Trump admits that he is a deviant, obviously


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Isn’t the more common turn of phrase that one is so angy that blood comes out of your ears? Trump is clearly a misogynist pig, but doesn’t it seem likely that half a bottle of scotch in he couldn’t remember that when he tweeted and said “wherever” after realizing eyes didn’t make sense?

And we are all filling in the blank to suit our narrative?


#3

The guy is clearly a sexist bully but I still don’t see how we can conclusively prove he was referring to menstruation.
If that had been the focus of his on-the-spur-of-the-moment response then why start with the eyes?

It still seems far more important that he fails to see that he has been consistently sexist and remains unapologetic about it. The fact that he thinks civility is some PC fad speaks far more than one potentially crass schoolboy remark made in the heat of the moment.


#4

“Donald Trump is not conclusively a misogynist.”

This was the guy who was supposed to speak straight and tell us what’s on his mind. Now he’s hiding behind whatever slim shred of doubt there is.

Good work, The Donald!


#5

I think Trump has found a clever way to feed off the outrage addiction that fuels a lot of the internet on both sides of the political spectrum. We love to feel outraged, and he gives us something to be outraged about.


#6

Um, I never said that. I said:

Well… you can re-read the rest if you care to.
Not sure if you think I am pro Trump, so just to clarify, I’m not.
What I am pro is accurate interpretation of what is said not what we might think has been said.


#7

No, it’s steam coming out of the ears that’s the phrase…


#8

Right and the media can pick up higher ratings by putting him on air… win-win for both of them, huge lose for the rest of us.


#9

Sure, he’s a clown. But is he worth the airtime (and, especially, blog time) that he’s getting? Why aren’t his antics confined to Fox? Are we so starved for an outrage that we have to jump at every opportunity?


#10

I suppose he just temporarily forget the word nose. Happens to all of us.


#11

This is the first chink in the armor of crazy that tRump has developed. Instead of doubling down and reiterating that he definitely was saying that M. Kelly was rude because she was menstruating, he tried to walk it back and pretend that he didn’t really mean that. First sign of weakness will start to lose the support of the rabid mouth-breathers on the far right that thrive on misogyny, racism, and xenophobic statements.

He ought to know better than to take on the Fox machine. Maybe he is figuring that out right about now.


#12

The guy is on a news program and knows he will be questioned about his candidacy for president. His response to being questioned is to demean the professionalism and intelligence of ONE of his questioners and to indicate that she is simultaneously stupid and yet supremely angry. (As well as calling her a bimbo, etc. for asking him about his sexist insults about women.)

It really doesn’t matter what orifice he meant…it’s still an indication that he can’t handle being on the same planet as half of the population. If that isn’t misogyny, I don’t know what is.


#13

I personally think it was a mixed metaphor of “out for blood” and “daggers in her eyes” or “shooting daggers from her eyes”

I have not seen the clip, but I don’t think it was menstruation related unless he was intending to imply a misogynist trope like “she was on the rag” or something, but really I think that is a stretch.


#14

He’s not really going to play the “That’s not what I meant” card?

Despite his claims we can see he really is just another politician.


#15

Agreed with Trump. He said no such thing, but GOP is eager to distance him that they suppose it true when it is not.

Maureen Dowd put it well today: It’s always a pig in a poke, so why not a pig that pokes?


#16

That phrase doesn’t make sense since a pig in a poke isn’t actually a pig. The second half of the phrase doesn’t follow the first.


#17

I think if you listen to the clip, you’ll hear that there’s a tone of innuendo, a sort of “I can’t say what I want to say at least not on TV” kind of air. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all, and it’s well within what we might call Donald Trump’s “character.”

Yes, it’s misogynistic, and yes it’s offensive. That said I think the real reason media is exploding about this mostly because it’s 1) Megan Kelley and 2) Fox “News.” This is a great excuse for Fox to flip the script on Trump, and to start promoting more legitimate Republican candidates. Other media outlets are just following suit, and are excited about how absurd the infighting has gotten in the conservative party. It’s all a lot of fun.


#18

I’m no political strategist, but his inclusion in this race seems like such good news for the Democratic party.

He manages to not lose the crazed, bullish racists and gets the GOP nomination, there’s no way he will be elected.

He doesn’t get the GOP nomination, he runs independent, and divides the right-wing vote, making any Democratic candidate far more likely to win.

I actually don’t think he’s crazy enough to follow through on running as an independent. But nobody can be sure. He’s sort of our version of Kim Jong Il.


#19

Carl:

Sometimes there is a pig in the poke, other times not. It is in a poke (a sack) so you don’t know – maybe it’s a cat, maybe it is a pig.

Maureen Dowd turned a nice phrase. Obviously not everyone appreciates it.


#20

Agreed with you entirely.

This is proof the GOP hates him (and mostly for exposing them for what they are), not that he made any remarks referring to women’s cycles. He simply did not, in any way, do so.