• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USA Today Torches Trump

Here is the Trump tweet:

Democrats say Trump's tweets about Sen. Gillibrand are sexist, crude - Chicago Tribune

Does anyone see the word "whore" (slut, prostitute, etc.) anywhere in that tweet?

I'm certain I've seen that kind of language used before against people of all political persuasions by opponents labeling anyone who will do anything to get their agenda accomplished.

Of course, leave it to the anti-Trump elements to push the "sexist" angle...since the "collusion" angle isn't going all that well.

The "impeach him by any means necessary" activism is in full swing. :coffeepap:

Might I suggest that the President of the United States might try a means of communication more precise than what is afforded by Twitter??? If he would like to explain precisely what the Senator was willing to do for money he could issue a statement. He could use a paragraph rather than counting his characters. Just like posters here do explain their meaning. I think he enjoys the ability to hide behind his tweets....red meat for the Trump supporters but also the room for his aiding and abettor Press Secretary to try to muddy the waters with any press that dare to question his motivation. It is very revealing that even the more "rational" Trump supporters find his tweeting of innuendo quite OK and jump to his support.
Really really really SAD.
 
Might I suggest that the President of the United States might try a means of communication more precise than what is afforded by Twitter??? If he would like to explain precisely what the Senator was willing to do for money he could issue a statement. He could use a paragraph rather than counting his characters. Just like posters here do explain their meaning. I think he enjoys the ability to hide behind his tweets....red meat for the Trump supporters but also the room for his aiding and abettor Press Secretary to try to muddy the waters with any press that dare to question his motivation. It is very revealing that even the more "rational" Trump supporters find his tweeting of innuendo quite OK and jump to his support.
Really really really SAD.

Not true. :no:

I have stated several times in the Forum that I don't agree with his impulsive tweeting.

His comment is not particularly sexist, as it has been used indiscriminately against people of both sexes.

However, I also consider it hypocritical for people who have no problem calling opponents who refuse to kowtow to their political agenda derogatory names, questioning their intelligence and/or morals, and attacking their character...turning around and trying to profess some moral outrage when the same is done by someone to one of their "allies."
 
We get it, the media hates Trump. Is this just going to continue to be the "Media Hate Trump Olympics" where they compete to show how much blatant bias they have?

Yeah, caring about truth and decorum is such a horrible bias.

I get it, the mainstream media has a huge number of problems. Their reporting on Donald Trump? Not really one of them. Whether you like it or not, Trump is just this awful. I agree that the substance of their criticisms is sometimes off base --he does way worse things that what they report on, and they should focus on those policy issues more-- but it's a national embarrassment that this silver spoon brat is only at a ~35% disapproval rating, which it should clearly be 0%.
 
Not true. :no:

I have stated several times in the Forum that I don't agree with his impulsive tweeting.

His comment is not particularly sexist, as it has been used indiscriminately against people of both sexes.

However, I also consider it hypocritical for people who have no problem calling opponents who refuse to kowtow to their political agenda derogatory names, questioning their intelligence and/or morals, and attacking their character...turning around and trying to profess some moral outrage when the same is done by someone to one of their "allies."

Congrats on not agreeing with impulsive tweeting on the part of the President of the United States... My how the bar has been lowered.

I admit I am still trying to decipher your last paragraph...not sure who the people with no problem are, nor who are the allies....

Context matters...and in the realm of "blood coming out of her whatever" Meghan Kelly; and "a face like that" Carly Fiorino; and "bleeding badly" Mica Brzezinski, a statement like willing to do anything for the money had a good chance of being read as a hhhhhugggeee slur...but than with deniability. Which his soldiers carry on for him.
 
Donald J. Trump said:
Lightweight Senator Kirsten 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).

Trumps sexual inference is noticeable. Anyone with even a modicum of honesty regarding Trumps misogyny can easily see through this thin veneer.
 
Trumps sexual inference is noticeable. Anyone with even a modicum of honesty regarding Trumps misogyny can easily see through this thin veneer.

Its not even a veneer. He figures as long as he uses innuendo instead of coming out with an outright slur, that he's got deniability. The problem isn't the limitations of twitter. It doesn't take that many characters to be straight forward.
 
No, people with a clear political bias will see what they want to see.

I see a standard political slam that has been around in one form or another since I was a kid, used against both male and female politicians.

Not something that is especially "sexist" when used against a woman. :shrug:

How many of us have said much the same thing about various government officials (and brown-nosing co-workers) over the years? :coffeepap:

P.S.:

I am amazed by the hypocritical outrage displayed by people (some in this Forum) who have no problem calling political opponents every dirty name in the book in blatant ad hominin attacks; but claim the moral high ground at the slightest use of such tactics...targeting their "allies." :roll:

Total BS. The bias is that a woman will give a BJ or a F as a quid pro quo. You have no moral high ground. "When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time."-Maya Angelou
 
Its not even a veneer. He figures as long as he uses innuendo instead of coming out with an outright slur, that he's got deniability. The problem isn't the limitations of twitter. It doesn't take that many characters to be straight forward.

And his defenders.
 
You will never get these people to admit that Herr Trump did anything wrong. Ever. No matter how ridiculous his comments, no matter how outrageous his tweets, you will always have his lapdogs justifying what he says.

Well, it's a good thing Trump never said the female senator was "bleeding from her... wherever." That would have been bad, right? Of course Trump would never say anything so vulgar...

oh... wait.
 
Well, it's a good thing Trump never said the female senator was "bleeding from her... wherever." That would have been bad, right? Of course Trump would never say anything so vulgar...

oh... wait.

Rock bottom definitely has a basement. All the horrible things he said during the campaign have only gotten worse since he took office. It's like, "I can do what I want because I am president and nobody can stop me, and if they try, I will tweet nasty things about them. Now where is my choccy milk and PBJ?"
 
Well, it's a good thing Trump never said the female senator was "bleeding from her... wherever." That would have been bad, right? Of course Trump would never say anything so vulgar...

oh... wait.

It's weird. Trump said the P word when he thought he wasn't but didn't know he was on camera. Trump said bleeding from her...wherever on a national stage. On twitter he said, will do any for money. It's like he thinks by using, shall we say, colorful metaphors, to describe women in vulgar ways, he thinks it's being more politically correct than actually using the right words???? Why doesn't he just come out and say he thinks the senator is a whore? I thought he told it like it is? Saying he thinks a senator is a whore is probably less impactful than his colorful metaphors of course.

Even with this stuff Trump is trolling us. He probably has an insult bag like a comic does, and then picks one out, but asks people for ideas on how to make it even more controversial. How to confuse the public even more and how he can escape if it can be bent just the right way in his favor.
 
So either your emperor is too stupid to know how his comments would be construed or he's a sexist bullying pig.

Take your pick.

How about all of the above?
 
Here is the Trump tweet:

Democrats say Trump's tweets about Sen. Gillibrand are sexist, crude - Chicago Tribune



I'm certain I've seen that kind of language used before against people of all political persuasions by opponents labeling anyone who will do anything to get their agenda accomplished.

Of course, leave it to the anti-Trump elements to push the "sexist" angle...since the "collusion" angle isn't going all that well.

The "impeach him by any means necessary" activism is in full swing. :coffeepap:

The entire city of Washington DC is a whore house and we are supposed to believe only the males in it are the paid whores?
 
Hillary/Obama saw the disaster in Iraq and thought to themselves: "let's do the same thing in Libya except we'll actually give weapons to the terrorists. After that let's see if we can sucker the American people into doing that in Syria too". Don't try to pretend that the overthrow of Qaddafi happened under Trump.



The point is not about where it started, it is about what the cons are doing about it.
 
Actually, ISIS started earlier... from the vacuum of when Saddam's generals were frozen out of Iraq power structure, and it an outgrowth of Al-Quida in Iraq, which started in 2004.

Here's how ISIS was really founded - CNN

Sorry, that's simply not correct. This has been in my field of work for a decade in a half. Yes, there were elements in Iraq that were part of the Iraqi shadow government and the insurgency but the ISIS we know today came about via the power vacuum created in Syria, which Obama is significantly responsible for. Without that, there would never have been an ISIS. There would have continued to be a low-level but still present insurgency, and no Islamic State.
 
Tell me, has the media hammered Trump on his non-disclosure of taxes, the his taking hotel fees from foreigners in violation of the Constitution, his giving running of his businesses to us family (who live with him), or the utter fraud that was Trump U? It was one and done on those scandals, but Hillary was hammered over and over. Of course, she did kill Vincent Foster, she maybe she deserves it.

Yes, the media covered all that to very large degrees, as well as every other tiny thing. Yes, Trump creates a lot of his own problems with the press, I'll not deny that one bit. That is still different than the utter hatred and bias they show.

Oh...and his hotels running and having people stay in them isn't a violation of the Constitution.
 
I hate beg bugs. The media hates bed bugs. Are you suggesting that if one despises something it must be undeserved? There is ample reason to despise Trump. All hate against him is deserved.

Some of it? Sure. But the reality is that it's a deep seated culture in the media to do it to anyone with an R next to their name.
 
Are you kidding? The news coverage about the 2016 campaign was 40% about Hillary emails. Then there was the unfounded innuendo that her foundation was crooked, etc.

Lol...no, it wasn't. Trump was covered almost all the time. When the media did cover those scandals for Hillary, they were covering it as something that's not a scandal and covering for her.
 
ISIS was created in Iraq. I don't agree with the way Obama handled Syria, but at least he kept us out of another endless ground war. If he had gotten more involved, you would have criticized that too. As it is you're trying to have it both ways, claiming that he armed terrorists when he acted and enabled terrorists when he didn't. Have you been watching RT by any chance?

No, ISIS had some of it's founders in Iraq but it wasn't until the power vacuum in Syria, which was significantly contributed to by Obama, that it became the Islamic State that became the humanitarian disaster that it was. If you want to point a finger at Bush for being part of the earlier chain, that's valid.
 
Sorry, that's simply not correct. This has been in my field of work for a decade in a half. Yes, there were elements in Iraq that were part of the Iraqi shadow government and the insurgency but the ISIS we know today came about via the power vacuum created in Syria, which Obama is significantly responsible for. Without that, there would never have been an ISIS. There would have continued to be a low-level but still present insurgency, and no Islamic State.

ISIS was founded in 1999. It has been a significant force since 2006, and has had the goal of an Islamic Caliphate since 2004. Most of its early leaders came out of the De-Ba'athification after we went into Iraq. There would have been an ISIS today even if we still had Bush as president. The seeds were planted in 99 and we threw miracle grow on them when we went into Iraq in 2003. The Neoconservatives own ISIS regardless of their attempts at historical revisionism. Had we continued with the policy of containment with Iraq we had through the 90s, the Middle East would be a much different place today.
 
ISIL originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. In October 2004, when al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, he renamed the group Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (lit. "The Organisation of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).[2][226][227][228][229] Although the group never called itself al-Qaeda in Iraq, this remained its informal name for many years.[230] n January 2006, AQI joined with several smaller Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups under an umbrella organisation called the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). On 12 October 2006, MSC united with three smaller groups and six Sunni tribes to form the Mutayibeen Coalition, pledging "To rid Sunnis from the oppression of the rejectionists (Shi'ite Muslims) and the crusader occupiers ... to restore rights even at the price of our own lives ... to make Allah's word supreme in the world, and to restore the glory of Islam".[236][237] A day later, MSC declared the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), comprising Iraq's six mostly Sunni Arab governorates,[238] with Abu Omar al-Baghdadi its emir[239][240] and al-Masri Minister of War within ISI's ten-member cabinet.[241] On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed the new leader of ISI.[257][258]In March 2011, protests began in Syria against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. In the following months, violence between demonstrators and security forces led to a gradual militarisation of the conflict.[264] In August 2011, following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, al-Baghdadi began sending Syrian and Iraqi ISI members experienced in guerilla warfare across the border into Syria to establish an organisation there. Under the name Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām (or al-Nusra Front), it established a large presence in Sunni-majority Raqqa, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo provinces. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, this group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country.[265][266] On 23 January 2012, the Syrian group called itself Jabhat al-Nusra li Ahl as-Sham,[267] more commonly known as the al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra grew rapidly into a capable fighting force, with popular support among Syrians opposed to the Assad government.[265]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
 
How about comments. Still waiting?

Nah...almost all of Obama's comments were scripted and he liked to stay on script, but actions speak louder than words. I'm sorry words hurt you so much but there are millions of Libyans that I'm sure would have preferred words from Obama instead of bombs.
 
Come on. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows EXACTLY what he meant. You choose to put your head in the sand is your problem.

Reminds me of the time when Comrade Trump said, "blood coming out of her wherever" about Megyn Kelly.

We all knew what he meant.

The usual Trumpet-a-teers tried, yet again, to piss on our heads and tell us it was raining and that he didn't mean what everyone thought he meant.

Didn't work then and it ain't working now.

We know what he meant. Trumptard's do too. They ain't BS'n anybody.

Nice try but no cigar.
 
ISIS was founded in 1999. It has been a significant force since 2006, and has had the goal of an Islamic Caliphate since 2004. Most of its early leaders came out of the De-Ba'athification after we went into Iraq. There would have been an ISIS today even if we still had Bush as president. The seeds were planted in 99 and we threw miracle grow on them when we went into Iraq in 2003. The Neoconservatives own ISIS regardless of their attempts at historical revisionism. Had we continued with the policy of containment with Iraq we had through the 90s, the Middle East would be a much different place today.

Lol....so funny when even when ISIS was turning into something Obama was still calling them a JV team. And, of course, there was a DIA report actually discussing the issue in 2012. Sorry, but this isn't your wheelhouse, it is mine. The realities are that the Syrian power vacuum gave us what we had.

Defense Intelligence Agency: ?Establish a Salafist Principality in Syria?, Facilitate Rise of Islamic State ?In Order to Isolate the Syrian Regime? | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
 
Back
Top Bottom