What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Donald Trump for President thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hey I've seen the man and I wouldn't let him drive a scooter. I may write in, and we always have a host of oddballs on the ballot here, but I will more likely at least try and pretend like I am voting for president. Having said that I think there's a shot LA goes blue.

eta - Thinking about this some more, I may get a couple beers or take a couple shots of something before I go vote, I may need to be buzzed to do this.
Click to expand...
Ray Nagin? 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Good link. The author of the article I quoted provided this one, but yours works just as well. They are both examples of lots of boorish statements by Trump.
Click to expand...
"There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her."

You don't find this sexist?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Good link. The author provided this one, but yours works just as well. They are both examples of lots of boorish statements by Trump.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but I would say "you have to treat them like ####" goes beyond boorishness. Hard to get more obviously misogynistic than that.

In any event I think it's mostly semantics.  Misogyny or sexism might have a more narrow dictionary definition, but people use them more broadly in conversation to mean objectifying women in a cruel way that wouldn't see with men (like for example when publicly humiliated the Miss Universe winner who put on some weight).

Same thing happens with the word racism- some Trump lackey tried to defend him after the Curiel comments by pointing out that "Mexican" is not a race, which is 100% true, but still pretty clearly misses the point. I don't know that it's a problem with accuracy so much as it's just colloquial vs literary use of certain words.

 
dparker713 said:
"There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her."

You don't find this sexist?




 
Click to expand...
I think it's sexist insofar as it inaccurately presumes that, in any given marriage, a man will have more income or wealth than a woman, so that a prenup always protects the man rather than the woman. I can't tell without more context whether he really thinks that's always the case. He might not. He might say that when the woman has more income or wealth, the roles would be reversed -- in which case his position would be merely boorish rather than sexist. (One might argue that it's sexist to presume that the man will generally have more income or wealth even just the majority of the time, rather than all the time. But I don't think that saying accurate things is sexist. For example, I don't think it's sexist to say that men are taller than women, on average. I don't know what year that quote was from, but if it was from the 1980s, for example, it would have been uncontroversial, as a matter of observing empirical data, that men usually had more income and wealth than women. It might not be true anymore -- I don't know.)

To call something boorish (or offensive, or inappropriate, or stupid) is not to defend it, by the way.

 
Trump, merely boorish and offensive to women or openly sexist and misogynist? Yesterday must have been a slow day for him offending new groups of people to allow for this insightful distinction to be drawn. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think it's sexist insofar as it inaccurately presumes that, in any given marriage, a man will have more income or wealth than a woman, so that a prenup always protects the man rather than the woman. I can't tell without more context whether he really thinks that's always the case. He might not. He might say that when the woman has more income or wealth, the roles would be reversed -- in which case his position would be merely boorish rather than sexist. (One might argue that it's sexist to presume that the man will generally have more income or wealth even just the majority of the time, rather than all the time. But I don't think that saying accurate things is sexist. For example, I don't think it's sexist to say that men are taller than women, on average. I don't know what year that quote was from, but if it was from the 1980s, for example, it would have been uncontroversial, as a matter of observing empirical data, that men usually had more income and wealth than women. It might not be true anymore -- I don't know.)

To call something boorish (or offensive, or inappropriate, or stupid) is not to defend it, by the way.
Click to expand...
I think you're really grasping at straws here.  He's continually judging people based upon their gender.  For instance: "I know you’re a woman in a man’s world. And while men tend to be better than women, a good woman is better than 10 good men.”  I really don't think there's any real doubt that he's sexist, he just sometimes has more positive pre-conceptions.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
(If you're going to bring up "objectification," then at least you have some sort of theory for how this tenuously connects, but it doesn't really apply to the Megyn Kelly thing, and anyway, this.)
Click to expand...
But the point is, there is absolutely zero wrong with objectifying someone. There is a lot wrong with ignoring other people’s right not to consent. But we knew ignoring non-consent was bad already. All the concept of “objectification” adds is giving you an excuse to hate innocent people because they’re in the vague periphery of a bad thing. Screw that.
Click to expand...
First of all yeah you did have the link right, sorry about that, it seemed like a whole other piece to me for some reason.

However I cannot understand what that sublink has to do with Megyn Kelly. The author just blows by the Kelly incident and then ignores the Fields incident.

In my mind the Kelly and Fields incidents were indeed misogynistic. Trump made Kelly out to be hysterical, judgemental, overreactive, and conniving. He made Fields out to be a liar, even a threat, and a serial career victim and abuse-claimer.

I think in both instances he created a sense of hostility towards these successful, smart, beautiful, professional women who dared challenge him based on their stereotypically suggested female characteristics. His minions came out of the woodwork and from under the logpile to actually physically threaten and intimidate them. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in politics or even private life and it was shocking to see it happen during a US presidential campaign.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago

"@VoteTrumpMAGA: The media attack on @realDonaldTrump is relentless. They are desperate. But, they keep #Trump in the news - a good thing.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but not all publicity is good publicity. Dominating each news cycle by making outrageous statements worked against multiple primary opponents, but now as we approach the general election, it is starting to be counter productive (see Judge Curiel and reaction to his response to the Orlando massacre).
 
TobiasFunke said:
I see your point, but I would say "you have to treat them like ####" goes beyond boorishness. Hard to get more obviously misogynistic than that.

In any event I think it's mostly semantics.  Misogyny or sexism might have a more narrow dictionary definition, but people use them more broadly in conversation to mean objectifying women in a cruel way that wouldn't see with men (like for example when publicly humiliated the Miss Universe winner who put on some weight).

Same thing happens with the word racism- some Trump lackey tried to defend him after the Curiel comments by pointing out that "Mexican" is not a race, which is 100% true, but still pretty clearly misses the point. I don't know that it's a problem with accuracy so much as it's just colloquial vs literary use of certain words.




 




 
Click to expand...
"You have to treat them like ####" seems pretty clearly misogynistic. (I'm not sure of the context, but it's challenging to think of a context that would rescue it.) That's not the quote, however, that journalists have typically used to support their contention that Trump is a mysogynist. They've used other quotes instead -- ones that really signal boorishness rather than misogyny.

This is the Trump thread, so I quoted the part of the original article that pertains to Trump. But the point of the article was not that Trump has never, in his life, said anything mysogynistic. The point was that journalists tend to get stuff wrong when, instead of taking a candidate's statement at face value, they try to read between the lines and impute motives or sentiments that aren't in the words themselves. With Cruz's "New York values" statement, they imputed antisemitism to a statement that was merely anti-elitist. (Cruz's explicitly pro-Isreal positions and voting record don't signal antisemitism.) With Trump's "coming out of her -- wherever," they imputed sexism to a statement that was merely boorish. (Trump's history in business doesn't signal any bias against women, and his stated positions on what are traditionally considered women's issues are rather progressive for a Republican.) And it can go in the other direction as well. With Hitler's statements from the 1920s, they imputed mere political ambition and calculation to statements that were really, on their face, literally antisemitic. In all of those cases, they'd have done better to take the candidate's stated positions at face value rather than to try to read between the lines and impute real, deep-down, secret positions contrary to their openly stated positions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago

"@VoteTrumpMAGA: The media attack on @realDonaldTrump is relentless. They are desperate. But, they keep #Trump in the news - a good thing.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but not all publicity is good publicity. Dominating each news cycle by making outrageous statements worked against multiple primary opponents, but now as we approach the general election, it is starting to be counter productive (see Judge Curiel and reaction to his response to the Orlando massacre).
Click to expand...
Well there it is, he just came out and said it. People have speculated that's his approach, that's it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's time for Republicans to be patriots. That convention and how they vote is going to be a permanent stain or gold mark on their lifetime record depending on what they do there.
Click to expand...
Yes. I think Trump is easily the most beatable candidate possible, and there's no one the Republicans are likely to come up with who I would support over a more progressive candidate. But I think even Trump's nomination transcends normal politics. I'd rather see Trump dropped by Republicans, even if it makes it more likely that my preferred options lose Nov. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
With Cruz's "New York values" statement, they imputed antisemitism to a statement that was merely anti-elitist. (Cruz's explicitly pro-Isreal positions and voting record don't signal antisemitism.) 
Click to expand...
Sorry, but as a non-Jew that grew up in the NYC area, it sure as hell sounded anti-semitic to me, regardless of his intent.  

 
dparker713 said:
Sorry, but as a non-Jew that grew up in the NYC area, it sure as hell sounded anti-semitic to me, regardless of his intent.  
Click to expand...
From the article:

Back during the primary, Ted Cruz said he was against "New York values."

A chump might figure that, being a Texan whose base is in the South and Midwest, he was making the usual condemnation of coastal elites and arugula-eating liberals that every other Republican has made before him, maybe with a special nod to the fact that his two most relevant opponents, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, were both from New York.

But sophisticated people immediately detected this as an "anti-Semitic dog whistle," e.g., Cruz's secret way of saying he hated Jews. Because, you see, there are many Jews in New York. By the clever strategem of using words that had nothing to do with Jews or hatred, he was able to effectively communicate his Jew-hatred to other anti-Semites without anyone else picking up on it.

Except of course the entire media, which seized upon it as a single mass. New York values is coded anti-Semitism. New York values is a classic anti-Semitic slur. New York values is an anti-Semitic comment. New York values is an anti-Semitic code word. New York values gets called out as anti-Semitism. My favorite is this article whose headline claims that Ted Cruz "confirmed" that he meant his New York values comment to refer to Jews; the "confirmation" turned out to be that he referred to Donald Trump as having "chutzpah." It takes a lot of word-I-am-apparently-not-allowed-to-say to frame that as a "confirmation."

Meanwhile, back in Realityville (population: 6), Ted Cruz was attending synagogue services at his campaign tour, talking about his deep love and respect for Judaism, and getting described as "a hero" in many parts of the Orthodox Jewish community for his stance that "if you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you."

But he once said "New York values," so clearly all of this was just really really deep cover for his anti-Semitism.




1




6
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
"You have to treat them like ####" seems pretty clearly misogynistic. (I'm not sure of the context, but it's challenging to think of a context that would rescue it.) That's not the quote, however, that journalists have typically used to support their contention that Trump is a mysogynist. They've used other quotes instead -- ones that really signal boorishness rather than misogyny.

This is the Trump thread, so I quoted the part of the original article that pertains to Trump. But the point of the article was not that Trump has never, in his life, said anything mysogynistic. The point was that journalists tend to get stuff wrong when, instead of taking a candidate's statement at face value, they try to read between the lines and impute motives or sentiments that aren't in the words themselves. With Cruz's "New York values" statement, they imputed antisemitism to a statement that was merely anti-elitist. (Cruz's explicitly pro-Isreal positions and voting record don't signal antisemitism.) With Trump's "coming out of her -- wherever," they imputed sexism to a statement that was merely boorish. (Trump's history in business doesn't signal any bias against women, and his stated positions on what are traditionally considered women's issues are rather progressive for a Republican.) And it can go in the other direction as well. With Hitler's statements from the 1920s, they imputed mere political ambition and calculation to statements that were really, on their face, literally antisemitic. In all of those cases, they'd have done better, to take the candidate's stated positions at face value rather than to try to read between the lines and impute real, deep-down, secret positions contrary to their openly stated positions.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your assessment of the article.  It's a broader defense of Trump than you are letting on.  Direct quote:
 

When I think of “sexist” or “misogynist”, I think of somebody who thinks women are inferior to men, or hates women, or who thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to have good jobs or full human rights, or who wants to disadvantage women relative to men in some way.

This does not seem to apply very well to Trump.
Click to expand...
Seems to me the article kind of cherry-picks Trump statements about and behavior towards women to make its point.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
From the article:

(Emphasis mine.)
Click to expand...
Just because he's unaware of the connotations of what he's saying doesn't remove the connotations.  Besides, Cruz's statement required interpretation.  Taken at face value, what does "New York values" even mean?  Cruz may have been trying make an anti-elitist statement, but he was not speaking plainly. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think it's sexist insofar as it inaccurately presumes that, in any given marriage, a man will have more income or wealth than a woman, so that a prenup always protects the man rather than the woman. I can't tell without more context whether he really thinks that's always the case. He might not. He might say that when the woman has more income or wealth, the roles would be reversed -- in which case his position would be merely boorish rather than sexist. (One might argue that it's sexist to presume that the man will generally have more income or wealth even just the majority of the time, rather than all the time. But I don't think that saying accurate things is sexist. For example, I don't think it's sexist to say that men are taller than women, on average. I don't know what year that quote was from, but if it was from the 1980s, for example, it would have been uncontroversial, as a matter of observing empirical data, that men usually had more income and wealth than women. It might not be true anymore -- I don't know.)

To call something boorish (or offensive, or inappropriate, or stupid) is not to defend it, by the way.
Click to expand...
What about this, MT?

After she joined Donald Trump’s real estate business, Louise Sunshine struggled to maintain a steady weight while managing her new career alongside the busy schedules of three young children.

Trump must have noticed, Sun­shine said. She recalled that he kept an unflattering photograph of her in a drawer — a “fat picture,” as she called it — that he would pull out when she did something he didn’t like.

It was “a reminder that I wasn’t perfect,” said Sunshine, who worked with Trump for 15 years starting in the mid-1970s when he set about remaking Manhattan’s skyline. “He just is that way.”

And he used to tell her and others that “men are better than women, but a good woman is better than 10 good men.”
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
Just because he's unaware of the connotations of what he's saying doesn't remove the connotations.  Besides, Cruz's statement required interpretation.  Taken at face value, what does "New York values" even mean?  Cruz may have been trying make an anti-elitist statement, but he was not speaking plainly. 




 
Click to expand...
He spoke plainly afterward when he explicitly disavowed any antisemitic connotations.

 
cstu said:
What about this, MT?




 




 
Click to expand...
I think a lot of you are mistaking being a tremendous jerk for being sexist.

Trump uses whatever he can about people -- if they got captured, if they have arthrogryposis, if they are short, if they are overweight, etc.

That is being a tremendous jerk, but it is being an equal-opportunity tremendous jerk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think a lot of you are mistaking being a tremendous jerk for being sexist.

Trump uses whatever he can about people -- if they got captured, if they have arthrogryposis, if they are short, if they are overweight, etc.

That is being a tremendous jerk, but it is being an equal-opportunity tremendous jerk.
Click to expand...
Being an equal opportunity tremendous jerk isn't a defense to charges that you're also a particular kind of jerk, if the label fits.  If a guy hits his wife and then goes down to the bar and gets in fights with random patrons, he's still a wife-beater.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think a lot of you are mistaking being a tremendous jerk for being sexist.

Trump uses whatever he can about people -- if they got captured, if they have arthrogryposis, if they are short, if they are overweight, etc.

That is being a tremendous jerk, but it is being an equal-opportunity tremendous jerk.
Click to expand...
Fat shaming, men are better than women, the way he paternalistically demeaned her when she was doing things he thought were wrong to put her in her place, etc...I think it's cool how you are trying to be fair and accurate here, but the specific instance you are responding to seems pretty sexist. 

The lists/examples/articles you reference as simply boorish, as well as the article/examples you are using to support your point, are incomplete accountings meant to support opinions. I guess an argument could be made either way, but I believe Trump has made some clearly sexist statements, even if you want to argue he is not sexist. I think if you comb through his Howard Stern appearances, or press conferences when dealing with divorces, or when he was arguing publicly with a woman, you'll see the argument for sexism.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Being an equal opportunity tremendous jerk isn't a defense to charges that you're also a particular kind of jerk, if the label fits.  If a guy hits his wife and then goes down to the bar and gets in fights with random patrons, he's still a wife-beater.




 




 




 
Click to expand...
I agree, and I left out "if they are Hispanic" on purpose because Trump really does seem kind of racist (or ethnicist or whatever) -- and being racist is obviously not a defense to the charge of also being sexist.

But I do think that if you want to evaluate whether a candidate is sexist in a way that should discourage people from voting for him, you should start by looking at his stated positions on issues that particularly affect women, and also, if it's relevant, look for signals of sexism in his previous decision-making patterns. (In Trump's case, did he discriminate against women in his hiring or promotional practices?)

If we want to highlight the difference between boorishness and sexism, I think it's instructive to compare Trump to Rubio or Kasich. Trump is way, way more boorish than those guys, by a country mile. Is he more sexist than they are? Are his policies or practices more anti-women than theirs? I don't think the evidence supports that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think a lot of you are mistaking being a tremendous jerk for being sexist.

Trump uses whatever he can about people -- if they got captured, if they have arthrogryposis, if they are short, if they are overweight, etc.

That is being a tremendous jerk, but it is being an equal-opportunity tremendous jerk.
Click to expand...
Has he come out and said anything bad about orange people with bad combovers?

 
Let me make a more general point that may or may not be part of what's going on here.

Even though this is a Trump thread, it seems to be dominated right now by people who dislike Trump and don't plan to vote for him. (As someone who dislikes Trump and doesn't plan to vote for him myself, I can relate.)

Something like the following thought process would be completely natural for anyone who dislikes Trump:

I dislike Trump. All these articles say that he's a sexist. Sexism is terrible, so this confirms that I'm correct in disliking Trump. It would be convenient for me to believe that Trump is sexist because it would show that, in my dislike of Trump, I was right all along! This new piece of information aligns with the views I already held, so everything fits together nicely and causes no cognitive dissonance. I can now go about the rest of my day.

This would be a standard case of confirmation bias.

When you hear a new piece of information that is convenient because it aligns with the views you already hold, a good practice would be to listen to the little trigger somewhere in the back of your mind that says: Believing this would be convenient. It lines up nicely with my other views, and therefore causes no cognitive dissonance. I should therefore be especially skeptical of it rather than facilely accepting it. Let me suspiciously double-check it against reality as best I can; and before I accept it as true, I shall require that it overcome an elevated burden of proof.

Almost nobody thinks that way, but it would be good epistemological practice if we could pull it off. (The author of the article I quoted is especially good at it, IMO.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I agree, and I left out "if they are Hispanic" on purpose because Trump really does seem kind of racist (or ethnicist or whatever) -- and being racist is obviously not a defense to the charge of also being sexist.

But I do think that if you want to evaluate whether a candidate is sexist in a way that should discourage people from voting from him, you should start by looking at his stated positions on issues that particularly affect women, and also, if it's relevant, look for signals of sexism in his previous decision-making patterns. (In Trump's case, did he discriminate against women in his hiring or promotional practices?)

If we want to highlight the difference between boorishness and sexism, I think it's instructive to compare Trump to Rubio or Kasich. Trump is way, way more boorish than those guys, by a country mile. Is he more sexist than they are? Are his policies or practices more anti-women than theirs? I don't think the evidence supports that.
Click to expand...
The bolded I would agree with- that is the most important thing about a candidate from a gender issues standpoint. The rest not so much. People have provided you plenty of examples of Trump acts and practices that are sexist.  The fact that his officially stated positions "women's issues" are fairly liberal and pro-woman doesn't make him less sexist.  And character does matter to voters- especially in the case of a candidate whose positions on the issues seem to change hourly.

And I don't understand your continued insistence that he's boorish but not sexist. He can be (and is IMO) both. We've given you several examples of Trump demeaning women in ways he's never done with men, or assuming their inferiority, or advocating for their subservience.  I agree that a lot of the things people classify as sexist/misogynist are really technically just boorishness, but certainly not all of them. And that's really just an argument against colloquialism anyway.

Another thing- Trump's "business" isn't just his real estate business.  It's also branding and public appearances, including being a reality tv star and politician.  So if for example he demeans and objectifies a female reality show contestant in a way he's never done with a male reality show contestant, or if he insults a female candidate's appearance during a debate in a way he hasn't done with male candidates, that's Trump being misogynist in his business practices.

 
TobiasFunke said:
The bolded I would agree with- that is the most important thing about a candidate from a gender issues standpoint. The rest not so much. People have provided you plenty of examples of Trump acts and practices that are sexist.  The fact that his officially stated positions "women's issues" are fairly liberal and pro-woman doesn't make him less sexist.  And character does matter to voters- especially in the case of a candidate whose positions on the issues seem to change hourly.

And I don't understand your continued insistence that he's boorish but not sexist. He can be (and is IMO) both. We've given you several examples of Trump demeaning women in ways he's never done with men, or assuming their inferiority, or advocating for their subservience.  I agree that a lot of the things people classify as sexist/misogynist are really technically just boorishness, but certainly not all of them. And that's really just an argument against colloquialism anyway.

Another thing- Trump's "business" isn't just his real estate business.  It's also branding and public appearances, including being a reality tv star and politician.  So if for example he demeans and objectifies a female reality show contestant in a way he's never done with a male reality show contestant, or if he insults a female candidate's appearance during a debate in a way he hasn't done with male candidates, that's Trump being misogynist in his business practices.




1
Click to expand...
These are all fair points. The only one I really disagree with is the bolded. It's not just an argument against colloquialism; it's an argument against the kind of sloppy thinking that can lead to cognitive errors of some consequence. It's an argument against mud-slinging based on intellectual convenience rather than intellectual honesty.

 
The Football Freak said:
Fat shaming





 
Click to expand...
This is an example of the kind of thing that I think people are too quick to label sexism instead of just jerkiness.

It's true (as far as I know) that Trump has fat-shamed women in a way that he's never fat-shamed men. But if that's what makes him sexist against women, similar reasoning requires the conclusion that he's also sexist against men.

He's made fun of both Rand Paul and Marco Rubio for being short. He's never done that to a woman (as far as I know). He made fun of Jeb Bush for trying to look cool by getting contacts to replace his glasses. He's never done that to a woman (as far as I know).

Women are stereotypically more concerned about their weight while men are stereotypically more concerned about their height or coolness.

When it comes to insulting people about stereotypically gender-specific insecurities, Trump seems to be sexist against both women and men alike -- which is a pretty non-sexist form of sexism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
This is an example of the kind of thing that I think people are too quick to label sexism instead of just jerkiness.

It's true (as far as I know) that Trump has fat-shamed women in a way that he's never fat-shamed men. But if that's what makes him sexist against women, similar reasoning requires the conclusion that he's also sexist against men.

He's made fun of both Rand Paul and Marco Rubio for being short. He's never done that to a woman (as far as I know). He made fun of Jeb Bush for trying to look cool by getting contacts to replace his glasses. He's never done that to a woman (as far as I know).

Women are stereotypically more concerned about their weight while men are stereotypically more concerned about their height or coolness.

When it comes to insulting people about stereotypic, gender-specific insecurities, Trump seems to be sexist against both women and men alike -- which is a pretty non-sexist form of sexism.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - he's an ###hole.

 
Have we discussed the specific Megyn Kelly comments yet?  Is implying that any harsh questioning from a female is because she's on the rag "boorish" or sexist?  Seems like its both.  As is calling her a "bimbo."  Both of those comments are clearly equating what Trump perceives as Kelly's deficiencies in competence with her gender. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
 The fact that his officially stated positions "women's issues" are fairly liberal 
Click to expand...
Let's slow our roll on this.  I find it hard to call a guy who said women who get abortions should be criminally charged "liberal" on women's issues.  Perhaps overall, compared to most Republicans, he is farther to the left on some issues, but he's hardly what most of us would call a champion on these matters.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yo Mama
**** OFFICIAL FFA 2025-2026 Fake NBA Draft **** - Happy Ranks-Giving!!
19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
14K
Master of Subservience
Master of Subservience
DA RAIDERS
Pick a fantasy team for the Tour de France. There will be prizes!
Replies
35
Views
3K
DA RAIDERS
DA RAIDERS
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange - OCT 12 SHIPPING DEADLINE (extended 2 weeks)***
3 4 5
Replies
226
Views
7K
Dennis Castro
Dennis Castro

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top