Dowd has this column today — "The Mogul and the Babe" ("mogul" is Trump's Secret Service code name and the Babe turns out to be Babe Ruth (to whom Trump, practicing "truthful hyperbole," analogizes himself)) — based on an interview with Donald Trump. There's plenty of good material in there.
I asked how voters could trust him when he has been shifting positions so much lately, even saying that the temporary Muslim ban was just a “suggestion.” (In “The Art of the Deal,” he called his technique of self-promotion “truthful hyperbole.”) “I didn’t shift on that,” he said. “But we have to talk about problems, and if we don’t talk about the problems we’re never going to solve the problems, and that is a real problem, in case you haven’t noticed.”But the commenters get after her, and look how they do it. The most up-voted comment says: "you've been serving as one of Trump's typists now for months." The woman is pictured as a typist. Another high-rated comments says:
While many Republicans are expressing how scared they are to be handcuffed to someone so erratic, Trump is almost feral in savoring his victory. “They say it was the roughest primary in memory, in history,” he said proudly. Recalling trouncing Jeb Bush, he noted, “Low energy, that term just hit. That thing, that was a one-day kill. Words are beautiful.”
"Here's an energy-saving suggestion for the next installment in the Dowd-Trump saga. Rather than feed us an allegedly verbatim account of yet another vacuous, one-sided conversation with The Donald, how about a podcast to save both yourself or your assistant(s) the trouble of typing out 800 whole words of exhausting stenography? I mean, although the titters and the air kisses were way too implicit in this piece, I am dying to hear them actually vocalized. I also want the sound effects of the call actually going through on speed dial. As a paying subscriber I deserve it."Again, the woman is pictured as a typist. And she's portrayed as empty-headed — "vacuous" — in a particularly girlish way with "titters" and "air kisses." The reader imagines the written word "vocalized" — presumably in a high-pitched girl voice. The contempt for Dowd is processed through the looking-at-a-woman filter and the criticisms arrive in the form of insults that are supposed to hurt because she is not the right kind of woman.
I call misogyny.
পোস্টগুলি
১০৯টি মন্তব্য:
Again, the woman is pictured as a typist. And she's pictured as empty-headed — "vacuous" — in a particularly girlish way with "titters" and "air kisses." The reader imagines the written word "vocalized" — presumably in a high-pitched girl voice.
When it comes to "titters" and "air kisses" over a candidate of an opposite bent, Dowd ain't got nothin' on NYT "house conservative" David Brooks.
Maureen is a big girl and can dish the crap whenever she wants. Working at the NYT would rarely give her the opportunity to get any pushback against her inane articles. Time's up!
Ross Douthat's column in the same edition was, for once, a good article. He makes the obvious point that no side has a lock on the truth. It is the closest he has come to dealing directly with the Donald's political success. A person he abhors to the very marrow of his bones.
She is "off the reservation" if she writes anything good about Trump. Natural reaction by NYT readers. It's what they do.
"The contempt for Dowd is processed through the looking-at-a-woman filter and the criticisms arrive in the form of insults that are supposed to hurt because she is not the right kind of woman. I call misogyny." I call feminism. Ordinary, run-of-the-mill, real-world, actually-existing, Prog-approved, no-one-off-the-reservation feminism.
Why is it beyond the pale to dislike women, and to say so?
Maureen Dowd is a woman? Who knew?
It is a fair question now, for any reporter or columnist doing a negative story on Donald Trump: How long have you had this information, and how long have you taken to work this into publication? And why couldn't you have raised this during earlier primaries?
Does misogyny mean hating women or just not taking a received feminist line?
"Why is it beyond the pale to dislike women, and to say so?"
The question is what gets called misogyny and noticing when the standard isn't applied the same all around. I don't like seeing conservatives called misogynistic for saying things that liberals think they can get away with. I want to shine a light on that.
"Does misogyny mean hating women or just not taking a received feminist line?"
The first sentence of the post establishes how the word is used. So consult the reasons why Trump has been called a misogynist. It's a word I am asking you to understand as it has appeared in contexts.
Misogyny lost its power along with racism. Nobody knows what either means.
Actual racism is fairly benign. You might think that the average IQ of US blacks is 86. That's the actual result. It might be good to know that, if you're designing outcome-based affirmative action laws, yet it makes you a racist in the original sense.
Misogyny might amount to thinking men and women find different things interesting or boring to do. Say women and math. It might be important not to push math on women as liberating if they mostly find it unfulfilling.
But to directly answer your question — "Does misogyny mean hating women or just not taking a received feminist line?" — neither.
Trump is called misogynist because it reaches the women's vote to call him misogynist.
You might call Trump a great guy for the same thing. He's a Don Rickles in guyness. The art of the insult.
That's so typical of the left. The same happens with minorities who don't toe the line.
Not since Pompeii have there been so many people caked in muck and frozen in varying poses of horror.
That's good, fresh imagery. I like her writing (mostly).
The sting of misogynist is feminist, so long as feminist has any clout.
It might mean mocking their nagging, say by calling it nagging.
The war of the sexes is eternal. Feminism is a move within the war of the sexes. Misogyny is a move within feminism.
A. War of the Sexes
1. feminism
a. misogynist.
Lefties are bigots. Resistant to change. Uncurious. Nasty.
Everything they profess to hate about the Right.
That's enough for today.
Dowd is a nasty piece of work regardless of gender identity.
Trump's young in cheek humor and slightly silly antics rile up the people who hate what he represents, and in their wrath they expose themselves to the country as people who are far worse than Trump.
Just look at the anti-Trump holdouts here, who bray about civility and maturity as they can't help themselves from slinging insults at Trump and his supporters. That is Trump's gift to us all. By smirking as he tiptoes back and forth across the fine line of "civility" as defined by the smart set, he exposes the leech class romping around wherever they like. Only one side has to obey the rules, and Trump positions himself with the people against the privileged by simple association.
They don't even realize they have done it all to themselves.
Look up Thurber's cartoon series The War between Men and Women, that nicely captures the advent of feminism into the battle, from the initial overt act by Trump.
Reprinted in Thurber Carnival.
Mogul is a racist and prejudicial word which culturally appropriates the Mongol history and I find it offensive.
Boy that was fun.
Dowd is actually pretty funny in interviews, self-deprecating even.
Since misogyny involves contempt and hate, who gets to declare it's presence, the hater or the hater?
What is with AA's tone about "typists?"
For myself, I decided long ago not to be dismissive of anyone who could do something well and much better than I could possibly do it.
The woman is pictured as a typist.
Gasp!
Insulting typists should be federal crime (cuz they're born that way), but at least nobody called her a "stale pale male".
And trump supporters are called meanies.
The NY Times commenters overcome with hate of anything Trump engage on ad hominem attacks.
I mean ad womanem attacks. They have to use what they have.
"I call misogyny."
I call just deserts.
Typists are also editors. A friend in the 70s wrote out for typing a memo saying that a certain naval job required two riggers, and the typist substituted colored gentlemen.
The typist is pictured as a woman. I call mysotypyny!
The typist is pictured as a naked lady.
Megyny Kelly started it.
I was employed as a typist. It was because I was good and fast at it. It was not because I was a woman.
Misogynecologist - discovers slights against women.
FTR Dowd was taking on Bill and his assistant in sexual assault Hillary back in the 1990s when it was dangerous territory with no friends insight in the media. She has earned some respect.
To me, Dowd is a woman and the complaint is something like sycophancy and servitude, so the concepts are captured in imagery that reflects her gender. If they were yelling at a man in the same context with the same complaint I'd expect masculine imagery. I didn't get misogyny out of this at all.
Mogul:
1. an important or powerful person
2. a steam locomotive with three pairs of driving wheels and one pair of smaller wheels in the front.
The second definition, coincidence or does the person who picked the name have a sense of humor? This mogul ain't got no brakes.
Snark makes a good point. I don't see misogyny either. But so what if there is misogyny? I don't care one way or the other.
Girl with the Pony Tail on the Treadmill:
Trump certainly likes the attractive women.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Maybe that's sexist. Seems like it should be.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
But I'm here on a treadmill ensuring that my ass and legs will be the kind men will look twice at.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
And that's kinda empowering.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I'm not self unaware.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Why shouldn't good-looking women get the attention of rich guys?
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Am I supposed to feel sorry for some woman eating a pint of ice cream and watching "Girls" slumped on the couch while I'm giving it all I got at the gym, everyday of the week?
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Some women just need to get off their ass.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I hear he pays his women well.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I bet a lot of the women he employs drive Audis.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Trump might look at the effort and attention I put into my body and think: "I bet she could put that effort and attention into a job I give her."
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
My ass says a lot about me. Fat girls don't understand this.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I do it for me, though.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Certainly not for that creep in the corner who keeps staring at my ass.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Go ahead and stare at my ass, asshole. My ass has higher expectations.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I'm not even going to get a Mocha afterward.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Trump would appreciate that dedication.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I need to meet a rich guy.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I am Laslo.
TCom I wouldn't mind it, if Trump was a tough-minded conservative before he was a name-caller. Name-calling is pretty low in my list of political sins.
Trump isn't reviled by the right for name calling. Trump is loathed because he's been so stupid, and said such stupid things. The Muslim ban. The promise to not touch entitlements. His musings on the TPP and China (China is not a signatory). The dumb parroting of media criticism of Justice Scalia following the Fisher arguments. Trump's incompetent bumbling into the Michelle Fields / Corey Lewandowski dustup. The recent "John Miller" story denial. The countless weird and embarrassing tweets. And on and on and on.
Really, TCom; any name-calling is the least of it.
So hungry for chum that we're blogging the comments sections again, I see.
Cheap, cheap, cheap.
I don't see how this sort of misogyny is different using the term "mainsplaining."
If anyone doubted that there were different standards for what is considered misogynistic speech/behavior for liberals and conservatives, they should have had gotten over those doubts when Sarah Palin hit the national scene.
"The Mogul and the Babe" is a great title for attention-getting but maybe the commenters were disappointed that it wasn't something salacious.
"Trump is loathed because he's been so stupid,"
One can only hope that Chuck is capable of recovery after November.
Marijuana sometimes does this to teenagers whose brain is still pruning dendrites.
I don;t know how old Chuck is but I can only hope for the best.
The lefties who read the Times are almost as crazy.
Misogyny is about belittling a woman for the wrong reasons.
I am Laslo.
I have no doubt the Clinton campaign is all over the NYT comments.
BB of course is using dehumanizing rhetoric to describe people who disagree with him.
The author of the book "Are Men Necessary?" should expect to have it thrown back at her now and then. Hard to muster much sympathy for someone who has built quite the career out of being the quick-witted woman at the end of the bar relentlessly wisecracking about why men are worthless and stupid.
I always thought that Dowd's finest work was writing about Clinton. She has a shot at renewed glory with the upcoming Trump v. Clinton.
That column headline triggered me. Was quite the dog whistle
Michael K said...
"Trump is loathed because he's been so stupid,"
One can only hope that Chuck is capable of recovery after November.
Michael; once again for your benefit...
I expect I'll probably vote for Trump. Suggesting that I'd need "recovery" after the candidate I voted for won, is pretty weird on your part.
But I have also said all along that Trump is a strange, flawed, poor choice as a nominee. Likely, in my mind, to lose. If Trump wins, I get the satisfaction of seeing if Trump will make "deals" with Democrats on Supreme Court nominees. If Trump loses, I will feel the loss that all Republicans and conservatives will feel at the prospect of a Democrat nominating 2 or 3 more justices.
So the question is not so much for me; the question is what will the Trumpkins do, in the event of a Trump being schlonged in a general election? They will have nothing at that point. No campaign. No Donald, as their source of entertainment, hope, solace, whatever. I mean, Trump may still be around, but he'll have no more political constituency. No office; no leverage; no dealmiking ability. The Republican fury, in the event that Trump goes down, will be pitiless. As George Will wrote recently, the Trump primary supporters will be excluded as "collaborationists" from the reconstruction of the Republican Party.
Chuck, it's over, help or get out of the way. There will be no open convention.
Chuck, I think your rage at Trump is unhealthy and this election has polarized friends, like Patrick Frey who was 150% for Cruz and will not forgive me for not being enthusiastic about him. I've been a reader and commenter at his blog Patterico, for years. He doesn't want me back.
George Will wrote recently, the Trump primary supporters will be excluded as "collaborationists" from the reconstruction of the Republican Party.
I would be very interested to see how George Will, who is a monomaniac on Trump, would rebuild his party without voters. Labour decided to import new voters under Tony Blair and got millions of Muslims. The first Labour Muslim PM will be interesting.
Democrats have chosen illegal Mexican immigrants for their new voters.
What will George Will choose ?
I have gradually come to accept Trump as the nominee to flush to toilet of the ruling class. I still cannot watch him talk on TV.
As somebody who rejects identity politics as a beneficial strategy, I just don't give a shit.
Identity politics is destructive and should be rejected by all thoughtful people.
tim in vermont said...
Chuck, it's over, help or get out of the way. There will be no open convention.
Oh, that one isn't hard; I am getting out of the way. Good luck with your guy. And good luck with the "self-funded" campaign. See you sometime later in November.
I'd just like to be at a dinner, where Trump is begging for donations from the people he disparagingly knocked as "the donors." It would seem to me that at least some of them would show up in response to the invitation, just to tell Trump to suck on one of his tiny short thumbs.
And, tim, I want to assure you that you've got me perfectly pegged, when you suggest that I am disappointed that there will be no open/contested convention.
"I call misogyny."
I call just deserts.
Sahara or Kalahari?
Typist? I have not come across that word in a long time. Those liberal dinosaurs!
"Trump is begging for donations from the people he disparagingly knocked as "the donors."
I see that you still don't understand. They have been paying protection for years. Why did Microsoft open a DC office and start lobbying after they got smacked around by the Clintons?
I'm sure there are furious meetings trying to figure Trump out. Probably a significant number of people, around New York, who know him well and many may have friendly relations with him, unlike their relations with most politicians.
I would not want to be a "Government Relations" guy trying to figure out what to do. This is terra incognito for most of the crony capitalists.
terra incognita. Autocorrect does not speak Latin.
Belittle is sizeist.
Michael K said...
"Trump is begging for donations from the people he disparagingly knocked as "the donors."
I see that you still don't understand. They have been paying protection for years. Why did Microsoft open a DC office and start lobbying after they got smacked around by the Clintons?
I'm not clear on your meaning; are you suggesting that GOP donors will fall in line with Trump, knowing that they will need "protection," and that Trump will accept their money with the assurance that he will provide that "protection"?
I don't think it is all that transactional, on any side. I think people who are inalterably liberal find liberal Democrats and donate to them when and where they think their donations will make a difference. And conservatives likewise find conservative Republicans who might make a difference. For ideological donors -- liberals and conservatives alike -- Trump isn't much of a personal attraction. And most donors aren't much interested in "blowing it all up," or "wrecking the party as we have known it."
Misogyny and misandry are often just lazy attacks on people we disagree with. That about covers most of it. It more often means you are lazy or flippant that sexist, which explains most accusations of sexism as well.
The conflation of sexes is misogynistic.
The violation of privacy is misogynistic.
The denigration of dignity is misogynistic.
The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Corruption of Gender is misogynistic.
Unfortunately, women, in the majority, voted for it, that, and so much more. Welcome to a progressive dysfunction and eventually a convergence.
The writers at the Times, the Post, and every major city newspaper act as typists for the Democrat party. How else would one describe what they actually do? Maybe "cut and pasters?"
I had a dream that it was Trump vs Bernie and they agreed to public financing and the assholes all got left with their dicks in their hands.
"I call misogyny ."
Haha that's not bad , not too bad at all .
Muslim ban?
He said we need a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we could figure a way to properly vet the refugees to insure Americans' safety. Why? Muslim refugees in Germany having two, three, four valid passports with different names might point to a concern for rationale people.
"I don't think it is all that transactional, on any side."
Thanks for confirming my previous post. You don't understand.
I'm sure there are some donors who support ideology but do you really think Warren Buffet agrees with Obama's ideology ?
I have a story in my last book about a lawyer who told me he was a "bleeding heart liberal" but who had continued a attempted murder case until he got the affirmative action assistant DA. That was business.
Most misogyny is woman v woman, is that the case here? Dowd is a well known Clinton antagonist and comes from a middle-class conservative family, so she is not a reliable team player. This must make Madeline all-bright and Gloria stein-ham roll around in their virtual attention-whore graves.
"George Will wrote recently, the Trump primary supporters will be excluded as "collaborationists" from the reconstruction of the Republican Party."
George will missed the state republican parties clear message over the weekend that they back Trump 100%. Ben Sasse is going to be primaried if he doesn't get on board. The #nevertrump people are a small number of people that are mostly jeb supporters and don't mind losing national elections. They are propped up by a bunch of Oligarch pet owned media outlets like NRO, Salem owned Hotair, Red State etc.
The rest of the republican party, those of us who gave the house and senate to republicans and are winning state elections all over the country, are tired of losing national elections because of a bunch of losers in the national republican party.
It can't be any more clear than this: Get The Fuck Out.
The only cure for the Chuck's of the world is to get a job at a turd plant shoveling shit. If he can last 9-months, he will be reborn. Otherwise, he remains a eunuch by choice suffering from an incurable case of mentally transgendered feminism. That's a male gendered misandrist who presumes to know what being a man is, then behaves exaggerating their superficial misunderstanding. This leads to mass hysteria like neoconism and chickenhawkery. Of course, in the real world on a jobsite or industrial plant, this type of behavior would result in a bloody nose or worse: fragging doesn't just occur in combat zones.
Sorry Ann, watching the left act sexist, racist, hateful is just old hat. Commenting on it is boring. They are what they are. They are evil people who must be defeated.
Althouse is pretty clear here. She's calling hypocrisy on "can't attack Hillary or other women you don't like using the best insults or you hate all women". Ban "bossy" etc.
Right?
I wouldn't call Hillary "shrill" even though the bastard rhyme is tempting. Listen to her. She's yelling, sure. That's not a shrill sound.
Accuracy in insults.
Dowd has long savaged Hillary, but she also really reamed Gore.
She's a received Ann Coulter. A provocateur. I will say she seems consistent in going after politicians she think are vulnerable to attack as unlikeable *people*.
Except for starfuckers (people like Chris Matthews who get excited just having a powerful person treat him like his is a relationship matters), we who've been watching can all see that Hillary's a pretty rotten person. Worse than Gore or Kerry (who are merely sanctimonious pompous mediocrities).
I certainly won't miss never-trumpers, who plainly declare their desire for respectability with their 'opponents' beats the interests+values of the bulk of non-D America. Phony opposition revealed.
Selfish, selfish people, these George Wills And Ben Sasses. Support the interest of those who've been getting the wrong end of politics for the past two decades, why don't you? People who are 'beneath' you.
EDH "When it comes to "titters" and "air kisses" over a candidate of an opposite bent, Dowd ain't got nothin' on NYT "house conservative" David Brooks" - we can all understand misogyny directed at David Brooks.
I would be very interested to see how George Will, who is a monomaniac on Trump, would rebuild his party without voters.
Yeah, good luck with that George.
Most people don't support a political party because of some abstract principles. They support it because it advocates for what they perceive as their interests.
The Republican party decided that it could ignore its base because the base had no where else to go. Apparently George Will isn't the brilliant student of history he likes people to think he is. Perhaps he will be able to get a job on ESPN commenting on baseball.
You call misogyny. I call it MoDo.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
"The Republican party decided that it could ignore its base because the base had no where else to go. Apparently George Will isn't the brilliant student of history he likes people to think he is."
Exactly. He is a house republican just like david brookes and all the other oligarch pets they keep around to make republicans look bad.
"Call[ing] misogyny" on Dowd and Trump's critics is sort of like calling Code Pink neocons . Up is Dowd.
"Apparently George Will isn't the brilliant student of history he likes people to think he is."
I don't know what is going on with him. Patrick Frey whose blog, Patterico, I have read and commented on for ten years, has gone the same way into cloud cuckoo land over Cruz. Now, he wants nothing to do with anyone who might vote for Trump.
There is no "agreed." You are making a unilateral decision to stop interacting with me because I hate Donald Trump. Your call entirely. I'm not happy about it or "agreeing" to anything. It makes me very sad, actually.
I told him I would avoid posting on his blog until after the election. I just don't want the bickering. This blog is tolerant of other POVs and Chicagoboyz is pretty eclectic with posts about airplanes and business practices instead of politics 24/7.
I just don't know where these people are going. If Trump screws up, he will be impeached in a New York minute. None of this "First Black President" stuff that has let Obama get away with so much.
I just think this is the first stage of a so-far peaceful revolution. I see Trump as Danton, not Robespierre.
Robespierre is around somewhere, though.
Trump's effect on people like Chuck reveals a true personality disorder, one that in the past we would see manifest in liberal BDS. A mixture of sneering self righteousness and uncontrollable rage...about as toxic a brew as can be imagined and a real sickness.
A lot of people forget that the present Republican Party began as an effort by mainstream northern American Whig politicians to create a national political party for themselves after it became hazardous for one's health to become suspected of being a Whig in the slaveholding states.
Being in effect a new "third party," they were in no way picky about who they invited to join, but enthusiatically welcomed any and all citizens that might possibly have a bone to pick with the incumbent Democrats and be willing to vote against them. The early Republicans were indeed a many-hued assortment of discontents, including some elements considered less than desirable even in those raucuos times.
It should also be remembered that in 1932, Hoover ran to the left of FDR, and as late as 1960, the Kennedys ran to the right of Richard Nixon.
It's interesting to see people analyze "Trump's effect" on his critics . Sort of like discussing "Cancer's effect " on people as revelatory that they have sickness derangement syndromes .
National and national, national in the sense of being elected to national office, though all from north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Well harrogate you have only to witness their behaviour to see for yourself. Not everyone who dislikes Trump loses their minds, but a significant subset...people like Chuck, Simon, etc...are truly unhinged. Your cancer analogy is weak however.
Chuck has certainly been consistent in his expressed dislike of Trump although he's also said he won't and never would support Clinton. He's clearly hostile to the Dems every bit as much as he was before Trump.
So if he's one of your big examples of people "losing their minds" over Trump, then what does disliking him *without* losing one's mind look like to you ? Maybe you would like people to pretend he didn't just insult his way to the Republican nomination?
The Republican party decided that it could ignore its base because the base had no where else to go
Well to be fair...it works for the Democratic Party...
The Republican Establishment simply forgot that if the Republican base was made of that type of person, we'd be Democrats...
Lots of people here dislike Trump but a few are simply over the top. If you're too dense to get this then my explaining further is a waste of time. And merely insulting people doesn't win a nomination. That's just your biased and simple minded explanation passing for analysis. Trump is tapping into a vast reservoir of discontent with the status quo. Secure borders, anti-PC, America first...it's not hard to see his appeal. Unless your a dishonest willfully stupid person, of which there are a few around here on the left and the right.
I see his appeal in the areas you have named , for what it's worth . And I would add to that , his rejection of the neocons as well as his strong attack on the trade agreements that have been "untouchable" before this cycle.
Nonetheless , he did insult his way to the nomination even as he took those stances . I mean , yes , he took the positions you say and some others as well, and he also made to personally insult Republicans and Democrats, media persons and public figures who have the temerity to question his status as the Greatest Ever .
Again , you cite Chuck as an example of over the top . I wonder if you think it's an over the top , derangement syndrome level response , to refuse to vote for Donald J. Trump? Surely that's not quite what you mean but let's be specific here .
Maybe some people legitimately find him, his style , his positions , his bragging and hostility a bit disgusting . Maybe that's why they are disgusted .
harrogate said...
"Nonetheless , he did insult his way to the nomination even as he took those stances . I mean , yes , he took the positions you say and some others as well, and he also made to personally insult Republicans and Democrats, media persons and public figures who have the temerity to question his status as the Greatest Ever."
Trump's primary failing in these people's minds is that he fought back. Republicans are not supposed to fight back. The left is supposed to be able to call them racist bigot homophobe sexist nazi's without any retaliation.
We are going to call you names harrogate. You support people like Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are amoral corrupt disgusting people. You support them. It is a two way street now. I have been called all sorts of nasty crap. Well now everyone is getting some and that really upsets some people.
The truth about who Hillary Clinton is clear. Anyone who supports Hillary Clinton has no soul and is a disgusting human being. They are evil.
Achilles ,
I understand the high dudgeon . Not that I have to answer to you but since we are all talking here I'll just say that as tempting as it is to call voters evil in the abstract , I have no doubt that in your life you don't carry yourself like Trump is conducting himself on the public stage . The name calling of Everyone who doesn't bow down to his greatness ? Please . It ain't just Hillary and her supporters that he's attacked .
Anyways , I've got too many people in my life with whom I disagree politically and love very much , to think that the way Trump is going about things is the way to go. And since I'm not in second grade or in a Tollkien novel, I don't throw the "evil" word around like its going out of style either .
George Will is considered the dean of conservative pundits. Will is also a vocal atheist who opposed the Iraq War.
It is impossible to imagine that a 'dean of liberal pundits' would be a vocal follower of a religion and a backer of the Iraq War. He would be purged in milliseconds.
Look what they did to Lieberman. The Dems nominated him for VP in 2000. In 2006 he had the same views that he had had in 2000, and he was forced out of the party by anti-war activists.
George Will is considered the dean of conservative pundits. Will is also a vocal atheist who opposed the Iraq War.
He also treated his first wife worse than Trump did.
Sure some people don't like him, don't like his style. Enough not to vote for him and that's fine. That NYC blue collar bluster doesn't faze me personally, in fact it's a breath of fresh air compared to the stilted, scripted poli-speak bullshit that every other conventional candidate is mired in. I can see how it rubs people the wrong way, especially the square, button down bow tie set.
But some people are rendered utterly fanatical, and that is the pathological state I'm talking about. It's not about legitimate criticism or reasonable debate. It's akin to a primitive dark bloodlust, all consuming in its pure hatred. It's a mental illness, because it's purely destructive and out of control.
My working hypothesis is that Will despises Trump because of the latter's chain of wives.
Also, there is a subset of older American women who despise Trump and who all but scream to ask him:
"Mr. Trump, you seem to have the most common sense answer for most every problem but how can you avoid triggering my personal fear of being dumped in middle age?"
Paul thanks for explaining . The way you put it , I really cannot argue with that . He's definitely managed to bring the NY brusque middle class even as a billionaire and we are not used to it in our candidates for President .
I admit I want a littlle more affected humility than he brings (none of them are actually humble or they wouldn't run for President). But I won't believe it's the end of the world if he's elected . I like him better than I liked anyone else who ran this year on the GOP side , on policy .
Harrogate:"Chuck has certainly been consistent in his expressed dislike of Trump although he's also said he won't and never would support Clinton. He's clearly hostile to the Dems every bit as much as he was before Trump"
Lol
Interesting to read the last few comments. I don't normally agree with Harrogate but his point about how Trump "goes about things" resonated with me. More important was this:
"I like him better than I liked anyone else who ran this year on the GOP side , on policy"
This will be a general election between two Democratic candidates.
This will be a general election between two Democratic candidates.
Playing along, it's a race between two very different sorts of Democrats. The D-party no longer resembles what I used to vote for in my youth. And it's not all personal animus tow towards Clinton--she supports some real issues which are out of the mainstream.
Where is a secure border an article of the democrat agenda? Where is America first as a democrat talking point? Open borders and blame America first are entrenched democrat policies. I could go on...
The GOP could have not tried to force Bush down our throats... Naah!
Well harrogate you seem reasonable enough about him. I roll my eyes with some of the stuff he says but I know his type and they are beneath the brash exterior generally warm and loyal men. I think he has the potential to be the right man for the job at this time. This very unique and strange time. I also accept the fact that he could blow it, or that no one can help at this point. But for most of a year now I've felt he's the only one with even a chance to turn things around.
I won't vote for him but I acknowledge that he's neither the monster some make him out to be not the hero others see him as.
Chuck is not the worst offender here nor across the blogosphere. I think he has a true pride of ownership in the party -- and has referred to it as "his" on many occasions -- so I understand why he's upset to see someone whom he despises rise to be the standard bearer of the party. I get it.
Chuck has never failed to note that he'll vote for Trump if he's the nominee, so that in itself, differentiates him from the truly rabid anti-Trump crews.
I don't know where the party ends up after Trump, whether he wins or loses. There aren't enough warm bodies for two parties on the right of the political spectrum, so some degree of reconciliation will either ossify, or it'll be the wilderness for a split of conservative-aligned voters. I don't want that.
Let's all pretend that the alternative is not Hillary...
If the alternative were not Hillary, Trump would lose a lot of support, but we are in a lesser of two evils debate here. One that people claim is evil, a cancer, a charlatan, and worse. And one that has proven herself to be all of those things and many more shitty things.
Chuck may not be the worst offender but that level of fanatical hatred is unhealthy at best. More than once he expressed the desire to visit physical violence on the man. I despise Obama and think he's a traitor to our nation but punching him would never occur to me.
Fabi" Chuck has never failed to note that he'll vote for Trump if he's the nominee,."
False.
"Lifelong republican" Chuck, in this very thread, wrote only that he would "probably" vote for Trump whilst courageously continuing his campaign of avoiding criticism of hillary.
In potentially related news, there are now reports of the inevitable "axelrod-ian" tactics of paying commenters on blog sites to appear as something they are not and all to hillarys advantage.
Food for thought.
You know Chuck, if you helped us in the fight against Hillary, you might have more credibility on your anti Trump points. Now you just seem like some sort of Hillary narc. Show us you agree with us on that, don't just tell us.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন