be held to while in office? Why should we accept the leader of our nation acting like an incompetent child? Why is a discussion on the matter either "impeach him or ignore it"?

Don't worry about trying to answer those questions, I know you're completely incapable of it. Maybe one day I can find some type of "presidential behavior" plaster-casting of George Washington's footprint so you can become a firm believer....




...you believe in bigfoot.... and want to be taken seriously.... oh my stomach.....

Derp. I was responding to Zebby, and my post was directly related to the conversation we were having. Like a typical child you apparently think you can walk into a conversation already taking place, and divert it however you want, with complete disregard for how it was being conducted. Not surprising lol.

Nevertheless, I wrote "If it's just trash talking other politicians on twitter?". Apparently you cannot process that sentence. This doesn't mean anything he does, it means his trash talk on twitter specifically.

Now, I'm done with you. Good luck getting to sleep tonight without thinking about me in an utterly ruslted state.

Spoiler

Lmao.

 

[Spoken]

I find Trump deplorable and most defenses thin... but I read this as her being a puppet. Too much outrage over this kind of shit, imo.

 

[Trotsky]

trump has shown zero 'martial rhetoric' qualities whatsoever

Are you kidding?

Search "Trump law and order." Or pardoning Joe Arpaio for violating the constitutional rights of citizens by racial profiling. Or the promises to get tough on crime. Or bring the federal government into Chicago to tackle street crime. Or to relax rules of engagement and oversight in local policing bodies. Or "lock her up." Or seeking to relax detention limitations on undocumented immigrant suspects. Or calling on police to crack down on protesters exercising the right to speech. Or threatening to jail journalists.


Come on, kid.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

8 years of Slick Willy and Obama say otherwise. The bases being closed during their tenures and not W, his Dad or Trumps say otherwise. The downsizing of the forces under both last Democratic Presidents says otherwise....

Not like people here actually worked for the government under both administrations and can notice the clear and stark difference in support.

oh wait

There are too many bases and far too much money spent on the military in general.

 

[irish_thug]

Stay classy Trump

Stay?

 

[Throttlehead]

Also: Was it provocative when basically said the same thing about Mitt Romney?

Not sure what the point was of posting that pic, but here are more pointless ones.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Are you kidding?

Search "Trump law and order." Or pardoning Joe Arpaio for violating the constitutional rights of citizens by racial profiling. Or the promises to get tough on crime. Or bring the federal government into Chicago to tackle street crime. Or to relax rules of engagement and oversight in local policing bodies. Or "lock her up." Or seeking to relax detention limitations on undocumented immigrant suspects. Or calling on police to crack down on protesters exercising the right to speech. Or threatening to jail journalists.


Come on, kid.

i'm not kidding you just live in a delusional fantasy land where words are actions.....

any charges against Hilary?......
Chicago police force was clearly not handling the Southside properly, not sure what you're getting at there
It's not free speech to commit violence, that's not cracking down on free speech (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)

 

[kpt018]

I think the tweet is too stupidly written to interpret one way or another, but I totally get why people think it's sexist. It's just that it may not be.

Flinging personal insults at political opponents is what Trump does.

In the meantime, Rs are close to a super regressive tax plan that will also deliver a blow to healthcare. Priorities bitches.