Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2017
It took me a while to understand "Crooked-USED!" That hyphen is confusing. But I think "USED!" is a free-standing exclamation like his famous "Sad!" It's the way he abruptly ends tweets and not — as the hyphen suggests — part of a new nickname for Hillary. He's just calling Hillary "Crooked," not "Crooked-USED!"
And Hillary is not the one who, according to Trump, is used. Gillibrand is used. She's "a total flunky."
There are some mixed values in this tweet. Is loyalty good or bad? Gillibrand doesn't get credit for being loyal to Schumer. She gets called "a total flunky" for that. But she gets knocked for being disloyal to Trump and disloyal to Bill and Hillary.
Trump cannot be totally serious. He can't think that Gillibrand, as a Democratic Senator, would support him politically just because he gave her money when he was a private citizen and she was fundraising. It sounds almost as though he's asserting that campaign contributions are bribes. Maybe that's why he gave Democrats the money, to get better treatment personally, but that's not a demand he should make publicly.
And what's the disloyalty to Bill and Hillary he purports to be concerned about? From last month, "Gillibrand remark on Clinton sends shockwaves through Democratic Party/The anti-sexual harassment crusader and potential 2020 candidate prompted an uncomfortable debate among Democrats about a beloved party figure" (Politico):
Asked whether [Bill] Clinton should have stepped down [because of the Lewinsky scandal], the senator paused and responded, “Yes, I think that is the appropriate response.”Where's the flunkyism there? Seems to me she led the way... if "led the way" makes sense when we're talking about doing something 20 years too late. In the heat of the struggle over what to do about Al Franken and confronted with a question about Bill Clinton, she quickly aligned her positions. I don't see what role Schumer played, and I think the problem of loyalty to Bill and Hillary is that there's been too much loyalty to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it's made a mess of the Democratic Party (not that I think Kirsten Gillibrand has what it takes to drag the party out of that mess).
However, she then pointed to the difference between the late 1990s and now, highlighting the dramatically changed social and political environments.
“Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances, there should be a very different reaction. And I think in light of this conversation, we should have a very different conversation about President Trump, and a very different conversation about allegations against him,” she said.
So I guess I still don't get the "USED!" I think Gillibrand is trying to seem like an independent leader. I suppose Trump sees that and wants to screw up her game. She's a potential opponent for him in 2020, and he's trying to put a sticky label on her. He's trying "flunky," "lightweight," and "USED!" All of those are the opposite of what she's trying to establish for herself.
ADDED: Trump is toying with sexual innuendo. The woman is "USED!" and she "begg[ed]" and "would do anything."
Posts
232 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 232 of 232Appreciated KittyM!
The only way we get to civility is if we acknowledge our occasional mistakes and graciously accept those of others. For that I'm moving you up in my Pantheon of commenters.
Huzzah!
Inga said...
“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or presumed sexual activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”
wiki
My comment above:
So when you say someone is "slut-shaming" a woman you are admitting that the woman is indeed being or behaving like a slut.
Note the "or."
Reading is fundamental.
"Inga said...
“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or presumed sexual activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”
Right. So that lady injun in the Senate knows or presumes that Gillibrand is a slut.
Dullard.
"Inga: Why is this hole getting deeper?"
Rest of us: "Uh, quit digging.
Dullard.
“Reading is fundamental.”
“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or PRESUMED activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”
Yes reading IS fundamental. YOU missed the word “presumed”. Should I presume you were a slut because you had a child out of wedlock? Would that be a fair presumption?
I think Trump's implication is that Gillibrand is what was once known as an woman of easy virtue who "would do anything" for campaign contributions.* It was Warren who drove home Trump's implication with the "slut shaming" comment.
*For the record, Capitol Hill is packed to the heavens with male and female whores of both parties who would do anything for campaign contributions. That is practically the definition of the word "politician." It's not like Gillibrand is anything special; she's just been a bit more shameless about it lately, turning on Bill Clinton because he is no longer of any political use to her anymore.
@Kevin - Wow, thanks. That's a really nice thing to write.
Inga, you evidently need simple concepts explained to you.
Why would someone "presume" a woman is a slut? Because she is behaving like one. Not because she necessarily IS one. The woman walking down the street with her boobs and butt hanging out of her dress might in fact be a virgin, but just might be presumed to be a slut because of what she has on.
You simply couldn't bear KittyM's gracious apology. You had to run to Wiki because you just had to prove us wrong.
Nitpick all you like, you petty little fool.
Now that I think of it, Gillibrand could be considered a flunky of the Democratic Party in general. She has always been at war with Eurasia.
Slut shaming is a way assholes like Trump and some others here try to subdue and control women. Only self hating women like Exiled, don’t understand this.
“Why would someone "presume" a woman is a slut? Because she is behaving like one. Not because she necessarily IS one. The woman walking down the street with her boobs and butt hanging out of her dress might in fact be a virgin, but just might be presumed to be a slut because of what she has on.”
Because they are assholes, just like you. When you had sex before marriage that ended up in a pregnancy, were you a slut? Should I consider you a slut? Did YOU behave like a slut?
Inga, Inga, and here you wanted to present a picture of yourself being a contented grannie baking Christmas cookies for the kiddies - but here you are frothing at the mouth, furious because you've demonstrated, once again, that you are all Feelz no brains..... You have to question why a really happy, contented woman in her Golden Years would spend as much time here fighting with conservatives as you do. Nothing better to keep you occupied during your retirement?
Mark Steyn says:
"Democrats are heavily invested in identity politics. Unfortunately, almost by definition, most of the available identities are minorities (blacks, gays) and some of them are barely statistically detectable (trans). The obvious exception is women. In 2016, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump. In that sense, Hillary not only failed to shatter the soi-disant glass ceiling, but, remarkably, managed to lower it. That's what sticking with the Clintons did for the Dems.
So they've belatedly realized that their over-investment in the violent rapist and his enabler proved near-fatal last year. To win in 2020, the party has to get back some of those white females. Hence the decision to go full-scale war-on-women. Which means Franken and John Conyers are expendable. The Democrats are preparing to weaponize sex as they've weaponized race since the civil-rights era.
Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1217/steyn121117.php3#Sooer6xOUymOMjWF.99
" In 2016, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump."
Ah, but we're all "self-haters" in Inga's book.
My dear Exiled, one can be both a loving mother and grandmother and have strong opinions. And I see you’re desperate to depict me as “furious”, lol. I’m either shaking my head at you or laughing at you.
"Maybe Gillibrand was hoping he’d take the bait after calling for his resignation yesterday. And take the bait he did, showed himself to be the pig and sexual harasser that he is. "
Yeah. I've seen mentions all over Twitter that Trump got Pelosi to chastise Trump for "slut-shaming".
Is that true, or just a narrative?
Is that what he hoped for, or better?
You really can't make this stuff up.
"Slut shaming is a way assholes like Trump and some others here try to subdue and control women."
Actually most of the people who "slut shame" recognize a difference between "women" and "sluts".
Being a woman is good.
Being a slut is really not.
Being a slut is, at best, the opposite of being strong and empowered: instead of having a healthy, satisfying relationship, you're desperate and a tool. At worst: sluts spread STDs and make babies they're not prepared to care for, with men who are not suitable as father material.
Elizabeth Warren responded by insinuating Gillibrand is a slut:
Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted.
Warren is being upstaged by Gillibrand. Warren feels she may be able to run for prez in 2020 but has been slipping because of the fake Indian thing gaining exposure. Now, she is being overshadowed by Gillibrand. Gillibrand is also, for the moment, taking eyes off the other whacko, Kamala Harris.
"The Democrats are preparing to weaponize sex as they've weaponized race since the civil-rights era."
Correct. Let's call it the Inga Initiative. It's gonna work. There were not enough blacks and race-conscious progs to make the race war work, but there are plenty of women who will fall for the appeal to weakness and resentment. It will put the Dems over the top in many races.
Nikki Haley better get ready to run.
Sure, you're laughing, Inga.. Uh huh. I believe that.
Everybody here knows just how honest you are.
LOL.
LOL! 🤣
In the press room today Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked what Trump got from Gillibrand for his donations. Sanders' response:
"That’s the reason that we have a broken system. That’s the reason that often special interests control our government more than the people do. That’s one of the reasons that this president ran to be president. It’s one of the top reasons that he won and that he’s sitting in the oval office today and Hillary Clinton is not because he couldn’t be bought and everybody knew that she could because they have seen it time and time again."
'struth.
Laugh at that, Inga.
clever comeback, Inga. Did you think of that yourself?
Sebastian, I think both you and Steyn are correct about the Dems trying to weaponize sex and and it will certainly work with some addlle brained old harridans and young addled brained SJWs (however, those women wouldn't be voting GOP anyway.). I think they're jumping the gun with this "everything is harassment" horseshit. By 2020, the American public will be tired off the topic, just as they are weary of "racist,racist,racist." it would have been smarter to hold off until 2019, but I don't think they saw the Weinstein thing coming, which is what started the current hysteria. Also, they are so frantic about stopping Trump that they are throwing any weapon they can at him. If it's not Russia, it's pussy-grabbing. It is hysteria and it will burn out eventually.
Another thing: race is not analogous to sex. Many black people in the inner cities have as little contact with whites as they possibly can. They are even self-segregating on campus. But you can't separate women and men like that. Trying to set women against men ultimately won't work because men and women live and work and love each other and women have beloved fathers and brothers and uncles and husbands and boyfriends and sons. Radical feminists might want the battle of the sexes to explode into a full blown war, but most women are not radical feminists. most of us like men and appreciate the masculine virtues.. Nor are most women that starry-eyed about the supposed sisterhood. We know the faults of our own sex. Most women know that while men can certainly be sexually abusive, women can also lie.
The women who will fall hook line and sinker for the Democrat divide and conquer strategy already vote Dem. How is this different from "The War On Women" crap we heard during election year 2016. As Camille Paglia said, the most privileged women in history are the ones bitching and screaming about how tough they have it.
“Laugh at that, Inga.”
I am.
Inga: "I am."
Not as much as me!
However, she then pointed to the difference between the late 1990s and now, highlighting the dramatically changed social and political environments.
Again with the lies about how things have changed. The only change is the letter after the President's name.
Inga said...
Keep making excuses for his man, you people will have to live down the fact you voted for him for generations to come.
Remember this when left wingers claim they should no longer be responsible for voting for and venerating Bill Clinton. According to the left's own beliefs such taint lasts for "generations".
Perhaps we woundn't get more Trump is the left finally forced the Clintons OUT.
They won't. so - more Trump it is.
Sebastian: It's gonna work. There were not enough blacks and race-conscious progs to make the race war work, but there are plenty of women who will fall for the appeal to weakness and resentment.
I'm not seein' it. Married white women who voted for Trump are going to go vote for the pussy-hat candidate? Implausible. Black women, and other minority women, will keep voting Dem, for the same reasons they voted Dem before. Since when do they care what a bunch of "privileged white women" are whining about?
I think exiled is right - it's only the addled old cat-ladies and the addled young SJWs who are worked up about this. The fact that the media is in hysterics about it (because they think it can ultimately be used against Trump), and some female pols have jumped on it in the belief (mistaken, imo) that it's a ticket to increased political power, doesn't mean the rest of the world cares.
Althouse spent 523 words on this--the media as a whole must havwe spent thousands, tens of thousands, and it knocked everything else to the back pages for a day. At eats Althouse's comments are intelligent, unlike, say, CNN, MCNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, WaPo...
As long as people fall for it, he will keep tweeting. He's been trolling these people for about 19 months and they STILL fall for it. Every time. And they keep trying to tell us that THEY are the smart ones.
Post a Comment